Social Mediation

I Know What they Did Last Summer (And about Half of it was Bad)

This summer I worked for a giant diversified manufacturing company in Minneapolis, MN. I won't say who it was, but they make Post-it Notes (R) and Scotch (R) Brand Tape Products. (And trust me, they would be thrilled that I wrote the names of said products accurately). I had a number of projects, but one of them involved social listening using Radian 6 and other tools, and this project exposed me to a lot of "corporate" social media efforts.

At any big company, it's difficult to come forth with a unified social media strategy, and I saw evidence of this first hand. Some brands within the corporate umbrella were simply much better at it than others. Same company, different brands, different social media abilities. Let's come back to this...**

First, let's ask how we know that a company is doing well or doing poorly? Yes, we should ultimately measure social media success by Revenues, Lifetime Customer Value, New Business, etc...But as casual observers, when we cannot see the sales on the other end, let's evaluate social media this way:

1. The extent to which it creates engagement (2 sided conversation) with customers
2. The extent to which it creates community (multi-sided conversation) among customers and fans
3. The extent to which customers feel empowered by the company's brand
4. The extent to which the brand position is strengthened and sharpened

If It Hurts When You Touch Everywhere, Your Finger Might be Broken

There are several problems with this list. First, I'm sure that there are a ton of other ways to evaluate success, and put metrics to those parameters. But the real problem, in my opinion, is that no matter how many we add, item four will almost always come LAST.

Here's today's F.of.I,O.of.M Blaspheme: There are no social media problems. There are only weak brands. The brands that focused on "executing" social media strategy missed most often. They seemed desperate to create conversation. They had no "voice" when they communicated. They could have been any company or anyone, posting about things.

The most successful brands had a clear hierarchy of brand identity. It's one that I have adapted and have used for my start-up and other projects this year:

1. Purpose: What is the company or brand Mission?
2. Values: What does the brand believe in?
3. Tone: How do we speak to and within our community?
4. Personality: What traits do we emit? How do we want others to describe us?
5. Attributes: What things or feelings do we want to be associated with?

Here's what this looks like for my company:

Again, I think when many social media executers think of brands, I believe they start to far towards the bottom. I would postulate, (and would think that this would make a great paper for someone else) that companies with the longest standing, best articulated, best embodied brand or company purpose also have the most successful social media strategies. Or at least, I would argue that they have the best opportunity to execute on them.

I think of brands in the same way I think of characters in a movie. We as social media executers are taking on a persona, weather that persona is based on someone real, an amalgamation of someones, or simply imagined. In any movie, it does not matter what the actor does if the character is not believable. Save for certain fringe categories, the best script in the world cannot survive bad acting. I think the same is true in social media.

Small (incomplete) list of why I think brand fidelity is THE most important thing in social media execution:

1. People hate phonies. And fans can smell phonies a mile away. Social media thrives on transparency. If you lie, you will die. Simple.

2. If the idea is for you to create self-sustaining communities, your brand has to be so crystal clear, that your supporters, followers, and users are able to accurately MIMIC your brand's every move. This means that there are 1000 little brand actors running around - awesome.

This is extremely hard to do, and here's an example of how hard it can be. Over the summer, Target, quite abruptly, got involved with the same sex marriage conversation - truly a positive and courageous move in my opinion, but a surprise to many in the media, and within their own community.

Even the ad copy acknowledges a departure here: Target, a company whose brand was always articulated through independence, creativity, and simplicity, is now involved in something pretty serious and far-reaching.

Unfortunately, Target's audience had not rehearsed this shift in brand character, and their Facebook page exploded with shouts, threats, and negativity from both sides - from all sides. Nobody was happy. It was largely a disaster, and got so bad that the Target administrators had to simply give up and just let things run their course. (Sorry, couldn't find a screenshot.)

The good news is that I believe Target has excellent brand management, overall. If their goal is to be more receptive, more egalitarian and more communal, I believe their supporters will catch on, and start to behave in those ways. Those who aren't down with it will defect, and that's a blessing (see #5)

3. Brand conservatism makes decisions MUCH easier for line level social media executers. I want to say that I first uncovered this principle via Southwest Airlines in Good to Great. I believe the example went something like this...

