Customer needs (not buying patterns) should drive all marketing.
Marketers need to map their activities to buying behaviour.
Social media customer relations won’t fix core problems.
Influencers aren’t as important as Enthusiasts. Nice!
Think about your customers’ enthusiasm for you – and your status with them – as currency (“Whuffie”).
You can find out more about all this at Tara’s blog.
Back to the “Social” in Social Media
But while Tara’s ideas had my synapses firing and my head nodding furiously, one thing she said took me back. In one of her opening slides she put these words on the screen “Social Media is about… being social.”
I totally get what Tara was saying of course, which was that today, people associate these tools with social (as in largely free-time) connections and less with work-related activities, and not at all with connecting to companies. She uses the chart (right) to bolster her argunment.
I also agree with her point that the impulse to use social media is based on basic human neural wiring that propels us to reach out to like-minded humans to form tribes / communities / clusters of information / what have you.
So two questions I’m thinking about:
Saying “Social Media is about… being social” is an apt description of the way things are today, but is it the way things have to be?
Maybe this is where we as business communicators and particularly branders have to look at a chart like this and say “we have a lot of work to do” before people take these tools seriously.
I was feeling a bit grumpy and cynical yesterday morning when I wrote my post Six Reasons “Social Media” needs a better name. And while I still feel it’s a clunky term, online a book launch event I attended last night with Shel Israel for Twitterville: How Businesses Can Thrive in the New Global Neighborhoods made me feel a whole lot better about the topic. So today, nurse as promised, I’ll deal with why we’re stuck with the term “Social Media”, and tomorrow, I’ll introduce you to a number of alternate terms that could be used instead of “Social Media”. But I promise to be less grumpy in the meantime…
Venn diagram showing the other side of S+M: get yours at www.despair.com/somevedi.html
The bad news: “Social Media” is here to stay (for now)
After conducting a quick poll today among some Twitter and Facebook folks and at last night’s event, I was unable to find a single person who claimed to love or even really like the term. But everyone seems to use it – if only grudgingly or occasionally.
For example, I asked fellow word-nerd and blogger Nancy Friedman for her thoughts, and the response speaks volumes:
But the human brain abhors a vacuum, and there is obviously a need for a collective term for all these technologies and practices. So like the girl who goes to the prom with her 15th choice-date, we seem to be stuck with this term (at least for the evening).
The good news: it’s not that bad
Remember I said I’d be less grumpy today? Well, here’s the positive spin:
1) It could be a lot worse. At least “Social Media” is a term that tries to capture all the right ideas – albeit clumsily. At least the average human can get a sense of what it means – that is unlike an impenetrable bit of academic (i.e. “semantic web“) technical (“Context-aware pervasive systems“), or other (“Sesquipedalian Obscurantism“) jargon.
2) We’re not committed forever. Because the level of passion for the term is so low, like the girl at the prom, we can hope that someone swoops in and makes us a better offer.
Which is why tomorrow, I’ll talk about alternatives to the term “Social Media“.
“Social Media”: the term seems to be everywhere at once. Hordes of “gurus” “experts” and “consultants” are all over the Web and Twitter selling their expertise under the banner. But like “social networking”, pharm it’s an ugly term that is more often apologized for than explained. Today I’ll discuss why I think we’d all be better off without it. Tomorrow, I’ll talk about why we’re probably stuck with it (for now), and Wednesday, I’ll list and evaluate alternative terms to Social Media.
But for now: the problems
Problem 1: Nobody can agree on the definition
Even those that use “Social Media” can’t agree on how to use it. Robert Scoble managed to capture the early struggle and Joseph Thornley offers the best long-form definition I’ve seen. But he also captures the confused public perception by documenting the shifts on Wikipedia. Check out the difference between the Wiki-definition he captured last year, and the one that’s up there now (or whatever hour of today you read this – it changes that fast).
Social media are media designed to be disseminated through social interaction, created using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques. Social media supports the human need for social interaction… Wikipedia, (10:42 AM Sept. 14, 2009)
Pretty thin and circular. But most definitions are. Which may be one reason why…
Problem 2: People are avoiding the term.
From Netlingo.com: definition?Insightful comment? Both.
