So many companies have ventured into social media (and more will continue to) — Pete's already documented the efforts. But one of the biggest problems we see is that companies implement an initiative and watch to see what happens. And it simply doesn't work very well.

Think about what you would look like if you behaved like a brand. Imagine a party with a group of people standing together talking. You walk up, introduce yourself, and make a statement like, "Barack Obama has no right being our president." Then you walk away. Now, you don't know the political persuasions of the people you just uttered that statement to, but you can't just drop a bomb on a conversation like that and walk away.

Or imagine that you invite a bunch of people you know (some well, some not so well) over to your house for a party. When people show up the door is open, the lights are on, there are music and refreshments inside, but you are nowhere to be found. People might wander in to party anyway, but it just isn't the same.

It just happened recently. Pete's already on top of this Motrin situation, and David Armano has documented the the lack of response (or the default to an older channel to do so).

One of the core components of a social media strategy is to understand that brands are people too. Brands have to respond back and participate in the conversation. Employees will take the actions and interact, but that rolls up as an embodiment of the brand.

I think there are several key elements that dictate how brands must behave that defines their personification within a community. The relationships between brands and customers must be:

1. Enduring — Social interactions aren't campaigns, these are relationships.
    
   
2. Empathetic — Brands need to relate to, acknowledge, and react to its friends' needs.
    
   
3. Mutalistic — This is a symbiotic relationship; both parties must benefit, not one at the expense of the other.
    
   
4. Growing — The relationship must evlove over time, becoming something different and better.
    
   
5. Understanding — You will disagree at times, but you must reconcile and learn from your differences and mistakes.
    
   
6. Active — Conversations need to be frequent so you know what each other is experiencing (and so you can help each other).
    
   

My colleagues have already been talking about similar things. As Kate so aptly pointed out, I wonder what kind of identity crisis this will invoke. And I'll let Pete decide how this impacts the Ego Trap.

I was recently doing some research for work and I stumbled upon the 12 step programs, particularly that of Alcoholics Anonymous. As I read through the steps I started thinking about where marketing is today. Marketing has a problem, and perhaps the best first step is admitting it. So in the spirit of the AA 12 step program, here's a version for marketers.

1. We admit that we are powerless over our customers — our traditional tactics of control and interruption simply no longer work — nor should they ever have.
    
   
2. We accept that speaking with, not at, our customers is the only way to succeed going forward.
    
   
3. Made a decision to open conversations with our customers so we can learn from each other.
    
   
4. Will change the way we behave so we can appropriately respond to customers needs.
    
   
5. Admitted to our customers the nature of our failed approach and promised them we will change our ways.
    
   
6. Our leaders have accepted this approach and are advocates for conversations with our customers.
    
   
7. We are prepared to make significant change within our marketing department and abandon failed tactics.
    
   
8. We are committed to understanding our customers and learning about their needs.
    
   
9. Will do our best to provide a venue for these conversations, and/or participate in third party venues if our customers prefer.
    
   
10. We are committed to being transparent about our efforts going forward, even when we make mistakes.
     
    
11. We will established processes for engaging in dialogue with our customers and studying those conversations to learn and grow our organization — for our benefit and for the benefit of our customers.
     
    
12. Having had an awakening to this new way of communicating, we have become advocates for this approach and try diligently to incorporate it into all of our customer communications.
     
    

I'll refine this going forward, but I would imagine that a marketer who could answer affirmatively to all these questions would be in pretty good shape (or at least headed in the right direction). I guess that makes us consultants 'sponsors' now.

Note: All credit for the AA 12 Step program goes to A. A. World Services.

Today's instances of creating are core to mankind. For example:

NEW CREATIONS
Now: Self-made YouTube video submission
Before: Home-made jewelry (Crafts Faire), grafitti
Past: Home inventors

MASHUPS
Now: Google Maps + Craigslist = Housingmaps.com,
Before: Scrapbooking
Past: Hacking Harley Davidson motorcycles (Choppers)

The creation of artifacts and services got us to where we are today. Once institutions took over the means of production, individuals migrated their efforts to hacking the products available in the marketplace.

Today's instances of broadcasting have a colorful past. For example:

Now: Blogging or podcasting
Before: Publishing zines or newsletters
Past: Ham radio/CB Radio

People have always broadcasted their opinions or personality. Even fashion is a potential example of broadcasting, only without words.