Kelleher: We aim to be the low cost provider with frequent service and no frills to customers who drive most of the time instead of flying.
Employee: Should we serve salad on the flight from Austin to Dallas
Kelleher: Does that adhere to our brand strategy?
Employee: Oh, right. Sorry, Herb.

Companies, just like customers, have brand recall. The challenge for companies and employees in social media is that everything happens in real-time. The better the brand, the faster the recall, and the swifter the response. Google's recently launched, and social media supported "Person Finder" is a great example of this. Google = Search = Getting Information that You Need Really Bad Really Fast. Yes, this is a noble effort, but it's way more than just a heroic gesture towards the Boston Marathon community. This is Google's brand just nailing a one-act soliloquy.

4. Being true to your (already established) brand means you don't have to apologize to anyone for being who you are. Sorry world, social media DOES NOT mean that everyone gets their way by complaining on Facebook. I still don't get my salad, and from the brand's perspective, that's totally OK.

Here's a fantastic example: I had a serious of awesome controversial conversation regarding the following social campaign by Nike...

Wow. So Nike, are you saying that I can cheat on my wife, destroy my family, put my career into a tailspin, and act like a total douche-bag...but.... if I start winning again...that...that takes care of everything? This echoes much of the social zeitgeist reaction, and it's understandable why.

This is a totally inappropriate campaign for everyone except for Nike. This is a totally deliberate brand statement. It's controversial  but it is calculated and merciless. Winning, and helping their customers win through competition is at the very top of their brand pyramid. Despite the fact that I feel this ad campaign is in very poor taste, I get the feeling that it will only serve, in the long run, to sharpen Nike's brand message and empower Nike fans and customers to compete and win.

**Finally, getting back to my beloved diversified manufacturer. The reason I think they have so much trouble with a unified social media execution is because they had no unified brand articulation. (I actually don't think they would argue this at all - in fact, it's a very central company objective at the very top.) How can you take Post-it Notes, industrial-grade break linings, and electrical caps, and come up with a character that speaks to the dozens of different types of customers for these products? That's a serious challenge. To meet it, they will have to start with the corporate brand at the very top, and work their way down.

John Stockton is Boring, and You Can be Too!

Starting in 1984 (the year I was born), John Stockton played 19 amazing seasons in the NBA with with the Utah Jazz. He still holds the record for career steals and career assists by a considerable margin (still leads by more than 3,000 assists). What is most amazing about Stockton is that, by today's standards, he would be accused by many of being the most boring, predictable players ever. Stockton played for one team, wore one number, and gathered most of his assist stats using just a few perfectly executed tactical maneuvers, most notably the pick-and-roll. To borrow from his Wiki page, Stockton was known for an "unassuming, no-nonsense approach to the game." 

Comparing Stockton to other players, one could never call him a creative or innovative player. In the last decade, the guard position has been re-imagined by players like Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Kobe Bryant, Jason Williams, Steve Nash... Some of the things these guys do on the court -  their movements, ball-handling skills - cause you to say, "Wow, how did he come up with that???" Quite ironically, these guys are the true "jazz" musicians, taking basic skills and riffing them in ways that dazzle and awe, through their creativity and skill.

Stockton was never this way - you could not say he possessed "creativity." During his time he was the anti-Magic Johnson, never sending off an extravagant pass when a simple one would suffice. I never even remember him taking an off-balance shot, something that made Magic an unbelievable force to be reckoned with (he was also a 6'6 guard, and that also helps). 

What Stockton had, I would call "creativeness" or the ability to create consistently, solidly and endlessly. According to his shooting percentage (one year he shot 58% from the floor - unreal) and assist-to-turnover ratio, he stands as one the most efficient creators in the history of the game. Stockton made things happen for himself and for his teammates, many times out of thin air. In fact, there is not stat for steal-assist combinations, but I would guess that Stockton has to be up there with Jorden, Bryant, and James in this regard. Ok, enough about the little guy. Here's a clip from May 5th, 1988 in which he Stockton racks up an NBA playoff record 24 assists while accumulating an astounding .03 style points

John Stockton never won an NBA Championship, yet he produced more wins than Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Clyde Drexler, and Isaiah Thomas:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/597917-off-the-index-the-nbas-50-greatest-players-2011-remix

Here are a couple lessons I think we can learn from J.S. and basketball about creativeness:

1. There is room for both creativity and creativeness on your team. Not everyone has true "creativity" and that's way more than ok.