Last year, during my contract gig as Vice President Marketing, in which I helped my client Bluedrop Performance Learning launch their new online “learning management” tool CoursePark.com, we had a massive internal debate about terminology. Basically, we wanted to tell the world we were an Internet-based tool that allowed users to create, share, and build communities around course content. In other words, we wanted to say we were doing “Social Media”, but nobody wanted to use that term.
I’ve heard the same debate online and offline, at volunteer organizations and family gatherings. More to the point, the loudest debates aren’t in the classroom or the chatroom, they’re in the boardroom, which brings me to…
Problem 3: Business and government aren’t buying it
The example I used above was a group of plugged-in technology professionals, and we didn’t want to use the term. But if Social Media are to reach their full potential as world-changing forces, they’ll have to “cross the chasm” by overcoming a lot of resistance from the laggards out there.
The granddaddy of all business-oriented Social Media sites, Linked-In, doesn’t use the term Social Media in it its About Us copy – or anywhere on its site. Instead, it defines itself as “an interconnected network of experienced professionals”.
The news has been brimming lately with stories like NFL Bans Twitter and the US Marines Ban Twitter, MySpace, Facebook. Of course, they all cite security reasons as their primary reason for doing so. But an underlying cause is the widespread perception that Social Media a) can’t be serious and b) could possibly even be subversive – both of which are underlined by the term “Social Media” itself.
Problem 4: Social means “unproductive”
Think about the terms: “social time” “social conversations” “socializing” – all of these are deeply unproductive-sounding words. They sound like “fun” “friends” and “frivolity”. And of course, the two “killer apps” that defined the field, MySpace and Facebook, were all about those activities.
It is very difficult to use the term in a “serious” setting like an office or business-oriented Web tool. If I had suggested we refer to CoursePark as a Social Media Tool for Business, I would have gotten laughed out of the room. It sounds like a contradiction in terms.
Reason 5: Social means “radical / left-leaning / subversive”
A client of mine, the Ottawa-based think-tank Citizens for Public Justice, studiously avoids the term “Social Justice”, choosing instead “Public Justice” to define its area of concern. Why? The “Social” part of “Social Justice” strongly implies “left-leaning” which limits the group’s ability to talk to governments, supporters, and media across the political spectrum.
Recently, the New Democratic Party of Canada flirted with the idea of changing their name, but never considered the most historically accurate descriptor for the people they represent: “Social Democrat”. Why? Because they want to move to the middle politically, and “Social” is a loaded word.
This is really sad, because, the sense of “social” meaning “shared values / agreements / practices between humans” is really powerful, positive, and politically neutral.
Reason 6: S+M
One word: Sadomasochism. That sums up two things for me: a) a big drawback to the abbreviation SM that is now even more frequently used and abused than the full term – particularly on Twitter. And speaking of using and abusing: b) I feel sado-masochistic for being part of the system that continues to spout this term off, when it is hurting us all more than helping.
So where do we go from here?
Okay Dennis, so you’ve convinced the planet that there’s a problem (planet, this is where you nod along). Now what? So should we go ahead and rebrand Social Media?
Tomorrow: Why we’re stuck with the term Social Media (for Now)
Wednesday: Helpful terms to use instead of Social Media.
I’m a couple of days late on this one, but I thought I’d end the week with a tribute to the greatest brand-builder of our time: Steve Jobs.
Much has been said of Steve Job’s abilities as a technology prophet, a savvy marketer, a brilliant executive, and now as a two-time survivor of serious medical conditions.
But today, I’m going to focus on the lessons I’ve personally and professionally learned from Steve Jobs as a human. As flawed and as fussy, and occasionally as weird as any human can be, he stands out as a great humanizer of everything he touches.
On Wednesday, at the small Yerba Buena Centre for the Arts, the fact that Steve Jobs appeared at all was a surprise:
Many attendees expected Apple to announce it would finally sell the Beatles catalog — also released Wednesday ?on CD — through its iTunes Music Store. Some even hoped to see Ringo or Sir Paul in the flesh.
He looked very gaunt, and his style – which has never been flashy or over-the-top – was particularly understated on that day. But he started on a very human note: by thanking the unnamed 20-something who had donated his liver to save his life, and urged everyone to fill out their donor cards (so if you’re reading this: fill one out!).
But this event got me thinking about the very human lessons I’ve learned from watching Steve Jobs over the years.
