I've got a follow up post in the hopper to my "Trust" piece - but have been waylaid with client work the last two weeks PLUS getting ready to migrate my site... so I haven't had a minute to write!  Here's a quick update.

Next week, I ship off to Madison, Wisconsin and then Chicago, IL where I'll be doing some one-on-one therapy and moderating a panel at the Marketing Profs Digital Mixer.  I'm excited to talk relationship building on Twitter with Ann Handley - one of my all around favorite people, author and Chief Content Officer of Marketing Profs. John Bernier, all around nice guy and head of Best Buy's Twelpforce will also be there - and I'm stoked to meet him in person...along with Monique Trulson, all around ebusiness whiz from Hello Direct who is now with Brady People ID.   There's a lot to look forward to, as Marketing Profs draws terrific speakers and creates a wonderful format for deep interaction -- and fun.  I'm also stoked to visit with other friends, including Beth Harte, Mack Collier, Jay Baer, Paul Chaney, Becky Carroll, Amber Naslund, the rest of Marketing Profs crew (especially Shelley Ryan) and others!  If you're near Chicago and it's convenient, check out the information about the Digital Mixer here.... and I hope to see you there, too!

This is true even when we deal with bad apples:  These are the copy cats and snake oil salesmen who skirt licensing and permissions and make unethical use of IP and content. We've all seen them at work and many of us have seen our work replicated and re-branded by others in a way that has been disconcerting - and even maddening.

In response to the snakes..n. I have always tried to maintain an optimistic perspective.  I generally believe what goes around, comes around... and that MOST people aren't jerks. I have held out hope that smart people will be able to recognize the copy cats and snake-oil salesmen.


In the not to distant past, I encountered a situation where one of my course attendees from a major university announced her intention to take my ideas and course materials and repackage them into a workshop, for which she was charging a premium.  Prior to taking my class, this individual couldn't recognize an ear from an elbow with regard to social media - yet the person's desire to reincarnate into a social media "guru"seemed focused and intentional.

I made the discovery two days before the class. While at first I was amused, I then considered the hefty, password protected companion website I'd created for the course.  It featured my own laboriously assembled class presentations as well as an array of fully accredited and referenced articles, how-to's, videos, research, case studies , etc. from a variety of sources (some of which I paid to license and others from respected sources and peers in the field).

Needless to say, the site took weeks to assemble - not including the months of collecting I'd done or the pre-course survey I did to make sure I had content tailored to specific types of business.  To be honest, if I'd counted those hours in my prep time, I didn't break even teaching that course.  However, in truth, I didn't put the site together for money.  I wanted to be open about sharing - promote the outstanding work of folks in my social media network -- and enable course participants (mostly SMB's) to help themselves succeed long after I was gone.  

What happened next is something people have called "Divine Intervention."  My "copy cat" was stricken by a "freak illness" the day before class and ended up hospitalized during the days of the course. As a no-show, the person never gained access to the course materials - and I was relieved.

Crisis averted...but BOY did it all make me think ...

• Has this made me more reticent to trust? Yes Peter!  Absolutely.
• Has it made me think more carefully about what and how I share? Yes - and I think I'm afraid I'm still too open for my own good ...
• Is Plagiarism changing how I will proceed with monitoring and Creative Commons attribution? Yes.
• Will the tools and monitoring and licensing be enough? No, Peter!  I don't think so - and here's why:

In my opinion -- beyond the lack of proper awareness and education in this area, I believe the plague of plagiarism is a reflection of a larger crisis of ethics.  

As we both know: You can't legislate morality.  

Consider the fact that most people do not think twice about ripping CDs and sharing music and images in a manner that is an active violation of Federal Law. The sad truth is that the illegal use of material and especially digital assets is pervasive in our cultures...often "accepted" and practiced -- in households, businesses and even churches across our nation and around globe. While there are some who won't do this because of their own moral convictions -- It is likely that a large number of our readers do this without thinking!

So, why should people view our digital content and IP any differently?

I submit that they do not.  We'll see the results outside of business service offerings, white papers and blog posts in the term papers of the future.  And with the proliferation of media, it may be more and more difficult to figure out where people are getting their material in the future.

Moving forward, what can we do?  Lots of good comments on Peter's post aboout this.  My thoughts:


1. Each one of us must take initiative to protect our investments with the resources and tools we have at our disposal.  My tool kit includes many of the ones Peter mentioned... Many of these will mature over time - and get better and helping us monitor the "snakeosphere."

2. We can leverage the law where it matters most.  Existing laws should help protect us, but I'll go out
on a limb to assert that the law may be most useful for those with a great deal of time and money to spare. For a large number of us, using the law and the courts to resolve issues is likely to be "resource prohibitive." 

3. We can find ways to empower the "Social Media Sphere" to police itself.   Community and peer pressure can often go far to change the behavior of the masses.  Many of us have asked questions about what we can do about plagiarism. The big question is how we can police ourselves without giving seedy people attention they may actually benefit from?  Stuff like mentions, site traffic, inbound links, etc.  Google doesn't penalize people for "negative" attention. ;-)

To his credit, Peter "ousted" a few offenders in the comments field of yesterday's post.  It needed to be done. However, this is slightly problematic from the standpoint that publicly ousting a snake oil salesman from a high profile, thought leader's blog immediately creates traffic and links in to the web properties of the offender that can boost things like the "T-rating" "G-rating" and site traffic and comments. On the up-side, a least we know who to look out for! The problem is, this can result in greater visibility that might work in the individual's favor...