For argument's sake, let's continue to call "creativeness" the ability to consistently create something of value and "creativity" the ability to create something notably different. Teams, and the individuals that populate them, need both in order to be successful. Teams have to be able to think outside the box, come up with new ideas, and innovate in order to meet new challenges gain an advantage over competitors, keep consumers happy, and keep shareholders satisfied. 

Creativity by itself has only novelty in the short-term. If it does not also create something of value, it it ultimately just another new idea. Creativeness wanes in a very different way - consistant, effective value creation has long term value, and is disrupted when the method or source of creation becomes outdated, insipid, or unable to adapt.

Here's where I blaspheme: Creativeness is too often underrated  In MOST organizations, I want Stockton at the core of my team. There is room for creativity, but at the core of my operation  I want a consistant, effective, boring creator. What made Karl Malone such a dynamic scorer, is that he knew when, where, and how, he was going to get the ball from Stockton - every time. Stockton's machine-like ability to create allowed his teammates to be creative, deceptive, and far less predictable.

Yes, I believe that it's possible (and quite common in some occupational circles) for an individual to possess both creativeness and creativity. However, I think it's important to know, as an creative soldier, where you fit along the spectrum. Are you a modern jazz, or utah jazz? What do you need to borrow or learn from the other end to be successful?

2. Creativity that can be appreciated comes from experience and pattern recognition - not from being a complete whacko.

Where does creativity come from? This question has been asked about bazillion times, and there are probably just as many good answers. Here's a good answer that I hear less often: Innovative creativity that has conveyable value comes from the ability to understand and possess creativeness. In other words, in order to produce a creative work that any one cares about, one must understand and identify how and why it's different from the norm.

(Small digression to make a point - let's talk about monkeys and Ritalin. An infinite number of monkeys, typewriters, and Ritalin can produce Shakespeare's complete works. Almost all of these monkeys will write very creative (although certainly unreadable) works of gibberish. Useless. One monkey will rewrite Shakespeare verbatim - but the problem is that we already have that. Give me the monkey that writes the version where everything is the same, except that all the characters names are replaced by 80's and 90's pop stars who possess the same personalities as the characters they have replaced. Now that's a feat worthy of a theorem.)

Here's the basketball example: the pick and roll. There are only 2, maybe 3 ways to run this maneuver. The key is deception, or thought of in another way, you want the opponent to understand what you are doing, all the way up to the moment where they don't. They are then forced into a defensive decision, and you, the offensive player reacts accordingly. The pick and roll is a pattern, that when adjusted ever-so-slightly, creates just the right amount of imbalance. Good creativity is like this. Just consider the modern techniques for product innovation...(substitution, attribute dependency, subtraction...) Everything is consistant with the pattern of the product, until one very particular strategic element is adjusted. (http://www.innovationinpractice.com/) 

The point is that I believe those who possess valuable creativity and creativeness have something very important in common - they are able to recognize patterns, and often they are adept at smoothly creating from a given framework. How different is a measure of creativity, but as we know from Jon Stockton, it is the right difference, sometimes the most subtle, that make for truly valuable creativity.

Research Methods for Market Validation

There are as many ways to start a business as there are new business ideas. And I suppose, since failing to build a successful business is costly, many entrepreneurs have come forward with philosophical models, proprietary timelines, and methodologies designed to improve one's chances of success in launching a business.

A popular branch of such models that has become popular in the last decade or so tout the iterative start-up model, a process that utilizes market research, in-market iteration, and "lean" organizational discipline. Eric Riess' "Lean Start-Up" book is perhaps of the most referenced iterative models. Others include "If You Build it Will They Come" by our very own Rob Adams, Director of Texas Venture Labs, and Naeem Zafar's "Market Research on a Shoestring." Back to these books in a minute...

