It seems that the pundits in social media / web land are always upbeat about the latest gadget, the new social network, a new Google products, etc. Talking about serious issues thus takes a back seat given that apathetic societies don’t tend to thirst for more serious discussions on the future of our world and the internet.

The latest case is in point is a push to re-draw what is deemed “acceptable use” for congressmen and women (as discussed here) which will inevitably lead to closure on politicians being able to speak directly to their constituents via the net. Isn’t that the point of the net? To get shit done and communicate? Possibly to be entertained if you are addicted to the naughty side of life. (See: Christy Brinkley’s ex.)

Clearly I can’t fault mainstream marketing / advertising pundits fully since many use social media to make more money, more connections, and followers. Others are tied to corporations that neither allow freedom of choice or speech as it relates to what can be expressed during work and off hours. Even simply having an opinion could result in job loss.

I suppose my griping is rather useless here but I am frankly getting worried by the visceral disconnect that is the work / life balance. Middle class zombies walk our streets while men in suits rule it. While I’ve always seen the upside of being elitist and hope to some day climb my way up, I never quite understood until recently that elitism in itself is a strategic move that allows distance to be kept between average citizens and ruling classes. My work is my life and my life is my work. It is this harmony that maintains my passion for business, politics, life, and the world. The workaday world is an excuse to live for the weekends.

Frankly, the hype and craze of web 2.0 is over for me. It’s clear that gang mentality won (See: Obama) and the net will be used just as with the megaphone of yore: the loudest voices will win. So until “average folks” sit back and take in the potential power of all of our toys the mediums will remain moot. Thoughts and ideas are flushed down the tubes just like old newspapers get recycled.

I’m certainly not an advocate for activism. In fact much of it is rather loosely strung together on the web but worth mentioning is the recent FISA bill that Obama voted for. The technology used to power My.BarackObama.com was used against him by the people to fight against his controversial vote. So what’s the next step? Methinks those types of outlets won’t be as available to supporters in the future or will be heavily moderated to avoid such conflicts of political interest. Then we’re back to square one: a corporate “vote for me” pitch that is top down as politics usually goes.

The long and short of this disjointed rant is that we all know where this is going: back to square one where our internet packages will look like satellite or mobile rate plans. On deck. But by then it will be too late to maintain pipe neutrality. Sadly.

I thought it peculiar when people started using the term “the internets”–plural. Now it makes sense. But guess where 99% of the mainstream population will be? On the controlled platform. I feel for the kids of tomorrow who will never get to experience neutrality and freedom online. Likewise, I’m glad I saw it because it inspired me to control my destiny, start a company, and work my way up. People need hope to take risk and make change.

It seems that given fears about the economy and war that the message of hope is finally here but words aren’t making as much of a difference as they used to. Remember when words mattered?

Filed under: Rants, Social Media, Personal Branding, The Future, Wealth, Leadership

Be First To Comment

Slightly overcast in Montreal today on the heels of the official kick off to summer. They call it Formula 1 racing and it’s the biggest party of the year some would say. Unfortunate to say, however, that thunderstorms are expected to hit during the festivities. Montreal is a classy lady when she wants to be but don’t expect to see that side of her this weekend.

As I’ve been noticeably absent of late on this blog (save for my Twitter feed) and with respect to engagement within social media circles I’ve become more focussed on my company Fixion Media. It’s easy to get lost in YouTube. On TED. In Google Reader. Facebook. Definitely Twitter. And of course old media streams. Well you get the picture. But frankly to me it’s time to flush the fishbowl and start anew.

Given that media, agencies, and marketers are pretty well connected in the digital realm I’m seeing little progress in companies actually working together in a social manner that is compatible to how we speak to each other in the corporate / private world via social mediums. In business terms the contracts read the same. The due dilligence is there (and the wallets are light “due to the credit crunch”). The risk to a given brand seems to great to bear should an experiment go wrong.

I believe in a general sense this to be a turning point in my philosophical outlook on the web and business. The internet mirrors its real-world corporate counterpart in real ways where profit and glory rule the day. I of course have no problem with profit nor glory but I’ve come to appreciate and better understand the needs of real people. Normal people who can’t afford iPhones with unlimited data plans. People that think $50 is too much to pay for a concert ticket. Musicians that think they’re famous but are actually dead broke. And most importantly perhaps I’ve come to better understand where my company fits into the bigger picture in terms of serving such communities and likewise protecting their interests from sharks. It’s a fascinating dynamic which has ruled my thoughts of late.