Also to his credit, Armano didn't link to the guy who was ripping off his feed (at least I didn't see a link).  Incidentally, guy was ripping off feeds from other thought leaders, making up quotes and facts about himself,.  This guy even had the audacity to rip off his entire site design from Google, and swipe a commercial social media video created by Sprint, removing the brand name and inserting his own!   I'll admit that when I saw this guy at work, I wanted to "out" him to everyone I knew  -- "sicking the social media community" on his butt, so to speak... Perhaps we all did -- but we seemed to apply restraint so as not to give this guy any attention that might be used to his advantage. The problem with this is, we can't warn others about the snake oil peddlers this way.

Moving forward, perhaps using a hash tag on Twitter like #snakeoil  - just  as a way to index this discussion. I'n not sure that would be highly effective as a policing method, though. A few people have suggested creating a "Snake Oil Wiki"  - and I'd say it would have to require people to submit screen-grabs of an accused person's offenses AND (in the interest of fairness) offer a forum for accused individuals to defend themselves.  This way - it's fair and the evidence remains when sites are changed (as they often are post-discovery). Not sure who wants to take that on, from a legal perspective...but it'd certainly require counsel and legal backup!

In the mean time, I'll continue on...trying hard to provide value and trying to be an optimist.  I'll rely on the tools that are available -- in addition to applying prayer as needed when the jerks try to ruin my day. After all, as my story tells, it has proven to be my most effective tool, to date!   ;-)

As context, Li was talking how, beyond the contact lists, implicit data helps fill in gaps about the level of closeness or intimacy individuals have with each other. She went on to talk about how this will change in the future based on usage patterns detected by Google and other social networks... painting a picture of a future "social algorithm."

I don't disagree with Li's assertions at all - in fact I think she's spot on. It's the slide above that kept coming to mind. Taking that graphic at a literal level, I don't agree that the implicit data represented above really does help fill in gaps regarding people's relationships in any way other than a subjective one - nor do I think it reflects any kind of accurate indicator of an individual's level of "closeness" or "intimacy" with others (trust). Incidentally, I'm not sure Charlene actually asserted this... I believe the slide was used in a figurative manner.

But it still got me thinking about both sides of the trust equasion. How do individuals (specifically with regard to social media) think about trust with regard to other people?   How do marketers look at Trust in the networked economy?

For individuals, here's my take on what the trust spectrum might look like:



Playing off the concept of "circles of trust", we see an outward radiation of trust and intimacy.  At the "inner circle" there is high trust.  In the outer circle there is "no trust"  In further examining trust dynamics, it's fair to assert that people tend to transition back and forth between spheres, depending on events, mood, conversation, disposition and other factors.   

If you buy this concept, trust, or intimacy is therefore somewhat fluid. It's also device and technology independent (although the actions at the right of that diagram show how I might interact with individuals using social media terms).  We'll come back to this in at the end.


1. VOICE:  Understanding where an individual is trusted is an essential component of targeting. Voice examines an individual's level of engagement (posts, tweets, discussions, comments) across various topics (e.g. Frugal Living) and the overall sentiment of that engagement (positive, negative, neutral) over time.  In other words:  
For example, I might trust Beth Kanter as an authority on non-profits and social media.  However, I might not trust her as a good referral source on which flat screen TV I should buy.  As such, voice is a critical area of examination related to targeting high-trust individuals.


2. REACH: Examining the network of the individual is also an essential component of targeting. This includes an understanding of the person's online and offline influence, across traditional media channels (e.g. television, print, etc.).  In the online channels, reach examines the size and scope of the individual's active network within various sites and networks, as well as the frequency of communication that occurs. 


Furthermore, examining how the communication and dialog flows across online and offline channels may be germane to gauging the efficacy of an individual's reach. 

INFLUENCE:  There's been a lot of talk about influence today - and I don't want to rehash all that dialog. At a high level, and in simple terms, I see it as an outcome of a number of other considerations.  Primarily, I believe it is a measure of an individual's reach divided by the number of high trust relationships (see circle diagram above) times voice...something like this:


If influence directly impacted by the ebb and flow of trust within an individual's network, it it's important to note that influence is also somewhat fluid and relative. And all of this is already measured as a factor of time.

The sticky challenge is measuring the level of trust individuals have within their network. The truth is this: As outsiders, we can only gauge an individuals relationship on a trust spectrum based on a myriad of attributes, including length of relationship, messaging frequency, physical relationship, public/private discourse, "lists", discussion topic(s), sentiment, recent events, real-world connection and other complex and sometimes esoteric factors.  In the end, some of this data will be available and some will not.  As such, the outcome is somewhat likely to be somewhat subjective...depending on the time frame reviewed, quantity and amount of information analyzed (etc.).

1. The overall size and activity of the channel's network (established user base)
2. The actual or potential size, significance of the end-user's in-channel network (my network)
3. The ease of replicating a user's in-channel network within another channel ("portability")
4. The tools base level of reliability and performance (base level functionality & decent "up time")
5. The existence of other tools that help alleviate application shortcomings (e.g. Tweetdeck for Twitter)

Leveraging the same, tired traditional media tactics within emerging channels is like trading in a mule for a Ferrari - and then attempting to bridle it, saddle it, and ride it home while sitting on the roof.

It boggles the mind that a lot of companies actually do this. However, it's an all to common occurence. In my experience, it seems that the ones that behave in this manner are also the same brands that seem to be experimenting in new channels in a way that may be hazardous to brand health.

I've been thinking about this and there are a number of reasons this may be occuring... some more lame than others. Please add your own in the comments.