From my experience as a (yet unproven) entrepreneur it seems that the goal for any budding business is to first identify a significant market pain. It would seem that this would be the goal for any new product or service at any level, and that may be true. However, this has particular importance for start-ups because they must not only sell a solution to eventual customers, but also they must prove right to exist in the market to financiers, channel partners, and themselves.

It is essential to for new businesses to understand a market pain, especially for the purposes of raising money from VCs, angels, or friends. Yes, the business must also have compelling IP, a sound model for generation cash, advisors, etc... But in the theatre of financing, the first five minutes, where the direness of the market problem is described, is often said to make or break the investment opportunity.

When our Customer Insights class began, I started thinking about how valuable it would have been to understand our customer on a deeper level. I even brought up to Walls that I was kicking around ideas on how we could have incorporated some of the insight process into the research that we had done.

I'm curious about non-traditional, ethnographic or human-centric research methodologies that have, or could be used for the purposes of opportunity identification and market validation. Most of the manuals on start-up research still focus on traditional methods like surveys and interviews. In many ways, these methods make a lot of sense for start-ups: They are relatively easy for a lay-person to put together, consumers are familiar with them, and they can be done quickly (which might be the biggest incentive for a nimble start-up). However, I wonder if the selective use of human-centric methodologies could help to make the disclosure of market pains more compelling and more holistic.

There may be secondary benefits to the entrepreneur in using some of these methods. For instance, new business are most compelling when presenting themselves as a company, rather than a single product or service. A more complete understanding of the target market or markets, could help to position a start-up as a market expert, equipped to evolve with the changing, demanding needs of their customers.

Here's what an outline of a paper on this subject might look like:

I. Why is defining and understanding market pain so important for entrepreneurs?
II. Describe some of the traditional market-research strategies described in iterative start-up methodologies
II. Talk about the potential value of human-centric research additions to these models, and some of the potential drawbacks
III. Recommend specific research methods that might fit entrepreneurs' needs during the opportunity identification and/or market validation stages
IV. Provide 1 or 2 market examples of these methods being implemented by start-up companies and how they were successful

I'll probably want to scope this out a bit further, but I think some preliminary research will provide a nice direction for what can be expanded upon. The aforementioned books all have specific chapters on market-research, so that seems a reasonable place to start. It's more than possible that the choice of non-traditional research method depends more on the industry and scope of the business rather than the size of the firm. I think that's ok. I still believe there may be fast, easily consumable, and affordable research tools that can be identified as positive additions for start-ups.

Generative Research Examples (continued)

I don't think I'm a particularly good consumer of news. But I, and many others, have good reason for not being the first to know: In today's 24 hour news cycle, the first report is rarely any good. A lot of it is speculation. A lot of it inaccurate. The biggest problem with conventional news for a long time, was that it lacked authentic reaction/perspective. That's why, in my opinion, social media started to be integrated so heavily into conventional television news.

Reactions from Joe Blogpost present another, more serious problem: Most of the time, Joe's is an idiot. I find that for these reasons it's best to let the dust settle on "NEWS ALERT!" stories, and my consumption of information is skewed towards "just-in-time" tidbits like weather, sports scores, financial headlines, etc... The only real-time media that I allow myself to consume is music related. I'll occasionally read a review of an album, track down a leaked single, and so forth. That's one area where I do want to be closer to the front of the wave. Maybe I feel like I've earned the right to have opinions on such things and share them. Me and Blogpost.

I assume that typically most "news" is consumed before and after "work" hours, and that is certainly true for my media timeline. However, do the nature of our funemployment and the proliferation of mobile devices, I'm guessing that MBAs consume a lot of news "on the fly" and as things come up throughout the day. This is most likely the overall trend, as a new generation of media consumers are now accustomed to having their news on-demand. It's not a consumption model that EVER will cooperate with daily newspapers, and I was on the observation deck to watch that Hindenburg crash. Here are a couple (ambitious) thoughts on the news of tomorrow:

1. News will get crappier. Annoying, but the consumer will take the trade off if it's on-demand. This is an economic phenomenon, and only very, very few journalists will be paid what they deserve (or what they thought they deserved) to be paid.