Today's instances of opining link to a long history of people voicing their opinions in public. For example:

Now: Ratings and reviews of products; commenting on a blog
Before: Word-of-mouth product advocacy or detracting; letter to the editor of a newspaper; customer service call
Past: Standing on a soapbox; revolutionary words (Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Declaration of Independence); Parlour sessions

While people always have an opinion, the reach of that opinion today is far greater than it could be in the past.

Today's instances of connecting using social media tools simply facilitate behaviors since the dawn of man. For example:

CONNECTING ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES
Now: Create a profile on Facebook/LinkedIn/MySpace, link to friends, share updates and thoughts by posting on friends' profile pages.
Before: Joining a club (Rotary, Moose Lodge, hobby-oriented, etc); Who's Who Among American High School Students (Did anyone ever get any value from this?).
Past: Associations of guilds of like-minded or like-skilled individuals (Free Masons).
Earlier: Tribes gather to share stories and traditions; hunter-gatherer groups ban together to hunt and pass down hunting knowledge.

People have always (and will always) connect with one another. Today's technologies make it easier and broader reaching than the past.

Today's instances of sharing with social media have a long history. For example:

MUSIC SHARING
Now: Publishing a music playlist (e.g., iMix on iTunes)
Before: Creating a mix tape for a friend or blasting your boom box in the park (popping and break dancing, of course)
Past: Music (record) party at your home (1950s)

VIDEO/PHOTO SHARING
Now: YouTube/Flickr
Before: Home movies/Photo Albums
Past: Slide shows or vacation presentations

As I said before, all media is social. These sharing behaviors we see today are not new. It's reach, accessibility, usability, transparency, and recency that have changed.

In my last post I talked about how all media is social. Before I get to my examples in the next few days, I want to talk about the implications of these changes on institutions. Essentially, the process goes like this:

1. Institutions emerge, develop, become successful (or at least sustainable), and eventually become complacent.

    

2. Progressive and resourceful people develop new tools and methods to fulfill needs in an innovative way and do so outside the mainstream institutions and bureaucracy.

    

3. Constituent needs evolve and, eventually, institutions increasingly fail to fulfill those needs.

    

4. Some of those tools and methods evolve and are built upon until sophisticated constituents adopt them.

    

5. Popularity of these new constituent actions reaches a mass audience and institutions recoil in fear because their way of doing things is threatened by the new actions.

    

6. Constituents don't wait for institutions to catch up and continue to push forward.

    

7. Institutions make several failed attempts to change.

    

8. Eventually the change happens, albeit in a slow and painful way.

    

9. Constituents eventually adopt the institutions' solution, possibly with an unexpected player.

    

10. The process starts over again (see step 1).

     

When institutions try and fail to meet the new constituent needs, we witness a deceptive width of the chasm between the current state and the emerging state. In reality, the chasm isn't that wide. The real obstacle is the process and philosophical shift required to operate in an entirely new way.

As my colleague, Pete Kim, so eloquently said it, "many brands secretly fear that connecting with the community will lead to dilution and destruction."

So the real challenge is changing the organization, not meeting the new needs. We see the distance between these types of events get shorter every year, especially in recent years. The 'new organization' must embrace change as part of it's DNA — it's underlying structure must embrace an operating paradigm that enables ease of adaptation.

We've spent a good 6+ years talking about "social media" and how it's an amazing new phenomenon. How the Internet is abound with new behaviors: posting personal videos on the web for all to see; sharing personal information with strangers on social networking sites; using blogs to voice our opinion; etc. It's the topic of many conferences, articles, and conversations across many fields (marketing, IT, business, policy).

However, in reality, none of these behaviors are new. If you think about all of the social tools and behaviors happening today, in almost every case there is an equivalent comparison to activities in the past.

These are the typical behaviors we perceive as new:

• Sharing — Current activities include uploading videos, photos, or other media as well as sharing music playlists with friends. However, people have long had the ability and desire to share with one another such as gifting, commerce/barter, courting, and goodwill.

   

• Connecting — Current activities include creating and maintaining a social network profile and connecting to others (family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances) on social networks, posting messages on friends social network profile, etc. However, people have always connected with one another such as love, mating, friendship, alliance, collaboration, and career advancement.

   

• Opining — Current activities include rating or reviewing products, voting on peer-submitted content (Digg, Dell Idea Storm), or commenting on blog posts. However, people have always had opinions, and channels to voice them such as complaining to friends (WOM), customer service call, letter to editor, or being featured on local or national news.

   

• Broadcasting — Current activities include posting thoughts on a blog, creating podcasts (audio or video), posting thoughts on Twitter, etc. However, people have long broadcasted to others their likes, dislikes, style, and thoughts such as fashion style, product selection and use, blasting a boom box in the park, or telling everyone at a party your thoughts on the upcoming election.