“Always remember the art of good business is being a good middleman.” That quote is from Layer Cake, a film. While I’ve changed my personal definition over the years of what being a “good middleman” entails I’ve come full circle to boil it down to its simplest state again. Such a state in my opinion requires independence. Right now, that is justification enough to pull away from the day to day drama of social circles and into the real world of business. Striking a good balance between the two will prove necessary to the success of my companies.

Filed under: Rants, Economy, Social Media, Personal Branding, Politics, The Future, Music Industry, Wealth, Leadership

Be First To Comment

Chris Brogran and Christopher S. Penn offer their takes here and here respectively as to why PodCamp Boston 3 is charging $50 this year per attendee. While that is certainly far more reasonable than paying $1895 for the Canadian Marketing Association’s annual convention and trade show, I think that the gateway fee will be of hinderance to the younger generation.

Conferences as we know are networking vehicles. But let’s for a second accept that we are really attending to learn about new industry trends so that we can make our corporations more profitable. *cough* Shmooze. *cough* Steak and drinks on the expense accounts. *cough*

Where was I?

I find PodCamp’s to be far more populist in nature where networking is certainly of value but it seems to me that people are more jazzed about being self-empowered, they’re jazzed about the technology, and they want to be cutting edge leaders whereas let’s face it; corporate conferences are for wheeling and dealing.

This brings me to David Armano’s “We Are All ‘Internet Dating’” post from yesterday. It’s a bit creepy to me and possibly the reason why I neglect to attend most ad-hoc gatherings. This may very well be the Achilles’ heel to my survival in marketing / social media but I am comfortable in taking the risk.

As a young go-getter, I grew up on the net thanks to a parent with an old school laptop and 14.4 modem connection. The 90s were lovely. Remember then ya’ll? Newsgroups (ie the original RSS)… IRC channels (yeah, we actually used to chat back then instead of throwing text darts via Twitter)… community-driven message boards (as opposed to personal blogs). The point is that I shook all of my “sociality” back then in order to glue myself to CNN for 12-hours per day to learn about stock markets, the internet boom, and other matters of the free market. This filtered view of the global trends, cash, and movers and shakers enthralled me.

I’ll tell you something you already know: the free market isn’t anything like social media/new media. And most the fun we all have on Facebook and Twitter and GoBoDoWee–future “hit” social network I’m sure–is mainly to be connected to the world on a philosophical level. We all know who our real friends are. We also know who we respect most within the context of business. And most importantly we all know how to separate business and pleasure. (Or do we now?)

My arching point coming back to the formerly-free / now $50 PodCamp unconference experience versus the $1895 corporate conference model is that I don’t particularly care for either model. One now has a cost, the other is too costly. Neither have comfortable chairs. Conferences are about who you know (or who you want to get to know) and to that there is a cost to pay. The X factor is star power where silly folks like me actually ponder dropping two grand on seeing almighty headliners like Seth Godin and Avinash Kaushik. Meanwhile, while surely worth the expense, I would think it more difficult to convince the average PodCamp / podcasting fan to attend with such a fee because it becomes a business transaction rather than a free-spirited community event (such with IRC and message boards of yore).

I hope I’m wrong. But I can’t yet find the logic in wanting to pay $1895 when I could be paying $50 for what could be a more beneficial experience. At the end of the day and money aside, I want to be in the company of leaders and policy makers. I’ve leveraged social media in order to learn from such leaders and I hope to repay it in kind by helping others along my path.

Just like one social network might be similar to another, all conferences have similar aims whether it be advancement of a cause, activism, networking, or otherwise. But are Geek Dinners worth attending? Are unconferences worth it? Who cares. Just attend a couple and you’ll find out. (And yes they are worth it BTW). My point is that if unconference organizers aren’t careful, they risk falling into the free market trap of needing bigger speakers and even bigger sponsors to bridge the gap. It’s going to happen: and this $50 fee for PodCamp Boston is just the seed. Once the free market comes into the picture it will become more difficult to control the fate of the movement that is still admittedly nascent. I suppose this worries me more than any cost of admission in itself.

Filed under: Social Media, Personal Branding, Politics, The Future, Branding, Leadership, PodCamp

2 Comments

Mitch Joel’s blog posting titled, “Marketers - I Believe The Children Are Not Our Future”, tackles a tangible issue facing marketing companies at the moment. While I agree with Mitch’s stance on the whole, I likewise must default to the theory that educational institutions shouldn’t cater wholly to the needs of corporations. Rather, the government should generally guide and fund educational programs that cater to new and/or emerging markets without influence. Otherwise, the learning process is tilted off its axis and becomes a forum to learn “answers to the test”–in this case the skills needed for a particular job function–rather than instilling knowledge and passion into vibrant young minds.