1. We didn't know what we were signing up for.
Truth be told, many of us have been caught off guard, but that's no excuse. There's enough information out there to test the waters of emerging channels in an intelligent manner. If you're still being caught with your pants down on say, Twitter -- the lack of preparation is your fault -- not a result on an untested medium.

I tend to agree with Jeremiah Owyang's assertion that Twitter will become a CRM tool. I'd submit that we should be thinking about all emerging - or "agile" channels like we would think about CRM tools. This is important because the transparency created by emerging media naturally demand the resolution of key, customer-facing issues. This entails a unique mix of customer service, operational and/or IT skills, and a little PR... although some issues may be related to larger, operational challenges.
Many stakeholders assigned to digital and social media just don't have the level of empowerment or create resolution or influence change at a level that might be necessary. When people are not empowered to answer and resolve tough customer questions in a timely manner in emerging media channels, it becomes highly evident to the brands social newtork.

Unfortunately, instead of resolving this problem with better oversight, coordination and collaboration, many companies react by moving customer facing issues solely offline and manage the digital channels in a more opaque, non-relational manner: Treating the channels as outbound communications vehicles, rather than customer service medium, and limiting individual engagement with customers online. This is a huge mistake.


Emerging media channels need structure and oversight -- but not at the expense of neutering the channel - or of applying common sense. Having thinking workers at the helm who can provide carefully worded and high enough level responses to diffuse risk, and make participants feel valued and respected are essential to keep the "flow" going in favor of the brand. Analysis paralysis is the enemy in what I'm starting to call "translucent culture" (Thanks to @bethharte brain hockey and comment). It's important to find the balance between enough structure to keep things manageable -- and enough flexibility to facilitate agile response.

2. We didn't come along willingly
I've talked to executives from a few major brands who feel they have far too many, vocal detractors and skeletons in the closet to succeed in the use of digital and social media. In fact, the head of customer analytics for a major airline laughingly described Twitter to me as "Pandora's Box" late last year. Many are hesitant to expose present business realities to a broad audience base. Others don't know if they want the exposure something like a blog, Twitter, Facebook or You Tube might create because they might just have more to lose than to gain. Some, frankly, feel social media engagement is a huge waste of time. The point is simple: digital and social media are simply not a priority to everyone.

At the same time, many reticent companies (including the airline I mentioned) have become active in emerging channels anyway. Why? In some cases, a high level executive mandate was issued. In other cases, they were pushed hard by consultants, agencies, industry analysts and overzealous agencies. In some, they merely wanted to reserve user names ... and things cascaded from there.

Whatever the case, the activity of these brands doesn't indicate a fully sponsored, well organized presence. It doesn't indicate alignment, or buy in. It doesn't suggest the individuals managing the digital media presence entered with an understanding of the potential up-side of participation, what they might be in for, or knowing how to manage things, well. It doesn't mean proper resources were allocated to doing social media the right way. Perhaps they came in kicking and screaming, and they're still reeling as they figure things out. This might be more common than you think.

3. The wrong people are steering!

• A lack of executive understanding, oversight and/or leadership of emerging channels
  
• Poor interdepartmental alignment and coordination of the emerging media presence


• Unempowered or unskilled individuals managing (and advising) the social web
  

These are bad things. Why? Because the lack of leadership and oversight are plainly evident to every bright individual within a brand's social network.
Case in point -- I recently audited the tweets and posts of a national brand that is a former client. I was disheartened to find the brand's formerly engaging, relational tweets and posts replaced by self-promotional, broadcast-driven messages, with no sign of interaction. I reached out to my contact to ask what happened.

My contact reluctantly and apologetically confessed to me that the team was swamped and decided to pass the management of emerging media channels for the summer to an intern. After sucking in my breath to temper my response, we discussed the ramifications of their decision in rather frank terms. They assured me they'd turn things around. They certainly know better, and I hope they do get it right.
Another interesting aspect to this story is that their executive management doesn't know any better and hasn't challenged the team on this approach. The executives think it's enough for the brand to be present on Facebook, Linked In, Twitter and blogs - so there's no pressure to engage or do anything differently ... no urgency to remedy the issue. It's important to understand that being present in emerging channels isn't the same as having a meaningful presence. Meanwhile, there are a myriad of constituents who have befriended this brand online who were hoping for more than a press release.
This is just one tiny case study that demonstrates the points above. This brings me to the this next point:

4. We jumped in with both feet, but had no plan
It's easy to engage in digital and social media channels without a lot of forethought or up-front planning. This happens more than we might think -- especially in light of a strong internal executive push. However, make no mistake -- digging in one's heels and jumping in with reckless abandon can result in just that -- reckless abandonment. More than a few companies have been forced to refocus or retrench to properly manage customer communication in emerging channels, and in many instances, transparency was not a friend of the brand.

When there's no plan in place that helps companies manage the digital footprint, build relationships, align resources, govern communication, oversee communication and monitor reputation and feedback, the presence becomes unmanageable, difficult to monitor, coordinate and measure. Unfortunately, many brands don't know enough to create a cohesive governance, workflow and management plan. Further, many of their agencies - while active promoters of digital and social media -- are unskilled and untested in the channels, themselves. So, the brands continue on auto-pilot, learning as they go -- often in an inefficient and unsustainable manner.

