A Lesson in Social Responsibility: Our U.S. Healthcare Reform Bill

Regardless of what you think about the current system, your feelings about privatization or the party lines that have been drawn, one thing to consider in all of this is the fact that it’s going to take a shared risk approach to fix the problem.

Personally, I’m tired of scrutinizing the outflow of my tax dollars, especially to the needy or underserved - their happiness and integrity is as important as my own, even if it is assumed that they are not ‘incented’ to work harder to contribute to a higher tax base down the road. If you want to look at this from a purely fiscal standpoint (which is totally understandable), it would seem to be in everybody’s best interest to make sure that all socio-economic classes are healthy and strong so that they can contribute to our GDP in positive ways.

This does not make me a liberal, left-wing, socialist, Democrat or Republican or any other baseless designation. It simply makes me human. It also calls into question the idea that we’ve lost faith in our own people on account of the fact that we’ve been blinded by abject greed.

Which leads to a much bigger point: with the steady erosion of the middle class (at least what is perceived to be...), perhaps we we are getting closer to a ‘flat world’ of social participation. We are starting to blend our personal interests with those that affect the corporate bottom line. Instead of making this an issue of whether or not privatization should dictate the ebb-and-flow of commerce, perhaps we should look at what corporations should play in conjunction with government agencies and special interests groups. Ok, fine, this is idealistic, but then again, we said the same thing about our current president before he was elected and look what happened there: the people spoke out and opposing sides banded together.

Look, I don’t have the answers. But I do know one thing. Pointing fingers and making this a political debate isn’t going to affect change. With a depleted surplus, the money has to come from somewhere, so the people that are capable should shoulder the responsibility until we can transfer the access and tools to those who can contribute on their own.

What do you think?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Duh Moment in Blog Participation (The FB Fan Page)

Ok, so some of us are a bit slower when it comes to those cathartic moments. You know, the simple revelations that are more "duh" than "aha". This one came in the form of a really simple truth: that the Facebook Fan Page IS your following and commentary base for your blog or blogs (as well as microblogs).

Think about it: even the most popular blogs - at least those that are specific to social media thought leaders - are lucky to have a following of say 50 or more people. And unless you are bookmarking like a fiend, it's really not that easy to elicit commentary. That is, unless you are actively posting to your FB page. 

This is where the FB genius begins to reveal itself. First off, the utility aggregates from all the major (as well as niche) blog and microblog platforms. Aside from the usual suspects like Blogger RSS feeds and Twitter/FriendFeed APIs, a great example of this is Posterous. Posterous is a new blog 'network' of sorts, so unless you are highly visible within social media and were an early adopter of the utility, subscribers and new comments will be few and far between. It also requires that you are heavily active on Posterous itself, since most influencers there are vigilant about generating and reading each other's subscriber posts.

But who has that kind of time? Further, how do we distill the content that we want to engage with?

Truth is, with 80M+ blogs on offer, it is really tough if not impossible. The other thing to consider is that we shouldn't abandon our blogs, but we should look at them differently: they are really content repositories that essentially feed spots of hyperactivity or hypersociability. 

It's funny because I didn't think that my 188 fans was all that much - and maybe it isn't - but when you consider most blog followings, it's actually not so bad. About 10% of my followers interact with the content I generate, and all of this is easily measurable. 

So, the bigger lesson here is go where your social graphs are interacting the most. These are sort of like social junctions where people can read, evaluate and interact with the content of their choosing. If you tend to write about stuff that is fairly esoteric and theoretical - like I do - this is especially important. 

For me, the FB fan page is a saving grace because I can not only create engagement with certain posts, but I can also better understand what types of content people are reacting to.

Defining Content in a Digital World

Much discussion has been centered around the burgeoning landscape that is media convergence. The careful alignment of medium and message is undoubtedly one sign of the rapid advancement of how we tell brand stories. In my ongoing discussions with transmedia advocates and thought leaders such as Jeff Gomez (@Jeff_Gomez), Jesse Albert (@jessalbert) and Conn Fishburn (@connfishburn), it dawned upon me that technology, as vital as it is for delivery, is really sort of an afterthought when you consider what content ideation can really be or really become.

So let's forget about technologies for a moment.

Let's look at the nature of content itself. There may be an important and delicate wrinkle within content development that may lead to leaving stronger and more indelible impressions on our mindshare. Let's also make this a more theoretical examination of where content development can go, something more expansive than mere (albeit innovative) case studies we've seen from the likes of Coke, Audi, BMW or EA.

