bizsolutionsplus Featuring Solutions to Grow Your Business

Where Does Social Media Fit Within the Future of Marketing, PR & Communications and How Will it Affect Current Business Models?

Today's post was inspired partly by Jason post and Beth's Plurk. But the Muse appeared several days ago when Valeria Maltoni posted Connecting the Dots on Social Media and the Future. Here are Valeria's writings that started a fire within me:

The future is not more of the past, of what worked. Even if it is still working a little bit today, it will soon be quite obsolete in every regard. You know that as a consumer, yet the leap has not quite been made by marketers. Why?

First off, a few questions:

• When was the last time you felt engaged with a product or service as a direct and sole result of marketing?
• Since when has it been enough to announce a new product and service and just stand back and take orders?
• Where are we with the issue of control? Who's in charge? Does the question confuse you a little?
• Does a press release get you going on checking out a product? You can be open with me, I won't mind learning what you really think.
• More importantly, even in a social media format, is a press release enough to get the conversation going?

You should read Valeria's post but I specifically want to address the above by taking a stab at the questions, which I am interpreting literally, which might or might not have been Valeria's intent.

I disagree with Valeria's opening point to the extent that she uses obsolete. Some marketing and communications strategies and tactics have been around for centuries, well before the establishment of Marketing, and, I believe, will be useful moving into the future. The ones I specifically refer to are:

• Word of mouth.
• Direct marketing (it will be entirely permission-based and interactive, however).
• Advertising (again, it will be entirely permission-based and interactive).
• Public relations in some form (the traditional media and publicists aren't going away any time soon, although how they do what they do will look different).
• Social media and social networking, which has been adopted and adapted by growing numbers of the Fortune 500. It remains not on the radar screens of most small and mid-sized business but soon will, I expect.

What will change, as they always have, are the execution and the tools we use to achieve the above. To Valeria's point, mass marketing is dead and someone needs to tell that to marketing. Audience and target marketing also are dead, in terms of controlling messages and pushing them at certain groups of people. And press releases are dead, although I argue they never had much life in them. So, to a great extent I agree with Valeria; where we part ways is that I believe the strategies and major categories of marketing and communications will not become obsolete (i.e., WOM, direct marketing, public relations, etc.).

At the end of the day, I believe the best advice we can offer any client is to work off a flexible marketing/comunications/conversation plan; establish measurable goals; create strategies to achieve those goals; and then integrate the right tools to reach the right people, using both traditional and social tactics. Remember, for example, if you are b2b or a b2c compnay that offers products for baby boomers, social strategies alone likely won't create the maximum affect you want to achieve with your marketing and communications. Integrated remains the best way to go.

Before I go, I must address what I believe is the greatest barrier to change. Something that must change and should have changed decades ago is not likely to become obsolete in my lifetime, although I work hard with my clients to destroy the concept. When Valeria asks: Where are we with the issue of control? Who's in charge? Does the question confuse you a little? I respond sadly that is doesn't confuse me, it depresses me. Control and kingdom building hurt businesses more than any other concepts. But as long as we insist on organizational charts defining hierarchy, I think we are stuck with business structures that are broken.

My hope is that Social Media and the age of conversation might begin repairing the current business model. But I fear that executive meetings are already awash with VPs, SVPs and EVPs battling for control of conversation. That is a sadness that could turn the tools used in Social Media to nothing more than tactics that fall under marketing or PR strategies, when instead we should put consumers and employees in charge. Conversations cannot be controlled, they only can be started. And who better to start those conversations than consumers and those they talk to--the employees?

I can (no one can) use a single post to describe the business model I have in mind. I wrote an entire book on the subject, and even a book or several of them can't include all the pieces needed to be put in place to decimate the current business model and build another one. But there are no better places to begin than with Valeria's premise: Connecting the Dots on Social Media and the Future.

Why? Because conversation via the Internet is the beginning of the consumer and employee revolution. Whether or not it is a bloodless one rests in the hands of business leaders. Resist, push back, and die. Listen, learn and take part in the conversations, and grow.

Author's Note: Please note that I placed this post within the communications Category. That is because I believe communications and conversation are the umbrella that the Marketing, PR & Communications Corporate silos best fit under. The communications category here is lower-cased because I do not refer to the department but to the skills and toolsets needed for business communications and conversations. Jason Falls and Beth Harte have more than covered which silo Social Media might fall under. It is not my intent to re-create that discussion, although you are welcome to add to it.

Dissension: Good or Bad? Can You Handle It? What Drives A Great Conversation?

Sometime last week on Twitter, a Twitterer said that the mark of an experienced blogger is that he/she can handle controversy. His comment made me think about my own style of communications, blogging or otherwise.