5. We are really MOST comfortable doing what we KNOW...
Preach all you want about the benefits of digital and social media. Train your team on channel best practices and how to build a successful network. Just remember this: these lessons are easily forgotten in light of a hectic schedule, competing priorities and the unanticipated number of hours it takes to manage the emerging media presence. Business stakeholders may fail to apply their training and revert to more "familiar" tactics. While these may vary from company-to-company, or even department-to-department... you might see the status quo in action, in the form of the following:

• Working around problems, rather than fixing them
• Resorting to spin, rather than engaging and managing meaningful conversation
• Focus on broadcast "push" messages, rather than building relationships
• Slapping constraints on the use of new channels, rather than harnessing opportunities
• Staying within the "silo" rather than working cross-functionally to meet customer needs

This isn't the kind of culture successful brands want to reflect to the critical public in emerging channels. This is another reason sticking to a plan, putting in proper oversight, and investing in continuous learning and reputation monitoring (read comments on this post, too!) are critical for success.

It's time for a Reality Check!

Sooner or later, the smoke clears and you won't fool anyone. For the brands that suffer from one or more of the symptoms above... take heart. You don't need to hold up mirrors and a smoke machine to mitigate risk and create positive impressions in emerging channels. It's time to get real about your digital media footprint, and the impression it gives.

Your degree of preparedness is evident to customers online. While some executive leaders may not know the difference between being present and having a presence -- your customers will. Don't need to treat emerging channels like broadcast media - and don't allow ignorant people to narrow the emerging media presence so much, their potential is nullified. You need the right approach, commitment, tools, tactics, communication, expectations and management. That requires education by specialists who understand these channels.

Applying old marketing tactics to emerging media channels is abuse - it hurts your brand, your customers and subverts dynamic channels. This doesn't work in anyone's best interest. These channels work best for building relationships, fostering dialog, promoting good will and generating brand advocacy. Winners know this and adapt!

The truth is -- everybody's watching - and waiting, to see if you'll evolve in to a semi-transparent, customer-centric company, or stay stuck in the stone age. If you don't - people may shift to a brand who does adapt.

You can make digital and social media your friend.
The writing is on the wall. While medium of communication has never replaced other medium of communication, new channels do trigger consolidation and impact use and investment. While we still have signs, print, the phone, and recorded music... we also have television, video, video-on-demand and networked computing. New mediums and channels will continue pave the way to the future of interaction while the old channels continue to serve their perhaps more limited purpose. It's important to remember that emerging channels can work against us, becoming an enemy when they are ignored, abused, poorly managed or misunderstood. My advice? Make them your friends, instead!

For a lot of brands, it's time to work harder to refocus and rebuild what may be a shaky foundation. It's okay. It's still early. Most of us are very forgiving... and often forgetful of past mistakes. After all, we've all made mistakes - especially in the online medium. We all face challenges! Want an honest example? This site design has outgrown its purpose... I'm working on a redesign between client obligations... and I can't move this along fast enough.

Developing a digital presence that matters is so important -- much more than spin, or hype or words. Your dedication to customers and improving the business will translate across the social web in a manner that reinforces trust and builds brand affinity. Companies just have to ditch that saddle, and learn to drive!

The last few posts have outlined some thoughts on the subject of Transparency. This generated some input from a few friends on the issue of "Authenticity."

One buddy stressed how important it is to demonstrate authenticity within emerging channels - specifically within social media. I thought about this a little, and I have a slightly different take on the matter.

I think we're already seeing a ton of authenticity in emerging media. For the observant, social media makes it relatively easy to piece together a somewhat realistic view of what goes on - or the thinking of various people and brands.

The problem is, not all of it is authentically good. There are a ton of people and companies being real out there. I'm not sure people always want to see real... because sometimes, reality bites!

• Hey, Cool Thought Leader: I don't want to find out you work in your momma's attic in your boxers and eating Cheetos as you crank out amazing insight. I'd rather have the illusion of a casual professional in an internet cafe or something.
  
• Hey, "Expert": I don't want to hear you yapping constantly about how great you are - or telling me to find out for myself by buying your sensational eBook for just $29.95. If you're that great, lemme hear it from others.
  
• Hey, Big Company: It's nice that you're fighting hunger in Africa with your $20 million dollar donation ... but you just laid off 5,000 American workers. :-(
  
• Hey, Huge Brand: I don't want to know that your social media outreach is being run by interns who love Gossip Girl, reality television and clubbing.

Seriously, some of what we're seeing is authentically bad stuff ... authentically ego-centric...authentically self-serving garbage. Further, too much reality can be a bad thing. We don't need more of this.

Without a doubt, we all love authentic good: Especially when it's not misleading or a smoke screen for the bad; Especially if it involves daisies, puppies and children. Authentically good stuff makes people feel better about interacting with you or your brand. It brings them back for more, and encourages them to tell others about your greatness.

At the same time, there are probably some authentically bad aspects of each one of us that might be better left unseen... or dare I say it -- repented of and remedied! ;-)

In the end, I'm sticking to my assertion that in emerging channels, people only want a level of insight into you that makes them feel more secure and confident investing themselves as your friend. (Note: Investment = giving you their time, attention, follows, engagement, recommendations, ranking, referrals, sharing your content, purchasing, etc.)

Strike this balance and you're off to a great start.

In my last post, I tried to define this notion of "transparency" as context for a few other posts. Smart companies understand that emerging channels demand a greater level of openness and transparency than we have historically provided to customers. They embrace the pressure to perform well in highly visible channels - using it as impetus to identify broken aspects of customer experience and fix things -- rather than continue the way they always have. They recognize the opportunity these channels present to serve customer needs, build stronger relationships and strengthen brand affinity.