There is another layer to this problem and it is the institutional reliance on the almighty resume. I would bet that there are thousands of teenagers pulling computers apart in their basements and building ad-hoc networks. School might not be for them. There are also thousands more editing their own YouTube videos, designing Flash applications, or creating powerful social networking groups. Yet school mightn’t be for them either. Such types of independently-minded workers are all around us–they might simply lack the proper “corporate environment” at present to thrive. This is especially important in that money as a motivating force is less important now than ever. I have excluded people that operate small businesses for the sake of making a point here, but it’s important to note that such workers couldn’t possibly be in contention for such job openings because they perhaps value freedom, time, and creativity more than the average person. This makes them too costly to employ for the average corporation. But I digress.

Building a successful company involves growing its revenues, getting more focussed, hiring staff members in cycles, and aggrandizing the overall apparatus of a given company. The irony is that Web 2.0 and social media are areas in opposition to concepts like “corporation-building”, which involves skilful layering of executives, staff members, investors, and clients required to achieve success. In the new economy, more people are clearly interested in making their personal brands matter within specific corporate climates, which for obvious reasons is often a conflicting ideal vis-a-vis that of corporate prerogative.

At the end of the day, there are only a handful of “types” of people out there: leaders, workers, those in between, those on the outside, and the “owners” who serve to manage the leaders. Since more people want to be leaders or owners than ever before, it’s fairly clear to me that’s it’s going to take far more than pinpoint precision educational programs and goofy 2.0 office settings. We’re in this for the long-haul and corporations need to take responsibility to breed, train, and provide the opportunity for upward mobility based on meritocratic policies.

Perhaps the brand of the future will consist of dozens or hundreds of companies intertwined in a progressive new form of organization of equals. Equality is a rare concept in the business world though. That’s a lot of egos to check at the door.

Filed under: Rants, Economy, Social Media, Politics, The Future, Leadership, HR

Be First To Comment

But Sarah Lacy might need it more:

Filed under: Social Media, Funny

Be First To Comment

I’m not much of an application or software aficionado. I tend to stick with basic web fare the likes of Google Reader, LinkedIn, Feedburner, etc.

When Twitter came around I made an instant connection given its function of being able to receive and send SMS messages; a micro-blog if you will. The service has since been widely adopted by many in the marketing community further increasing its appeal.

A couple of weeks ago, Twitter began limiting the number of SMS messages to my Blackberry to 250 per week. When this policy was enacted, I had reached by cap of 250 in no less than 24 hours. It has rendered Twitter useless for 6 days of the week, without even giving me the option to purchase a premium account so that I can keep up with users in the United States, who by the way have unlimited capacity to receive.

Stranger though was Twitter’s claim that users in the U.S. and Canada could receive unlimited messages. I made two formal complaints but Twitter refused to respond.

Today, I checked the FAQ page again. It appears Twitter found it logical to finally tell the truth:

Those who send and receive messages over 21212 in Canada, 5566511 in India, and +447624801423 are subject to the weekly 250 message limit.

I typically like to stay away from talking much about start-ups. I should have expected this to happen given the cycle of free services that slowly turn into ad-supported services or a pay service. (Or a combination of both I’m guessing given the cost of SMS delivery.)

My point here is simple: at the very point at which my network is booming, Twitter has been found it appropriate to limit my reach within the community.

I would argue that Twitter’s days are numbered. Bad customer experiences are one thing, screwing the pooch on a tool that is probably abused by some shouldn’t be taken away from those who have practical uses in mind.

Filed under: Rants, Social Media, Twitter

Be First To Comment

There’s an interesting article by Clive Thompson in Fast Company’s February 2008 edition. It goes by the title “Is The Tipping Point Toast?” and it is indeed an interesting question.

The theory behind “the tipping point” is an obvious one to marketers that is characterized by a minority of influentials sparking a given trend, hit product, or otherwise. We all play such a role in the fishbowl that is the marketing world in a sense. But I tend to side with Duncan Watts’ theory in the article that influentials do indeed play a role in the proliferation of messages, but that it is in reality far more complex and random in the real world.

“…Cascades require word-of-mouth effects, so you need to build a six-degrees effect into an ad campaign; but since you can never know which person is going to spark the fire, you should aim the ad at as broad a market as possible–and not waste money chasing “important” people…”

My favorite line though:

Influentials don’t govern person-to-person communication. We all do.

And finally, this is the tie that binds the aforementioned together:

Watts believes this is because a trend’s success depends not on the person who starts it, but on how susceptible the society is overall to the trend–not how persuasive the early adopter is, but whether everyone else is easily persuaded.