I often offer a personal point of view, which might not be held by a majority of my readers. I don't do so to provoke but I recognize I am being provocative. I am also being true to myself. I believe this is a communications style that can lead to better understanding through learning. Provocation can also teach us that our ideas and thinking on any subject are not universally accepted.

However, motivating dissent can create bad feelings if done crudely, in too raw and insensitive manner. Provocation is best used when built on a foundation of respect and dignity. Let me offer some real-life examples to demonstrate the different styles.

Group 1: In Your Face

These people come at us with both guns blazing. Doing so creates large followings of lemmings, meaning listeners and readers are made up of the "church of agreement." They can be found on talk radio, 24-hour cable news and in ideological publications. Often their followers are cut from the same cloth and are very much ideologues in their own beliefs, offering much provocation but not much learning. The In your Face provocateurs offer little opportunity for quiet dissension built on respect and dignity that can lead to new learning because conversations quickly devolve into shouting matches and personal attacks. Some might argue that the recent Obama cover on this issue of The New Yorker falls into this category.

Group 2: The Whisperers

These are the folks who speak so softly and with such gentleness that we may miss their point all together. They host talk shows that often are gender specific or write for religious or family publications. Often they seem apologetic when expressing a point of view. They do influence people to think about ideas but seldom change the way we think because we aren't confident that The Whisperers know what they are talking about or whether or not they are committed to their beliefs.

Group 3: The Authentics

This is the group made up of both deep thinkers and great communicators (e.g., Tim Russert, William Buckley, JFK, Ronald Reagan). Because they speak truth to their own power as well as that of others, they compel us to listen. Even when we disagree, we want to hear more of what they have to say. They are respectful and confident in their own skin. They welcome dissenting points of view and love a good discussion, even an argument, as long as respect is part of the dissension.

Group 4: The Conversationalists

This group has been around since the beginning of time. They perhaps are best represented by the Greek philosophers of Socrates's and Aristotle's time. Today's age of conversational has made access to The Conversationalists readily available to anyone with a computer. On the blogging scene, some of my favorite Conversationalists are Seth Godin, Valeria Maltoni, Joe Jaffe, Toby Bloomberg, Cam Beck, Geoff Livingston, Stephen Denny, CK and David Armano. Their are times when each of these bloggers uses the art of provocation, some more subtly than others. Dissension is normally, but not always, expressed in gentle disagreement or as an extension to their original idea. Nevertheless, each creates dissension in his or her own way by expressing novel and creative thinking or by addressing their view on what they see as wrong thinking.

There may be other categories, but we can fit most of us into one of those four groups. Groups 1 and 3 are never fearful of dissension and likely would have large blogging followers. However, group 1 aggravates and angers dissenters and aren't much fun for those readers who disagree. Group 3 represents the philosopher teachers and gather around them learners. Group 2, The Whisperers, are popular because they never challenge others. But do they make great conversation starters? For those who cannot handle dissension, perhaps they do.

Finally, with the growth of Social Media and Social Networking, Group 4 is fast becoming more prominent. The best of this group uses every style to create conversation, including satire, straight talk, simple and concise expression (some better at this than others), irony, pedagogy and provocation. They look at big ideas and ask you to do the same. They discuss ways to make small ideas big ones and seek your opinions. And they speak out on what they see as wrongs to right. At the end of the day, they want us to think about the future of things and where we are headed.

Which category of writer, podcaster, social networker, conversationalist, politician, commenter, reader or change agent do you fall into? Do you believe provocation is an acceptable conversation starter? Why or why not? Can dissension lead to better products and services and enhanced marketing and sales by helping us understand our customers better (by making us aware of who the consumers are who don't agree we make their lives better, in other words dissenters)? Can dissension and disagreement lead to a better society, a better life and better politics? Does provocation keep conversation alive and well or does it serve only to alienate?

Innie or Outie? What is Your SM Kool Aid?

Or as Jonathan Fields asks: Is Social Media The Ultimate Buzz Kill?

Great question. To help us answer it, Jonathan discusses why bands hate cell phones recording and sharing their concert live. Has nothing to do with copyright infringement and everything to do with the experience.

Bands believe that we cannot fully participate in the experience they are creating when we are more engaged with our cell phones than we are with living in the moment through their music and their visuals. I agree. But, as I commented on Jonathan's post, cell phones are like second-hand smoke. Those blue screens sticking up above our heads also divert other's attention and lessen other's experience.

No, I don't want to ban cell phones at concerts. Instead, I want to use the rock concert cell phone phenomenon as a metaphor for how different users approach communications tools. Some of us are Innies, others are Outies. Here's what I mean.