   

• Creating — Current activities include creating videos, altering photos, creating mashups, etc. However, people have been creating things for a long time such as jewelry for sale at a craft faire, home movies, and other craft related activities.

   

As you can see, none of those behaviors are new. But there are several characteristics of today's technologies and behaviors that set them apart from the past, and this is what we really observe as 'new' behaviors. They are:

• Reach — Historically, audiences for the common person have been limited: a tribe, family, friends, neighbors, or the local community. Today's technologies provide scale and enable anyone to reach a global audience.

   

• Accessibility — The means of production for most media used to lie in the hands of enterprises with unlimited resources (financial or human). Today's technologies for media creation are available to anyone at little or no cost.

   

• Usability — The means of production typically required specialized skills and training, both technically and creatively. Today's technologies simplify those processes, or in some cases reinvent them, so anyone can create and operate the means of production.

   

• Transparency — People, especially Americans, historically kept personal information to themselves and had a general distrust of authority (enterprises, government, etc.). Today, people are willing to share anything about themselves (interests, location, family situations, health condition, etc.) in a public venue, and today's technologies make that both possible and purposeful.

   

• Recency — When people did have the means of production and distribution in the past (albeit limited), the time lag between communications was typically long (days, weeks, or even months). It was a limitation of the technology or system in which it operated. Today's technologies enable instantaneous responses and dialog where only the participant determines the delay in response.

   

I'll follow up with several examples soon. In the meantime, what do you think?

We're excited to bring yet another person on board our new venture. Kate Niederhoffer comes to us from Nielsen Online where she was the VP of Measurement Science and deeply involved with the early days of BuzzMetrics. I'm particularly excited because Kate and I will be working closely together on building one of the practices for our yet unnamed company.

Now our team consists of Jeff Dachis, Pete Kim, Doug Rushkoff, Kate, and myself.

As you can see, our core team is rounding out nicely. We're being quite selective at this stage, but there will be plenty of room in the near future. If you're interested, send me an email (find my address in the "About" section at the top of my home page).

Welcome aboard, Kate!

Today marks my last day at Forrester Research.

As many of my colleagues tell me, I have a very eclectic background. Music, politics, technology, design, business... it was all by design, and it will continue to grow and expand.

In September, my new phase will begin when I join Jeffrey Dachis, former co-founder of Razorfish, to help him build a new company focused on developing an enterprise social software platform. I'll also be joining my former Forrester colleague, Peter Kim. We'll be working closely to help Jeff build this company.

As for Forrester, it's as strong as ever. I've worked with brilliant people before, but Forrester is certainly the largest collection of intellectual firepower I've ever witnessed. I walk away a much smarter person than I came in, and for that I am grateful. There are exciting times ahead with the Jupiter acquisition. It's a group of very talented people that are a great addition for the Forrester team.

I've learned so much from my time there. I'm a much better writer, communicator, and thinker. I was able to push big ideas into the market place. My reports about Engagement was the theme of our 2008 Marketing Forum, I was its opening keynote speaker, and I eventually won me our Top Keynote award. I've gained a unique perspective on the marketplace, perched from a location very few get to experience. And that insight makes me stronger, and well equipped for this new venture.

Now I know it's the time to act and put my ideas into practice--the opportunity is too great.

This new job is ambiguous. I don't have a job title. The company doesn't have a name. At the moment, there are only three of us. We don't know what this will become, we only have a general direction. My office will be at my house... in Austin... and in cyberspace on IM, Twitter, Facebook... To many, this recipe might spell fear. To me, it's comfortable. I thrive in the unknown--no rules, no baggage, no momentum to pull us into mediocrity. We get to build this from scratch in a thoughtful and disciplined manner. It's my opportunity to bring my engagement ideas to life and the perfect time to leverage my background to apply a design thinking approach to the way we, and our clients, do business. And I'm excited to get to work, executing on Jeff's vision, learning from his experience and a brilliant entrepreneur--a path I see myself taking in the not too distant future.

Our goal is to help companies navigate and participate in this changing world, charged with social technologies and driven by people and employees who are in control. We're looking for companies that need help navigating these waters, we're looking for partners and developers to help us build this engine, and we're looking for smart people to help us realize this vision. If you're interested, contact Jeff at jdachis at austinventures dot com.

More to come...

UPDATE: Sorry I didn't clarify, I'm going to remain in Boston.

How should a company participate in social media?