A number of brands do this well today. On Twitter alone, it's easy and fun to engage with brands like @zappos @comcastcares , @southwestair @virginamerica @dell and others. Check out Best Buy CMO Barry Judge's blog and the activities at both My Starbuck's Idea and Best Buy's Idea Exchange for crowd-sourcing and customer co-creation. None of these brands claim they get it right all the time. But when they do mess up, it's refreshing to them say, say "Hey - sorry we messed up!" "We're learning." "Here's what we're doing about this problem." and "Here's how we'll make it right.". It's awesome to talk to companies who embrace responsibility as they work to help create satisfied customers. For these companies, transparency is a friend.

Unfortunately, conpanies like these are still the exception, rather than the rule in most emerging media channels. The truth is, many companies who have become active in social media (blogging, twitter, facebook, etc.) will privately admit to being terrified of having an increased level of transparency with customers.

While it's natural to have a healthy fear of increased exposure, some companies become so preoccupied with looking transparent and authentic, they lose focus completely. In an effort to use these channels to generate PR and spin, they may fail to engage as the medium demands: becoming more open and accessible; harnessing the power of the tools to bolster service and support; building relationships and driving brand advocacy. For these companies, transparency becomes the enemy.

We don't need to mention names ... Do a quick audit yourself of the posts, tweets and status updates of a few major brands. It doesn't take more than a page or two to figure out who's really tapped in to their network and who is not. Check for dialog. Check for responses, and look at how the posts are worded. Is there conversation? Resolution? Are they broadcasting 140 character versions of press releases? Do you feel like you're being force fed a marketing campaign in tiny little chunks? Are they attempting to buy followers? Are they focused on quality interactions? Do you recognize people? Does the chatter seam meaningful? It's pretty easy to tell where the brand is at. Next, ask yourself: "Would I follow this brand?" If you wouldn't -- take note of why and remember it.

This isn't just about corporations, but the agencies that serve them, as well. Ad Age did a fantastic piece this week highlighting the hypocrisy of agencies promoting Twitter. And that's just scratching the surface of a pandemic of agency hypocrisy in emerging media. In many cases, the lights are on, but nobody's home.

What surprises me is how easily companies and agencies forget that people don't necessarily want to have love affairs with brands. In truth, people care really care most about themselves and having their needs met. They care about being heard, and responded to. They want to feel valued and recognized. They want to know others care. They often seek relationships with other people who make them feel good about themselves. They love brands because they meet and exceed their expectations. These tools pose tremendous opportunity to meet those needs. However, it seems some companies think just being present is "good enough".

To be clear, being present in social media is not the same as establishing an effective presence. Broadcasting messages en mass within intimate digital channels isn't going to win coveted relationships. Shucking off customer issues, suggestions and recommendations isn't going to win friends. Ignoring people or their comments, is in fact is going to alienate customers and prospects. Yet it's happening all over within emerging media channels... as the world watches. For companies who do this -- transparency is your enemy.

Customers can see exactly where the heart of the brand lies by the focus, content and intention of their emerging media content. It's okay to approach these channels with caution... but the world is watching. Don't just stand there and spin... engage, provide service, add value, meet needs, co-create and give back. Turn that ship around and give people something positive and remarkable to discuss!

There's a lot of talk in marketing and social media circles today about the concept of "transparency." I use the term myself -- usually when trying to explain the impact of digital and social media to my clients. These technologies tend to expose the soft underbellies of our companies, by providing customers with greater visibility and more intimate knowledge of our brands, employees, products, services and operations. As a result, we are forced to work in a more transparent manner to address customer needs across a spectrum of online and offline channels.
That makes a bit of sense, I hope.

The problem is, the way most people are using the word "transparent" in this medium today feels terribly inauthentic to me -- as if we will all become as clear as glass, someday. The truth is, while these new channels force us to be more transparent, we will always seek a degree of opacity. Call it a fig leaf to cover our nakedness; a closet for our skeletons; or an illusion of transparency.

Will we ever become truly transparent? I think not. We've all got some damage; some ugly we're trying to hide. We've all got things that need to be fixed. Stuff that perhaps it's better others do not see. Do we want everyone to know our business? Nope.

So when we use the term transparent, what we're really striving for is balance -- creating an acceptable level of honest visibility for customers, which makes us more real and more accessible to them. This helps customers understand our plight as we attempt to service their needs, while providing enough opacity to shield us from over exposure.

Sounds a bit like dating, to me.

What do you think?

I'm going to write a bit more about companies that fight transparency in my next post. Stay tuned.

As a follow up to the DiGiorno Pizza Critique, I spent a little time thinking about other types of marketers and created a revised post called "10 Tips for Twitter UnMarketing." You can find it here and add your .02 cents.

If you are curious about the title, I'm just not a real fan of the term "Social Media Marketing." I realize it's the hot buzz word - but it makes me uncomfortable. Maybe it's just semantics. I don't know.

We are migrating from the post industrial product-centric organizational model that is heavily task-focused -- to post millenial people-centric models that are customer focused (all tasks wrapped around the customer). It's a revolution that is happening at the pace of an evolution -- and can be awkward and painful as companies walk through the change. Perhaps that's why so many companies find delivering great experiences an elusive goal.

In the wake of this change, marketing is undergoing important shifts. Entirely new skill sets are required. Channel proliferation is happening at light speed. The way we go to market is different -- sometimes less expensive but often much more challenging to manage. Our dialog has changed. Marketing today is MUCH less about pushing an agenda and message through aggressive outbound communications, programs and campaigns. Today, it is MUCH MORE about delivering the experience fundamentals, being excellent and remarkable -- and helping people discover us by building authentic relationships, by allowing others to "taste and see" -- by experiencing.