Innies are self-indulgent. They are represented by marketers, advertisers, PRers and all who want to talk about themselves. Their audiences and experiences revolve around them. It's all about their products and services and never about their customers. It's all about their wants and needs, not other's. The experiences are just for them and damn others.

Outies are outward thinking and looking. They are represented by marketers, advertisers, PRers and all who want to talk about their customer's wants and needs. They are about sharing experiences and making them better for others. They revolve around their customers and it is all about their customers and not about their products and services, except how they can meet wants and needs. It is about participating in their surroundings. It is always about the group thing.

This is true no matter the communications tool being used. For example:

• Twitterers who only want to talk about and to themselves are Innies. Those looking to share with others are Outies.
• PR professionals who want to write press releases to control a message are Innies. Those who share what media want are Outies.
• Bloggers who turn off comments are Innies. Those who don't are Outies.
• Marketers whose collaterals are all about their company are Innies. Those who focus on customer's wants and needs are Outies.

Outies are about sharing, about creating great experiences for themselves and for others. Innies are those who talk throughout a movie and care only about their own experiences. Outies make the world a better place to live, work and play. Innies make their personal world a better place to live, work and play.

In my view, Innies are a buzz kill. Your thoughts? Stories?

Respect isn't Spelled N-I-C-E

Although there is nothing wrong with nice and it is a character trait that it worth developing, consultants who share their ideas on blogs, in the media, in videos and wherever ideas are placed before consumers should be far less concerned with being nice than with being relevant, compelling and sometimes controversial. Ideas that make us think and that question are own thoughts are usually those that have the best chance to make a difference in a business or in a person's life.

Pablum is pablum no matter how it is served. And sharing ideas with a community that already accepts those ideas may make us popular but who or what do they help?

My readership is made up of lots of consultants and entrepreneurs, for example. Therefore when I discuss a marketing or a communications topic, it should strive to include an angle that is new or compelling or challenges the current thinking. Do I always follow that advice? Of course not. And if I were to try to be compelling or controversial with every subject I tackled, I would soon burn out both from a fried brain and from trying to respond to all the counter points sure to arise.

But I do try to write occasionally about a subject that grabs a reader by the crotch and twists, that makes us uncomfortable and forces us to react emotionally or to react thoughtfully. (BTW: Both responses are welcome here.) And I do try to write and respond respectfully, which means using tone and language that does not appear as a personal attack. That does not mean that I won't challenge the idea with straight-forward talk and both guns blazing. Two examples of what I mean follow:

When the PR Department at Target defends itself by blowing off a blogger who took the time to write about one of their ads, which happens to be on a billboard in Times Square, I thought Target's PR Department communicated lazily and inappropriately by saying that they don't have time to communicate with non-traditional media such as blogs. Okay. But this person also happens to be a customer. Do they also not have the time to communicate with customers? As for the offensive ad: I just couldn't see why anyone would take offense. Seemed like a PC reaction but I defend the right of people to be offended whether or not I agree with their premise.

The only piece of writing I saw that took a look at both sides of the issue with a fresh eye was Sarah Wurrey's piece called Settle Down, Blogosphere. She stuck her neck out by having the nerve to suggest that the offended parties were feminists, always a provocative word, and by taking Target to task for its response. That, my friends, is good writing. It deserves respect, and it is compelling. It was respectful in tone yet willing to make us think. Way to go, Sarah.

When I took the W List to task here many months ago, it generated a passionate response because I used it as an example of what appeared to be gender discrimination in print. My mistake was in using such a poor and relatively harmless list as the example. Nevertheless, it made some readers irate, and in every instance except one, it also made them think. With the one exception, those irate readers and I have grown to respect each other and to understand each other better. All because I had the audacity to challenge some popular bloggers and question whether or not a list based on gender was discriminatory.

In this specific case, the list was harmless, and I, too, learned a valuable lesson: Choose good examples when trying to make a point, not just any example, especially one that was meant to help not hurt people. The point is that had I not written that controversial piece and chosen instead to ignore the subject and to play it safe, nothing would have happened. And I would rather writers annoy and provoke their readers on occasion to make a point, even if they make the point poorly, then to not take risks.

Nothing good or bad ever comes from avoiding risk. And change seldom, if ever, happens if risks are avoided.

The bottom line: If you are a writer, a consultant, a marketer, an advertiser, an entrepreneur or a communicator sometimes you will offend. If you never offend, if you never write or say anything controversial or thought-provoking, please ask yourself if that is because you are unwilling to reach deep inside to see a new or a different side of things or if it is because you refuse to take risks? And who is the better writer, communicator, consultant or entrepreneur: the risk taker, the truth-seeker, or the one willing to say or communicate what others want to hear?