It's one of the most perplexing issues facing companies today. The trends are clear: people increasingly interact with one another online, amplified by social technologies. But once a company steps in, bad things typically happen. The problem? Firms always place their own needs ahead of their own and they can only think about their product as the subject matter. It's this egoistic approach that turns people off.

We've all me this person. Self-absorbed, always talking about themselves, but never there to listen to what you have to say. They love to hang out with you when you're doing something they enjoy, regardless of your wishes. This is how companies behave. They want a community of people to talk about how the product is--no other subjects allowed. If you're Harley Davidson, Apple, a move studio, a video game maker, or a toy manufacturer, maybe it will happen. But people aren't going to join your social network because they're huge fans of mortgages or toilet paper. This approach diminishes your company's credibility, calls into question your intentions, and basically makes people think you're a prick — just like that person I mentioned above.

So how do you find that level of participation that's just right? It's all about the context of use. Context of use is the situation or scenario in which your product gets used. It's the overarching goal your customer is trying to achieve, of which your product is only a part. So the context is not the mortgage, it's home buying. And it's that context in which a brand can participate. The objective is to create, or facilitate the creation of, content that helps that customer achieve their goal. Don't assume or expect people to just talk about your product--it's the context that matters and it's the context where opportunity is ripe for the picking.

The design approach always begins here — identifying what people are trying to accomplish and then developing a solution that helps them do so. That's why designers use or conduct ethnographic research, participatory design, and eventually usability testing. This situation is no different. Companies need to take a few steps back and look at how they can help their customers. The responsibility lies on the company to identify the need, provide the solution, and then figure out how to make money — you have the resources to do that, not your customer. And when it comes to measurement, I've already talked a lot about how to do that (and I even have new research out that goes into more detail).

This is why a design thinking approach works around the inadequacies of most marketing organizations. It's about meeting customer needs — design will soon be the key differentiator.

We've seen the music industry suffer at the business end of disruptive services like P2P file sharing and the shattering of a business model at the hands of Apple's superior media experience and ecosystem. And, Apple recently took the mobile phone experience and turned it on it's head, leaving the device manufacturers left scratching their heads and the carriers' panties in a wod. The travel industry suffers from transparency thanks to a little site called TripAdvisor. To a lesser degree, the media business has seen some pain and been forced to think hard about their business models, operations, and relevancy. But financial services has gone largely untouched, until now.

I've been paying attention to a number of new players in the financial services space. What sets them apart is that they have little or no affiliation with big financial institutions. What's cool about them is that they use a lot of the new social media technologies and leverage emerging social behaviors — and in many cases they deliver a far superior experience to their elder brethren. There are a handful of them doing different things so I've lumped them into 5 categories.

1. Peer-To-Peer Lending. These services allow people to put up money for loans to other individuals--no banks involved. Default rates are apparently pretty low. Examples include Virgin Money (formerly Circle Lending), Zopa, Prosper, and Kiva
2. Peer-To-Peer Equity (Home). Similar to the P2P lending above, these services allow people to put up a share of the money required to purchase a home, and the actual home buyer borrows from the peer lenders. Examples include Home Equity Share and Shared Spaces (UK).
3. Aggregated Money Management. These bring a new twist to online banking. Essentially they pull in your account information from all of the financial institutions you work with — then they do smart things to help you understand where your money is going. It's very different that than the banking services that only look at the financial products you have from that institution — and the interface/interaction is significantly better in some cases. Examples include expensr, Buxfer, Wesabe, and Mint.
4. Social Investing. This category is a bit more diverse, but essentially they are leveraging social interactions online for investment research or they offer powerful interfaces to online investing &mdash making for a better experience. Examples include bullpoo and Zecco.
5. Micropayments. Last but not least, the ever ellusive micropayment. Financial institutions couldn't figure it out, PayPal didn't quite nail it. Those who have tried typically make the process far too clunky. And many who have tried were left in the wake of complexity. But one new service makes it simple — TipJoy (full disclosure, the founders are good friends of mine and I've been helping them out in a limited way).

I think the most compelling features here are that these services call into question everything we know about how to interact with Financial Services firms. Banks et. al. are used to maintaining control and exclusivity that is bound in complexity, inflexibility, and poor experience. The services I describe above are simple, open, institution agnostic, and delightful experiences. Financial institutions could learn a thing or two — if they're around long enough... ;-)

Get to know your customer’s better.
Measure engagement—the real engagement.
Be a little more fearless with social media.
Reconsider your business model.
Bring on a designer at a senior level.
Show some real corporate responsibility.