So think of that next time you want to know who started the iPod trend or that of the infamous trucker hat adorned by our beloved celebrity idols in years past. The latter example is obvious in that it will cost you a pretty penny to get Paris Hilton to wear your trucker hat but in the end, many will cling to the endorsement. The iPod scenario is clearly defined by a need as expressed by society. That has been proved by sheer sales numbers. It doesn’t matter if Paris has an iPod. All I want to do is jam 80 million songs on a device the size of my palm.

My point is that there is no one correct theory especially as it relates to mass marketing. We’re in the age of conversation, web 2.0, tipping points, and influentials to boot. Innately, that should not imply that any one party has absolute authority. Rather I’d say mass adoption in its purest form is itself fabricated by a combination of several factors the likes of financial backing, influentials, Connectors, Mavens, and of course the boundaries of the acceptable of society at large.

Let us all not be fooled by the nuanced views of the privileged few. Despite these teachings we certainly have not improved society nor the quality of consumer goods, services, or ideas on the whole. The concept of the tipping point tacitly admits that we are already dominated by the elite–hence the success of Gladwell’s book–as shown by our readiness to embrace the concept of the tipping point at this point in history.

Like the old saying goes: those who would give up their essential liberties to obtain a measure of security - deserve neither. In context, a similar strife occurs when we as individuals become wrapped up in becoming or being “influential”, or “Connectors” as it were. At the end of the day this is futile exercise considering that there will always be another layer of elites around the corner (albeit likely in more concentrated numbers). The illusion of power is merely what a higher authority chooses to offer a lesser one. With power often comes great responsibility which one could argue might limit freedoms relating to creativity and passion which I would then argue stifles our common goal as marketers. While we assist in the sale of widgets around the globe, why can’t we, at very least, market widgets that add value to the conversation and society at large.

Surely if products and ideas sold themselves the role of the marketer would diminish in importance. Conversely, and probably perversely, I prefer to think that we all simply want to know how society ticks. The more we know the audience, the quicker the sale. Thus marketing as a function won’t disappear but I do see a shift in terms of what the job requirements will read in a decade or two in the future.

Filed under: Rants, Social Media

Be First To Comment

Steve Rubel calls it again. And in the spirit of the decline of deep blogging it’s best that I and we face this woe in early ‘08 to avoid sinking any further.

The fact is that I would love nothing more than to read the dailies all day, books, and magazines in order to follow the latest trends, gadgets, and social movements. I suppose that would render me somewhat of an academic and philosopher, which is bound to occur organically and permanently when I make the switch to suspenders in a couple of decades. But I digress.

Rather, I’ve chosen to surround myself with smart people on Twitter (a favourite of mine), Facebook, LinkedIn, and of course another personal favourite in Google Reader. The power of RSS indeed.

While I may still lack on some of the finer points within philosophical and ideological mandates set by the Digerati, I like to believe that I’ve learnt a great deal last year from following and engaging the community. Now I’m ready to birth certain policies that I’ve extracted from dozens of influencers to the benefit of my company. It should be a complement to the teaching of others. To use a Jaffe-ism, I’m motivated to use new marketing to prove new marketing–to put into action all that I have absorbed.

To tie this into the grander theme of “change” and “hope” and “conversation” in 2008 I think some of us, myself included, need to realize that we too are allowed to shape the debate action. It will certainly counterbalance some of the BS coming out of the blogo/podosphere of late.

Shoot I forgot: It’s the Lazysphere now.

Filed under: Rants, Economy, Social Media, Personal Branding, Politics, The Future, Wealth

Be First To Comment

Global Neighbourhoods (RSS) today posted an interview with Josh Hallett of Hyku, LCC about social media. When asked “what motivates corporations to adopt social media tools?”, Hallett responded:

I really hate to say, ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ or ‘Fear’ but sometimes those are great motivators. They tell themselves about community and engagement, but it’s not until they actually get out there that they realize that those things are real and have a benefit. This is especially the case for organizations that haven’t generally opened themselves up to the customer/public, etc.

While I agree that fear is a convenient barrier to change, the real fear lies in any attempt in changing the status quo which tends to destabilize the pillars of power. In other words, the dollars start flowing erratically thus cannot be controlled by the usual suspects.

Let’s be real: corporations aren’t afraid of tools like RSS and instant messaging or even cute destinations like Twitter, Flickr, Jaiku, Facebook, and Second Life. They wait until markets become stable and commoditized. Then they can sweep in and steal your lunch.

Gotta love the free market.

Filed under: Rants, Social Media

Be First To Comment