So that's why I used the term "Un Marketing." This isn't about marketing. It's about customer experience.

While I write about a lot of "stuff," my focus has been on creating great dialog with customers, and designing creating great experiences that are people focused. Social media fits in because it's a rapidly growing, dynamic experience tool. It's important to pay attention to what's going on and learn from specialists , (I don't like the term "expert either) who are actively engaged in various aspects of social media.

I can't thank you enough for your comments, tweets, DMs, IMs and emails. Please keep them coming!

Ad age reported today that Kraft/Digiorno Pizza and Weber Shandwick PR have teamed on the launch of Digiorno's new Flatbread Pizzas. Digiorno will deliver free pizzas to tweetups in LA, New York and Chicago. The Twitter component is part of a national launch involving print and television. The announcement highlights the brand's plans to reach out to "influential" tweeters.

Okay - I think this is a GREAT idea. Tweeters are vocal, fiercely loyal and when you get us together, it's even better. Get a great idea out - make us love your product and we'll push the good news up the flagpole. We love brands that love us, and nothing says love like schwag, food and conversation! Yay!

The thing is, there seem to be quite a few challenges with execution here that are worth highlighting. To ensure success, here's some Live Path advice for any brand planning a campaign with a Twitter-driven social media component like DiGiorno:

1. Define "influence" in advance. The Digiorno There's no definition of what "influence" is. I find it hard to believe they'll be launching this without that definition in place. The article eludes to number of followers - but any veteran on twitter will attest to the sheisters out there who have numbers but LITTLE dialog or influence. Brands should look at followers against the backdrop of other elements, like overall voice (on Twitter and other social networks), reach (comments, re-tweets, links in), affiliations (e.g. social media club, DMA, others) and activity (travel, conferences, speaking where word may be spread).
   
2. Establish Your Angle(s). Beyond influence and geography, it's important to think about specialization/demographic. Social Media makes it easy to target individuals with specific areas of influence. Walmart and 800-FLOWERS are just two brands that have actively targeted Mommy Bloggers. I'm friends with a few of the Walmart 11 moms - and a few have frugal living columns. SXSW featured a panel with Chris Brogan and others called "Dad is the New Mom." I have a fun cadre of foodies in my Tweetdeck group. It's important to define the angle you're going to "shoot from" for "focused tweets." For example, for Digiorno, I would ask the following: Is your angle economics, making mom or dad's life easier, or great tasting pizza... or all of the above. Choose a mix that matters most to generate the best word-of-mouth!
   
3. Challenge Geographical Constraints. Don't assume you'll find the best and most influential tweeters for your brand will be found in LA, New York and Chicago - there are plenty of active, chatty hubs in other areas of the country, as well. If your product is aces for middle-american housewives - go get 'em! Targeting is not dead -- in fact it's even easier with social media.
4. Make it Easy to Get Involved. The article on Ad Age provides no way for people to engage with Digiorno. There's no page on the website - no available URL that details the new program. What happens if an influential tweeter reads this and says "I have an influential tweetup this week! I want Pizza!!" How do they make their case to Kraft? At a minimum, brands should offer a web page with details and criteria. Better yet -they're wise to add some comment functionality to the announcement page, allowing people to nominate themselves or their events in a visible way to others.
   
5. Tweet Unto Others. There's not one Twitter profile listed in the Kraft/Weber article on Ad Age. Furthermore, after some searching on Twitter, it seems Kraft is relatively unprepared to meet people from a brand perspective on Twitter. (Administering slap to PR agency hand!) This should have been handled before the release is sent out. When I looked on Twitter @kraft pulled up a person's profile with a link to an article about dead man's sperm. Nice! When I looked up @digiorno two accounts were listed -- without any followers, branded icons OR tweets. That's a shame because it's not hard to lay this groundwork. Put up a clever, branded icon. Seed your accounts with some tweets and information- engage some people in dialog on Twitter to create a tweet history in advance of any press releases. Oh - and while I'm on the subject - follow Twitter best practices. Do not use Twitter to BROADCAST your brand message. Simply tell people about the promotion, ask them what they think and create an open line of communication with the twitterverse. Finally, remember that once you are finished with your campaign - you're not finished on Twitter. Develop a plan for how your brand will continue on Twitter after your campaign is over.
   
6. Consolidate #Results. Do you want to demonstrate participation and make it easier to track word of mouth and discussion regarding your campaign? Why not create a hashtag to track buzz and centralize dialog about your promotion? It would be relatively easy to give something away for free with a simple request like this: "Participants will merely be asked to include "#digiorno in their tweet updates during the event".
7. Focus Beyond Tweets. Just because the campaign component is Twitter focused, your scope should not be limited to Twitter alone. You'll want to look at follow-up posts (like this one) and articles on popular sites and blogs - and you should be sure to comment on posts, and respond to tweets, as well. Recognize that everything starts the minute the press release goes out ... and promotion continues as campaigns ensue. "Shout out" the quick wins and results on the fly (e.g. Announced yesterday and 1000 people signed up!) to encourage follow up posts and mentions. Reward the people who volunteer but don't get selected with consolation prizes, like coupons or schwag. Take a page from Dell or Zappos and celebrate success publicly. Publish a post or rich media case study to highlight lessons learned and celebrate success. You don't have to tell all -- just tell enough to communicate success or how you have learned.
8. Immerse Yourself. Brands that want to foster dialog through campaigns like this should be careful not to miss the boat by acting like an old school marketer in a new media culture. The old models are dead on new media. Social Media Marketing is about , authenticity, relationship and dialog. It's not enough to just send free food or schwag! You must be present. While you can't be everywhere, you can target a few larger events and send a "brand agent"to listen and engage with your influentials. Make sure they fit in with the culture/bias of the group that is meeting. Make sure the agent asks attendees about themselves and what they think. Listen and respond positively. Be authentic, reflect the social media culture (and be sure to tweet remarks from the event yourself!)