1. Human passion has a place in business
I had the privilege of being in the room at MacWorld 1998 when Steve Jobs, still fresh from his return as Interim CEO (and wearing a jacket!), unveiled that first iMac – in a game-changing Bondi Blue coloured case. But as impressive as that little miracle of intelligent industrial design was, the real miracle in the room was Jobs himself.
In that room, he was a rock star, a messiah, and a mega-guru all rolled into one. And if anyone had a great excuse to swagger and fist-pump the air that day, it was Jobs. And indeed, in his earlier years, he had projected much more arrogance as you can see in this great documentary.
But by 1998 his style had become humbler, and much more, well, normal than most spokespeople from the Anthony Robbins, Richard Branson, or Zig Ziglar schools. And his authentic, but not over-pumped enthusiasm is part of the magic of all his legendary keynotes since.
And on that day I saw it at work: he introduced a new high tech product and made a bunch of computer geeks cry.
2. Humans need other humans (and say thank you)
In Wednesday’s speech, after thanking the liver donor, he then thanked the Apple community, the Apple employees, and only then did he get into the tech goodies he came to promote.
But even then, his tone of voice is always giving credit to those around him. Check out the full keynote on YouTube at the bottom of this post. He can say things like “iTunes is the number one music retailer in the world” (at around 5:50) in a way that doesn’t say “in your face”. When Jobs says it, it sounds like he’s saying “thank you”.
3. Human needs come first
The Apple design ethos has created a series of simple-but-beautiful tools like the Macintosh, the iMac series, iPod, iPhone, and the list goes on.
Timeline of Apple Products – from Wikipedia
And it all starts with studying people and how they operate. And this has been fostered and taken to another level by the Apple Industrial Design Group which Jobs has championed.
4. Human stories are incredibly powerful
Jobs’ name is so closely associated with Apple, that it’s easy to forget that he also built Pixar Animation Studios into the brilliant storytelling (and brand equity) powerhouse it has become byallowing great creative people to tap into human emotions by telling great stories.
It was an incredible testament to the culture Jobs helped build that Disney has largely maintained a “hands-off” approach to the Pixar brand and corporate culture of innovation.
5. A great company is built by great humans
When I visited the Apple campus in Cupertino to deliver a presentation in the late 90’s, the first thing that struck me was that the people there didn’t brag about stock options or fooseball tables like other “hip” companies I was visiting at the time.
Apple employees talked about two things: 1) the spirit of creativity that permeated campus life there (this was in the heyday of “Think Different”), and 2) great food – they were eager to take visitors to experience the cafeteria with its five-star menu of healthy food options – free for employees. Apple brought great people together around the most human of communal experiences: the shared meal.
6. Human creativity trumps business logic
This is where I come back to “Think Different”. Steve Jobs has created a multibillion dollar empire by elevating creativity, human-machine interface design, and human emotion to a position of primacy in one of the world’s most powerful and fastest-growing brands.
What are you doing to make your brand more human today?
10 Reasons you should care about the
Best Global Brands 2009 list
1) These are the game-changing brands
Just a quick glance at the top ten from 2008 should be enough to show any brand manager that this is a list you a) want to be on eventually, b) need to be at least be aware of and understand the strategies of, and c) need to study, because like it or not, these brands are the rule-makers, breakers, and game changers in the world of branding.
For me, if I’m delivering a presentation or seminar, these are easily the list of examples I always choose from to make any point about branding – not because they do everything right (see my New Coke post and stay tuned for an upcoming pan of Intel), but because they are a common point of reference for most humans on earth.
2) These brands are global
And why are these brands becoming a common language around the globe? Well, the Global 100 ranking system only tracks brands that cross international borders – where more than 1/3 of their revenues come from outside a single country.
This leaves out big brands like many of the Mars chocolate products because they do most of their business in the USA. But it means that the brands that do make the list are much more likely to be household names in most Western countries.
3) The ranking distinguishes between brand & company value
This is where things get a bit tricky, but it’s one of the things that make this ranking important – and different – from most business lists. You’ll notice that the list includes brands that are companies – like Nokia or Google – as well as brands that are the product of parent companies that don’t make the list – like KFC (Yumm brands) or Blackberry (by Reaserch in Motion).
This makes the list a bit messy, like comparing Orange (which didn’t make the list) to Apple (which climbed 9 spots in 2008). But it’s a measure of the brands we consumers have in our heads, not the accident of corporate ownership which changes over time.