PS: I am told it is possible to never offend or annoy or challenge and still be provocative. I accept that. I just don't know anyone who fits that description. On the other hand, I know more than a few writers who are respectful and nice but still provoke. I envy them.

Everyone is No One

I love Seth Godin's simplicity. His most recent post reads: The more people you reach the more likely it is that you're reaching the wrong people: Who vs. how many. That's it! Short, concise, easy to read and to understand, with a sticky message. My comment: He's right.

I have written about this often, but it bears repeating: If you have not identified the readers (re: market) you are writing for (communicating/marketing to), you are writing for nobody (nor are you communicating or marketing successfully). For those of us in the writing, communications or marketing business, that's a bad strategy.

Why Telling A Version of the Truth isn't Smart

During my three-plus decades in business, I have attended hundreds of manager meetings and listened  to lots of smart people share smart things. I learned a lot from them. But every once in a while, something would pour from another manager's mouth that made me wonder if he or she left their brain at home that day. They certainly left their values tucked away in yesterday's pants.

The one comment that stayed with me the longest came from a Director of Public Relation's whose media campaign regarding the launch of a new product seemed well thought-out, except for one line in a press release due to hit the street later in the day. It announced a delay in a new product launch. I commented that the reason given wasn't true.

"It's a version of the truth," he replied.

To which I said, "That sounds like you're telling me that spin and half-truths are the same as the truth, which they aren't."

The discussion continued for quite some time, and to be perfectly honest, I do not remember how or if the press release was changed. I suspect it was in some way, as the Executive at the table wasn't a huge fan of spin. On the other hand, she did answer to the President and CEO. The end of this incident is less important than the lesson.

In the instance above, hundreds of employees knew the reason for the product delay. Communications is about building and maintaining trust. What would happen to employee trust if we shared a "version of the truth" instead of the truth? Besides, the reason for the delay was common within this particular industry, and although telling the truth would have been unusual among those businesses within the line of work, it would have once again indicated that we were a business that believed in our values. And that belief and the practice of living those values had built a small company into an international giant. So, even if the truth resulted in some initial bad press, at the end of the day we would have been seen as a company that can always be trusted by our employees, our customers, and our communities.

I promised last week to always focus on the positive. The above example demonstrates a positive and a proper way to review communications. We met to discuss the press release, with we being several departments responsible for communications, not just PR. So outside and potentially contrary views were expected, respected and not rejected. The only concern with the release was a five-word sentence, which spun the truth. Did the sentence reflect an out-and-out lie? No. But our values called for us to be 100 percent honest, 100 percent of the time.

The Executive Team believed in those values, and they practiced them. They also hired for them. And they were convinced that their unbelievable growth in outlets and profits were mostly because people, trust, and respect came before profitability. Therefore, violating principles cannot ever be an option. Would you agree? What would you have said or done given a similar situation?

The Art of Listening

In addition to borrowing the oft-used title above, I am using the insights of writers and listeners much more tuned into listening than am I -- including Swami Chinmayananda; Brenda Ueland, a prolific Minnesota author and columnist; and Terry Wildemann, CCSE, CPBA, Performance Consultant, Reiki Master, Image Plus. In saying this, I am admitting that I struggle with the Art of Listening. In my experience, I am in the majority.

Although listening has always been important in personal and business relationships, with the advent of Social Media we have the tools to do it more easily. It is particularly important for those business people who lead the heart, which always puts people ahead of products, services and profits, as listening is a primary factor in business success when that model is the foundation of a business.

Read the entire post at the Daily Fix.

Don't Forget: It Isn't About Me; It Is About You

Today, Geoff Livingston at the Buzz Bin reminds us that we must Beware of Big Britches. He is so right.  When we write an article, a post, a book, a sentence, we must write it for our readers. When we say something, it must be something our listener's care about. When we do something, we should be doing it for others, whether or not they are clients, customers, potential customers, friends, family or strangers. Good communications serve others, not ourselves.

In response to Geoff's post, I wrote this:

"All communicators, including bloggers, need regular reminders that we are but one voice floating in a sea of voices. Most of what we have to say never makes much of a difference. The hope is that when strung together our line of thought as shared, can serve someone in some way.

"All this week, I have wondered about my own communications. Is my tone egoistic, or my comments too self-absorbed, or my posts too self-serving. For most of us, staying true to our readers is a struggle. But the struggle must be part of the communications process, less we begin writing for ourselves instead of our readers."

Please, dear reader. When I forget that it isn't about me or my business, remind me. We all need to be grounded, some more often than others.