I"m sure there's more to say on this topic, but I'm attempting to be brief here. Feel free to add your comments about how to create success with programs like these. Thanks for listening!

Yesterday, I posted a response to Beth Harte's great post about social media expertise. I highlighted the thought that, rather than accepting an individual's self-proclaimed title of "expert", perhaps it's best to look at people and companies in terms of level of social media engagement and results. I articulated social media engagement along a type of continuum. Taking those thoughts to the next level, here's a more refined, work-in process view:

Clueless individuals are in the dark about social media. They may have heard the term, but social media has no impact on their personal life or work. They are not only clueless about social media, they are not actively interested in finding more out about it.

Questioning individuals want to know about social media, starting with gaining a clear definition of what it is. They need a clear picture of the landscape and categories of social media, and an understanding of best-of-breed tools. Questioning individuals are starting to read about social media and may have recently joined some of the more popular social media networks to find out what the fuss is all about.


Scouting (Updated 4/6 formerly called "Experimenting") individuals are testing the waters of several social media networks or tools to determine the benefits or application they may have for life and/or work. With esoteric goals in mind, they have joined a number of networks and are contributing sporadically to dialog and discussion. They are reading case studies and researching social media in addition to expanding their use of social media tools and applications. They do not have a significant network online.
Active individuals are vigorously using (and contributing to) at least five social media applications, networks or tools on a daily basis for work or pleasure. They aren't newbies by any stretch of the term. They have been entrenched in a base level of networks as active users for at least six months. Critical tools must include contributing to one or more blogs, having a presence on at least one major social network the use of social bookmarking or life streaming applications as well as the use/uploading to media sharing sites or rich media destinations.

Active individuals are gaining practical knowledge of social media, and a very clear understanding of how social media changes the way we live and work. They are quick to sign up and test new social technologies, in an attempt to perfect the suite of tools they use for work and life. They are exploring new social media tools and reading actively about social media, measurement, influence, case studies. They are building a social media network and fostering new relationships and dialog every day.

Immersed individuals exhibit the traits of an active user -- only across a much larger array of social media networks, sites and tools. Immersed users have a strong reason to be highly active in social media, usually for professional reasons. They may be actively promoting their brand or business in social media, serve as a community or service manager, manage social media within their organization, or serve as an active consultant, teacher or thought leader in the arena. Whatever role they assume, the use of social media networks, sites and tools is a critical core function of their work day. They understand the categories of social media and how tools can be applied inside and outside the firewall for both B2B and B2C and various types of businesses. They can readily share stories and case study information related to the work they've done that is useful and relevant.

Immersed users are also active contributors in the networks within which they participate. They are actively engaged in ongoing discussion and dialog. They contribute unique content and insight in their areas of expertise in the form of blog posts, articles, white papers, and other media, which is validated and supported by peers and contemporaries. Immersed users have very strong digital footprint, with substantial social networks and following. They also pull up easily within Google - and may be recognized within the field by other notable users.

Influential individuals exhibit all of the characteristics of Active and Immersive users and posses extensive, demonstrable experience working with an array of social media applications and tools. They may have experience developing social media applications, tools and sites. Influentials are active in developing and applying social media in professional environments with the specific goal of shaping the way we work, live and interact with brands. They may work within social media companies, or represent social media tools in a consulting or agency capacity to an array of recognizable clients.

Influentials have a significant amount of experience applying social media tools to drive specific results. They understand the myriad of technologies that can be used to solve client/customer challenges, the integration and operational complexities of using social media and when it may be appropriate to develop something custom vs. out-of-the box. They can readily produce tangible examples of the work they have done in social media through company or client examples, case studies or demonstrations.

It's significant to note that some influentials may have very deep, specialized knowledge of specific "categories" of social media or specific tools or networks themselves. At the same time, a true influential has his/her finger on the pulse of the arena and can speak authoritatively about the application of various tools in a number of enterprise environments, holding their own with inquiring analysts and venture capitalists.

Influentials do not wield influence for the reasons described by "follow bots" and social media grader/recommendation engines. While they do leave a hefty digital footprint and sport an impressive number of followers -- this speaks to the fact that they are authoritative in their area of expertise and have something remarkable to say. Influentials are highly engaged each day with a network of other immersed and influential people who are busy working within social media in a variety of capacities. This network strengthens their ability to do great work and serves as a lifeline of information on developments in social media.


SO! Just thinking out loud!

Curious minds want to know.... Do you feel these categories are accurate and representative of the types of folks you encounter in social media? Where do you fall in the social media continuum? Where does your company fall? Tell me your thoughts. I'm sure I'll be updating this soon enough!

This Friday at 12:30 pm, I'll be interviewed by John Munsell and Paul Chaney on the User Friendly Thinking Show on Blog Talk Radio. The topic of our discussion will be customer experience management - demystifying the term, talking about the move to customer centricity is driving business change and how CEM will impact business and your job in the future. I really hope you'll join us, and look forward to talking to folks in Q&A. Click here for the link to the Blogtalk radio program!