4) The ranking measures brand equity
Ultimately, the Global 100 ranking is pursuing the holy grail of brand management, which is measuring brand equity. In financial terms, this is the intangible – but considerable – value of the brands themselves to their owners. In brand strategy terms, brand equity is a measure of the strength of the relationships between brands and their customers.
The three areas they try to capture are the three “tangible” impacts of a good brand: a) the brand’s ability to command higher prices than un-branded alternatives, b) the value of brands to assist people in making purchase decisions, and c) the power of the brand to predicatbly influence future sales through loyalty.
5) It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got
Okay, I admit that there’s a lot of “special sauce” that goes into these rankings. Any time you are measuring intangible value, there is going to be some fudging.
In his book Branding only Works on cattle (free chapter online here), Jonathon Salem Baskin slams the Interbrand evaluation criteria:
All these assessment and rates are qualitative estimates. This isn?t math, it is religious scripture, created to reaffirm belief to the flock while ginning up enough obfuscation to dissuade nonbelievers.
Ouch. I have my own problems with and suspicions about the Interbrand methodology (E.g. the fact that Thomson Reuters vaulted into the rankings shortly after an Interbrand-led rebranding), but unlike Baskin, I’ll go with the rankings – not because they’re gospel, but because they capture the essence of something important that no one else has measured any better.
6) The world has changed
And this year, above all others, it will be fascinating to see how the rankings move after the great financial meltdown, the Obama factor, bail-outs, shrinkages in consumer spending, etc. Who’s moving up? Who’s moving down? Enquiring branders want to know.
7) Great Brands brand countries
And as I pointed out again in Swiss Secrets a few weeks ago, brands and countries have a symbiotic relationship. Who can look at any of these brands (right) without thinking of their countries of origin. IKEA is to Sweden as Verdana is to Microsoft… er wait.
8 ) Suspense: Will the US majority fall?
The US will again dominate the rankings as it had 52 brands in the top 100 last year. But after the melt-down, it wouldn’t take much to knock it off its 50+ pedestal. The rest of us wait with eager anticipation.
9) Suspense: Will Canada maintain or build its share?
We had our first two brands ever in the top 100 last year – Blackberry and Thomson Reuters. So will any more iconic Canadian brands join them on the list? The big Canadian banks all survived the melt-down with no bail-outs required, and TD and Royal Banks have started making inroads into the US market – as has newly repatriated Tim Hortons. But will any of them launch into the Top 100 limelight? I suspect not, but then, I may just be an overly modest Canadian.
10) Suspense:Have the “emerging economies” arrived yet?
The biggest question to watch this year and in the decade to come is this: how quickly can the currently unrepresented powers like China, Russia, India establish a foothold and begin to build global brands?
They have already surpassed most Western countries in population and manufacturing and are catching up quickly in many other areas. But as yet there are no really big brands from these countries. That will change (see Enter China’s Consumers), but it remains to be seen when it will begin to shake up the brandscape as we know it. Perhaps we’ll get a hint on September 21.
I, for one, can’t wait.
If you’re an eager branding beaver as well, you can sign up here and Interbrand promises to “send you all the information as it goes live.”
YouTube message from Interbrand CEO Jez Frampton
Warning: it’s a bit of a yawn – with surprisingly low production values for Interbrand. I can get away with handy-cam rants, but surely the big guy could have rented a studio, and maybe dropped a few more substantive hints? Perhaps that’s why he had only 300 views as of this morning – even though it’s auto-running from the Top Global Brands Web Page.
made me feel a whole lot better about the topic. So today, 
![2794525924_60ab3664cd[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.begtodiffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2794525924_60ab3664cd1.jpg?resize=600%2C275&ssl=1 "2794525924_60ab3664cd[1]")
![544px-IMac_Bondi_Blue[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.begtodiffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/544px-IMac_Bondi_Blue1.jpg?resize=200%2C220&ssl=1 "544px-IMac_Bondi_Blue[1]")
![26_pixar_lg[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.begtodiffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/26_pixar_lg1.jpg?resize=280%2C188&ssl=1 "26_pixar_lg[1]")
Just a quick glance at the top ten from 2008 should be enough to show any brand manager that this is a list you a) want to be on eventually, b) need to be at least be aware of and understand the strategies of, and c) need to study, because like it or not, these brands are the rule-makers, breakers, and game changers in the world of branding.
And as I pointed out again in