2. Social news is news. Same channels, more interesting players... Just like the kids of yesterday, nobody will know who the Vice President is, but at least we'll know which friend just passed the CPA.

3. Muckraker has new meaning. The social, communications, and electronic movement has made news more transparent. It's much more difficult to get away with something and I don' think anyone would argue against that. The problem now is weighing and evaluating each source to get to the real truth. Soapbox: it is our number one priority as digital-age educators to teach young people how to evaluate and critically assess information.

Generative Research Examples

My Favorite Things are Few




Man. I know that I have always hated "stuff." But I guess now everyone will know. I had so much difficulty in settling on things that I could not live without. I mean, I just barely have any things. Maybe it's because I could never keep track of my things as a little kid, and this was just my way of not becoming attached to things. I keep my distance from stuff and that says a lot about me as a consumer - I'm a pretty tough nut to crack. Makes me a good marketer or a terrible one.

Sure, there is air, water, shelter...But beyond that, the most important things in the world that make oxygen worth breathing aren't even "things." They are my family, music, and physical activity. By family I mean both the one that I inherited and the extended family that I have chosen in my life. Without them, would I have anyone to work for? Anyone to play for? They are my inspiration everyday. Without inspiration, motivation, something to play the game for - there is nothing.

I wouldn't want to live without music. I mean, I just can't imagine a world without it. Music has been my hobby/pasion/obsession ever since I knew what those things were. If you know what you're doing, there isn't a single thing in life that can't be made better by the right music at the right time. Right now music consists of a bunch of individual things that bring music to me in either convenient or meaningful ways...It's Spotify, my lapper, and my phone. It's living in Austin, live shows, traveling to Chicago, LA, NY, or wherever necessary, to see my music family and my favorite bands. It's (someday) being able to finally pick up the piano or the guitar. Which Will Happen.

Losing a leg would be bad. Losing two legs would I think be unlivable. I just NEED physical activity. Things happen to my body and to my mind if I don't get it. I walk around like a stroke patient. Doesn't matter what it is - sports, running, walking, climbing. It's almost as if my body is continually making poison and exercise is the only way to get it out. I think a lot of people, because they force themselves to exercise for various reasons, forget the simple joy of running around. It's sad, and I've certainly felt that way before. But take that away from someone and I think they quickly realize just how important it is.

As for the stuff stuff that it would suck to live without: A credit card, a mobile, plumbing, my floor fan, Advil, my scooter, a refrigerator. How awful is it that I love my credit card? Very. But how hard would life be without them? Cash is nearly the stupidest, most inconvenient anachronistic concept since we were all trading shells in Africa. I don't know anyone who doesn't scowl and affix their hands on their hips when someone tells them "cash only." I should note that it doesn't matter to me what kind of card it is. It just needs to symbolize that I'm credit worthy, and that you should sell me that cheesesteak poste haste so that I can enjoy it.

Advil is the only branded good that I have on the map. The reason? I used to get migraine headaches when I was younger, and I still suffer from some sinus issues as an adult. My body has actually trained itself (through the magic of psychology) not to respond to other kinds of pain medication.

Ok, so what's the deal with my refrigerator. Again, I have no brand or feature affiliation, here. I just love having a box that holds delicious things. You get to choose what you put inside, and you can replenish it whenever it's empty. It requires no code to open. It makes a wonderful hum. I love forgetting what's in there and then discovering some amazing leftover. Awesome machine.

Booze is an honorable mention. I just can't put a vice so high up on the stuff list. Gotta believe that I could stop drinking if I needed too. Believe.

An Internet Footprint that is Weaksauce

I would guess that 90% of my internet traffic is fewer than 10 websites. This actually might not be that surprising these days, as sophisticated search, social networks and larger domains have meant a return to a mostly walled internet.

The majority of my internet "outings" start with the following five platforms: ESPN (for sports news), Facebook (for social news - if you can all it that) HBOGO (my replacement for cable TV) or my inboxes (Gmail and Outlook). I'm in my email inboxes frequently and on Facebook frequently - these are the portals that I commonly use that lead me to the longer tail of internet destination. I have very little affiliation to any particular news, social, or entertainment sites beyond the ones I have provided. An outing on Facebook might land me anywhere - Deadspin, StereoGum, WSJ, Blackhoard...