First, let's redefine what content is. Wikipedia defines it as "information and experiences created for an audience". We can this step further and define it as: "anything that can be shared."

See, what we share with each other via of word of mouth is content, and arguably the most powerful form of it. The ethereal elements, the intangibles, are indelible and everlasting. The ideas we associate with them are the most shareable and scalable. Which is precisely why we must try not to confine them within ad or media units and inhibit their ability to scale.

Let's look at some hypotheticals.

Movies as user-generated mash-ups.

TV shows as multi-channel annotations.

Books as ongoing topical forums.

Periodicals as user-suggested news repositories.

Music channels as user-created set lists.

Clearly you see a common theme here: user-generation. While this is far from being a new concept, there is an element of reverse engineering at play here. 

For one, the guesswork that goes into what content providers think what people want is somewhat buffered by merely giving them what they want. For another, once this content is reproduced and redelivered through a qualitative creative process, the new ideas that are generated start to proliferate. What evolves become phenomena. 

All phenomena formalize as ideas that are exchanged and transformed through circumstance and lore.

So we can even ascribe a simple formula for 'good' content development:

CONCEPT (C) + ADOPTION (A) = PHENOMENON (P)

The concept represents the initial idea. Adoption materializes in the form of scalable ideation - people talking and developing new currency around the initial idea. The new ideas that are generated and owned and proliferated by people within their social graphs make this into a phenomenon.

The ultimate takeaway here is that we should probably look at content as something that takes on its own personality, and does so by virtue of what it represents in and of itself. Just as brands are owned by people, content also thrives on the construct of mindshare. The associations we make are potentially the stuff of legend.

Now back to the technologies that will facilitate this new movement... ;)

Random Thoughts on Data Visualization

Ahh, the semantic web. Artificial intelligence – a seemingly oxymoronic term in its own right - sheds its artifice. Neon representations of thoughts and feelings reveal a true character of sorts. Us.

What will become of us? What forms will we take on? Why will we take them on?

Live our minds, be our word. If we can’t be omnipresent (at least physically), we can be omnilingual (just ask H. Beam Piper). Add pictures to the words and the sentiment becomes more real.

The spiritual self was quiet... Until now. Emotion is loud. We’ve always known this. But the spirit has its own voice in being visual.

We can replace numbers, or at least color them, with symbols. Quantifiable measures incite fear. They impose expectation. Symbols can assuage.

There is sound in silence. It’s strange to listen to your own mind, especially when you defeat the noise.

The power is in being. Simply say “I am”, and you are. Call yourself into existence.

Remember this: when the lights go out and the screens switch off, what will you envision in your own mind?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Solving the 'New' Media Problem

Let's face it: media companies are in major trouble. And contrary to what some may believe, this isn't just an issue of being able 'to go digital'. 

It doesn't matter if you buy, sell, plan, optimize, broker or bundle, the issue is less about offloading inventory than it is about proving its inherent value. Think about it: with more dollars shifting to digital with smaller overall budgets, the supply can't find the demand because outreach is more limiting across the board. 

The ironic part of this, at least when it comes to content, is that media companies are still the gatekeepers. They should be. It's not as though they aren't looking to expand their offerings or invest in new technologies - because many of them are - it's just that, well, the model needs a facelift... and needs to wear many more faces.

Case and point: 'social media' or 'innovations' groups within media agencies are like red-headed step children. What possibly can a big agency CEO think when his own innovations group crashes YouTube with a series of virals that garners over 7 million views - quality views no less, with average engagements of over 2.5 minutes - in less than 48 hours, and makes the agency a measly $12,000 in revenue? The issue wasn't that they didn't run any other media alongside the seeding campaign... it was the fact that they didn't have to.

Now this is NOT to say by any stretch that we shouldn't implement mixed media strategies alongside social content or applications - quite the contrary. I've personally been a part of the campaign development for expensive apps that essentially sat idle while DWOM efforts fell flat on their face. Social ads have certainly proved their worth in building engagement and advocacy around certain platforms. But the rub is not so much attributable to an integrated construct, but rather the campaign construct itself.

In other words, we expect that consumers will engage and advocate on our timetable. It rarely works out that way. But there are ways to solve this problem. That is, if we're willing to re-engineer our thinking.

We need to think in terms of initiatives, not campaigns. Ideally, let's remove in-points and end-points from the equation. Sure, we can launch an initiative by running ad content within its normal media silos, and we can even run ads alongside our 'featured' content. But if we want the party to last, we need to distribute new ideas and tools to share - not more ads - so that advocacy can live on within our targeted social graphs, and allow these ideas to proliferate as phenomena.