This discussion will serve as a teaser into my upcoming Marketing Profs Premium Webinar on Customer Experience Management, which will be held on April 30th. The webinar is free for individuals with Premium Mprofs membership (It's low-cost, high value. I'm a Member!), and you can also pay for the webinar itself. We'll take a deeper dive and have visuals for this discussion. Click here for the link to April 30th Marketing Profs Webinar on CX with yours truly!

In between paying client gigs and crazy projects, I'm working on a redesign of the Live Path site and Experience Architect Weblog. Stay tuned for more... I'm aware of my usability hypocrisy on the blog now, and glad that most of you feel the content is worth the read, regardless of the crowded UI! Thanks for engaging with me.

In the course of attending the SXSW conference, I had the pleasure of listening to the amazing Kathy Sierra speak. In her session, "Making Breakthroughs Happen" she asked the audience to consider our clients or customers and try to answer the question "If your customers were living a movie, what movie would that be?"

The question stimulated a lot of chatter. I was instantly stumped, as the ever saucy Valeria Maltoni quipped "I don't know WHAT movie - but it would be a scary one!" Hoover's Tim Walk decided on Glenngary Glenn Ross and highlighted the high pressure sales situations some of his clients are in. Before Lauren Vargas could speak (I'm sorry Lauren), I blurted out the movie title that had invaded my brain -- even though it made no sense at the time. As we explored it, we were intrigued by the association. The movie was Can't Buy me Love.

For those who haven't seen it, or don't recall, Can't Buy Me Love is a 1987 hit teen sensation starting Patrick Dempsey as Ronald Miller. Ronald is an awkward, lawn mowing nerd who is sick of being unpopular as he enters his Senior year. Capitalizing on a personal crisis, he successfully convinces the very pretty, popular, lead cheerleader Cyndi Mancini to be his boyfriend for one month, in exchange for $1000. They get off to an awkward start, but as Cyndi begins to work on Ronald, a friendship ensues. Ronald's popularity soars through his association with Cyndi and she truly begins to develop romantic feelings for him. However, new found popularity causes Ronald's head to swell, and he begins to behave badly.

Ronald soon realizes that chasing popularity isn't all it is cracked up to be -- especially as he loses girl he cares for. Toward the end of the film, Ronald has an awakening that speaks to his need for internal change: the need for authenticity, being true to himself, demonstrating character and care for others. This realization prompts a return to the basics for Ronald. In the final scene of the movie, the redeemed Ronald rides off into the sunset on his lawnmower...and Cyndi joins him, perching on the back.

Now, I hadn't seen this movie in eons - and I can't say it was ever in my list of top 80's movies - or even top-of-mind. However, I was a bit surprised by the parallels I noted between this movie and many of the companies I've been exposed to.

Like Ronald, many companies courting customer popularity go out and hire the best and most charismatic to help them in their plight: Expert agencies develop brand plans and multichannel, experiential campaigns filled with promise. Large consultancies support them in purchasing and leveraging the leading CRM and marketing automation tools. As they team with the experts, these companies begin to speak the language of customer centricity. They begin to make adjustments and changes. They also learn some new dance moves, network in new channels (such as social media) and apply spit, shine and polish that can make them more attractive and popular.

This is certainly a start, start, but the action can't stop there - and it often does. For the story to end happily, there must be a moment-of truth that leads to truly redemptive, internal change. True customer is hard work that demands some tough introspection and internal change!

Unfortunately, when it comes to addressing the internal operational, cultural and organizational issues that negatively impact customer centricity, many companies haven't yet turned a corner. When it comes to creating truly seamless, integrated experience, there's often no plan in place, and no executive mandates or alignment to ensure the total experience is being addressed. As a result, the customer experience suffers, relationships are impacted and brand equity suffers.

This isn't just one consultant's opinion. Consider this data extrapolated from Forrester Research, Strativity and Destination CRM, reflecting input from senior executives at Fortune 100/500 firms:

• 83% of companies have no executive tasked with improving customer experience across channels
• 74% have No single set of customer performance scores applied across the organization
• 73% claim that customer experience is not well defined & communicated
• 71% do not meet with customers regularly (DOH!)
• 76% say employees are not well-versed in how to delight customers.
• 71% believe employees do not have tools and authority necessary to solve customer problems
• Less than 44 % believe their companies deserve customer loyalty
• About 42% say their product/service is not worth the price they charge

What's ironic about this data is that, between 82-85% of the same executives agree that Customer Experience is the next competitive battleground!



Taking a look at how companies stack up, perhaps this inconsistency is the reason MOST organizations fall horribly short of customer experience excellence. The fact remains that the problems present in our companies related to culture, operations, strategic planning and programmatic execution are almost always reflected at some level in the the customer experiences we offer.

The message should be clear for us all: We can't buy customer love. It comes only from offering authentically great experiences. This requires really hard work - unglamorous work - but this is also the work that pays off the most in the long-run. Customer centricity is driven out of organizations that truly understand and engage with their audience, deliver operational excellence, support an open, responsive culture and drive customer-centric collaboration from the top-down. In short, they are agile, transparent, creative, responsive and engaged, and they deliver consistently solid, positive experience.

Perhaps it's time for your company to have a Ronald Miller experience. It wasn't an easy journey - and it involved a fair amount of humiliation. Realigning an organization from a silo-driven, product-focused culture to a truly customer-focused alignment isn't for the faint of heart. It requires solid, cross-organizational top-down leadership, dedication to knocking down organizational and collaborative barriers, appropriate strategic planning, a transformation in the culture and a better orchestrated and collaborative enterprise. However, at the end of the story, it's the heroes that take on this work that will ride off into the sunset with the customer.