Google (Gchat) and Facebook (news feed) are my preferred methods for online communication. I have used Skype with relatives in the past, but Hangouts have begun to replace that, and we have started to use it for work (BeatBox) quite a bit. Hangouts are pretty bad-ass, and the features that allows you to edit documents, share your screen, and chat are commonly useful.

I should note that Dropbox and Spotify are desktop apps that use the internet, but are always running no matter what, and I use them both offline quite a bit.

One thing that I think is interesting, looking at my search history, is the insane number of times per day that I Google something (web, image, news, maps) just to background on something, get directions, a phone number, or settle a bet. I can imagine the world before Google where the loudest or biggest kid in the group was "right" about the number of stars in the Milky Way because nobody had any good way of actually finding out the real answer.

A Typical Day Would Be Atypical

Forthcoming...

A personification of Emma.

Emma is a 22 year old university student, originally from the suburbs of Dallas, Texas. 

Emma lives in a campus-area high rise apartment building with her best friend whom she met through her Greek organization. Though she still keeps in touch with her sorority sisters, she is less active and her network is now smaller but more diverse. One of Emma's favorite things about school is her apartment building where there "always seems to be something going on." Somedays, Emma gets annoyed by some of her louder neighbors, but she says she wouldn't move if she had the opportunity.

Emma's daily concerns are schoolwork, money, and balancing an ever-expanding social calendar. In her senior year, Emma is wrapping up a degree in economics, but doesn't know what she will do after graduation. When Emma was younger, she wanted to be a news reporter or anchor. She became interested in economics, in part, because of their respected presence on television news. "I don't really know what I want to do now, though," she says.

Though she worries about getting a good job after school, she is mostly concerned with making her senior year, "The most awesome it can possibly be." Emma clearly has early stage, "senioritis" and can't wait to go to Miami for spring break with her friends. She quips, "It'll all be over by then!" Emma talks a lot about splitting up with her friends after school, a major concern for her. She already know that one good friend is moving back to Boston to be closer to her family.

Emma is often concerned about money. Despite growing up in an affluent suburn, her family does not have a particularly great deal of money, and she is hesitant to ask her parents (no in their early sixties) for any more help. Up until her senior year, Emma had worked in various retail jobs, including a stint as a waitress at a campus restaurant. "After a while, I started hating to waitress. I hated counting money at the end of my shifts. I hated seeing my friends come in and hang out." This is odd considering Emma's choice of school concentrations.

Emma's favorite things to do are to hang out with her friends - watching TV, listening to music, and messing around online. Her favorite TV shows are The New Girl, Modern Family, and The Walking Dead. Although she likes music, she's hesitant to say she has any favorite songs or bands. "Mostly stuff on the radio," she admits.

Emma thinks she is social, but more shy than her friends around her. Some of them are "crazy" and often she let's them "entertain" her. Her best friends are a major influence on her, more than her parents, teachers, or other peers. Emma uses Facebook and Instagram, but she is frustrated that people always have the same pictures on each of the networks. Emma hears constantly about her friends happenings with the guys in their lives. Emma is reluctant to talk about her relationships with guys, but offers that she is not concerned with looking for anything serious at the moment.

Emma is also an avid runner (she ran throughout high school), and does her best thinking during a job with her headphones on. She also wants to avoid the "senior fifteen," which she jests has claimed a few of her friends as they partied and feasted their way through winter break. Someday, Emma hopes to compete in a major marathon or even a triathlon. Emma's world moves at breakneck pace, and running gives her a chance to get settled and collect herself.

Emma dresses "according to her mood," and tries to look good for classes but doesn't always have time to pick out the perfect outfit. She wishes that she had more choices when it comes to clothing, but she doesn't have the money to buy new things all the time. "I get tired of stuff easily, I guess." Her and her roommate now have a "don't even have to ask" clothes-sharing policy, although that doesn't always work peacefully.

Ultimately, Emma is concerned with making every day count. Wanting to experience as much as she can this year, she's made it a point to "do different things," though she calls challenge with all her existing social obligations. Her deepest fear is looking back on her experience in school with a feeling of regret.