Trust takes time. In fact, the run on this is indefinite. Why? Because consumers are thrown thousands of advertising messages at them every day. They're not looking for prescriptions, they're looking for conversations. Sure, they'll watch an ad, and they might even click through a banner. But what happens after that is not up to us... it's up to them.

The people are the media. A colleague said this recently, and it is so entirely true. Even 'traditional' channels like broadcast are seeing new life in the marriage between offline engagement and online conversation - and we have all the research to prove it. So, we can show people a glossy TV ad or cool page takeover, but if want to take this beyond the stunt or gimmick stage, we better generate impressions that are indelible. In other words, this content better be portable in some way, shape or form, and endemic to specific touch-points created and approved by each and every consumer.

We don't own mindshare, we merely 'rent' it. Just as companies don't own brands (people do), the currency we generate becomes the collectively owned property of the tribes we engage. We can buy a ticket to the party, but it's up to the group as to whether or not we'll be staying there, and for how long.

Technology can facilitate, but it can't really expedite. We've learned to communicate faster, but not necessarily more efficiently. Truth is, we've overwhelmed audiences with too many options in too little time - we've commoditized our own media markets. We need to be smarter about the channels we choose, and even smarter about the experiences we recreate or share.

Tell stories and develop overarching narratives. The longest running and best running 'campaigns' in history were those that became the stuff of lore. That built or enhanced our cultural value system in some way. We're at the point now where consumers are dying to collaborate, and further, they want to be shown that their purchases aren't simply meaningless activities. This goes beyond developing a relationship with a brand, and into a place where people can celebrate the connections they make with each other as a by-product of a brand's efforts. Ads alone can no longer accomplish this. But enriched experiences can.

Never forget the power of a legacy experience. With extended narratives come the reminders of why we live as consumers. To enjoy a sitcom in our living room with our families. To shop at the mall with our friends. To attend a matinee with a significant other. To check out a live show in the square. To take a leisurely stroll through the park. If we can empower those experiences - no matter what channels are involved - then we've empowered the people we want to reach in allowing them to share those experiences with others.

Think in terms of the relationship, not the upside. Consumers have made it clear - especially with the social media blitz - that there is only so much we can 'milk' from them before the honeymoon is over. Direct sales don't happen unless the decision to purchase is an informed one. To boot, corporations are starting to realize that whatever they do on the inside is reflected on the outside. It really is a brave new world. And it's marching to its own heartbeat.

The bottom line for any of us communcations agents is quite simple: we need to reinvest in people if we expect them to reinvest in what we have to offer. We have no choice but to put our hubris and agendas aside, and innovate with the very people that have the potential to become true stakeholders in brands.

They're ready and willing. The question is, are we?

What It Means to Earn Media

Marc Brownstein posted something interesting today in AdAge’s Small Agency diary on how ‘free media won’t be the end of paid agencies’; his post and respective comments carried very salient points, but I thought what was missing was the notion of how media really needs to be earned, and what that entails.

http://adage.com/smallagency/post?article_id=137942

The following is my response:

Nice post, Marc, as always.

For starters, one key distinction should be made: "free media" should really be labeled as "earned media". In the social realm, and considering the glut of branded content on offer, this distinction must be acknowledged because many brands don't have the equity (or the relevance) to create engagement by simply offering up free content. As one colleague put it recently, in a social context, we ARE the media, and therefore it must be an earned dynamic.

Another point I'd like to address with respect to what binarypoet said is the notion that "agencies can push big budget campaigns to more targeted audiences". I think you'll find a lot of pushback here. For one, shareable content shouldn't be confined to a campaign construct (how can it be?), and for another, innovative thinking demands that we move away from creating ad-like objects. So at the end of the day, big agencies will most often strive to serve their big media models, not earned media, simply because there is way too much management and operational inertia. Don't get me wrong, there are many talented people within these ranks, it's just that the new economics don't favor the system.

Finally, your point about TV is really interesting; I think this is a legacy medium that does speak very well to online extensions (there is plenty of research to back this up). The great challenge now is to develop ways that can bundle media and at the same time create content that can live 'beyond the buy'. Further, there are new opportunities to develop show properties through the use of 'online piloting'. But, to binarypoet's point, the system and respective models must change, and how soon that will happen is the billion dollar question.

Best,

Gunther

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Hypersociability of Now