Archive for the ‘Corporate development’ Category

Social business, social fabric and the healing mesh

The business of social media engagement comes down ultimately to what we think, do and feel.  For social business practitioners in the business of doing things better, it’s easy to see the world as one big data problem. If we had complete and open data running through the corridors of corporations, including information about how we think, informed decision-making would be arguably so much easier.

Equally important to social business is how we feel and this is where the lines of engagement are being drawn. One of the best definitions of social business came from Chris Brogan a few years back when he said ‘social business is human business’. That one line captures something fundamental about the nature of social business, and the business strategies needed to adjust to it.

Working on developing quantified organisations means placing stock, as well as taking comfort, in the numbers. But what makes social business truly matter is how it can deliver more business health and performance than conventional methodologies.

Chiefly this comes down to the way social business can develop generative and organic value through people working collectively together. This post is about how social business does that and how, in doing so, it can help renew the fabric of torn and fragmented society. It’s a post, in particular, about the ‘healing mesh’. The mesh can be a distributed network, as Lisa Gansky’s described it. The healing mesh can be spun around a hashtag, or a virtual experience that people gather around like a digital maypole. It can be the wired and connected infrastructure that’s increasingly housing shared value and enabling collaborative consumption business models.

The healing mesh is an evolved step on from an industrialized scale focus on consumption at all costs to a focus on empowerment and on human relationships as an alternative source of value generation. As a means to driving business opportunity it’s hitting the mainstream, as signaled this week with the news that GM has signaled a commitment to car sharing as a part of its business model.

At a visceral level, the healing mesh is the product of interaction that’s stimulated to heal because of a neurological sympathetic response to conditions around it, whether business or personal. It’s a response to the dysfunctional workplaces that 30% of all US workers are now describing as psychologically unsafe and is created from the synapses of people calling out what can be better as a result of social business.

Discussing the healing mesh with Anne-Marie McEwan (@smartco) recently, we reflected on how social business can weave, repair and create a lucrative social fabric by recognizing, as Yves Michaud’s suggests, that creativity emerges in the context of dereliction and decline. In so doing, the synaptic responses that arise out of that awareness can create the action potential to produce fibrinogens as the mesh that form the healing wound of a grazed knee at an individual level, or a broken society at a collective one.

A key element of sustainable businesses in the future, including the nature of the networked organisation and quality of life in the workplace, is going to be whether there is a shared point of intention. Intention will run like a thread through social organization. The battle currently is for people’s minds, but the opportunity can also be about connecting with people’s hearts and by creating choice as part of a lucrative gestalt.

Anne-Marie and I had lunch recently at Petersham Nurseries, tucked away by the river near Richmond.

It’s a modern Avalon, a restaurant within a gardening centre and nursery with the glorious combination of a Michelin star and a hard dirt floor. Full of beautiful things, good food and rusty tables, it is a place with good husbandry and a love of nature at its heart, where decay and growth run comfortably hand in hand.

It was the perfect setting for a conversation about the nature of the networked organisation today and social fabric in the 21st century and this concept of the ‘healing mesh’.

During lunch our attention turned to the health of networks, what organic beauty and value is in them at a systemic level, what makes them attractive, genuine, raw, appealing, and capable of fostering cultures that can flourish.

In social business the net worth, as we say, is the network. What that suggests is it’s very much the act of coming together and the connectivity between individuals, as much as the individuals themselves, that makes a difference to the health, vitality and performance of distributed organisations. Organisations can benefit a great deal today by relearning and redefining how they ‘do interaction’ and it is curious how much of this act of choosing to come together marketing effort actually focuses on side-stepping.

Letting things happen is so often not a marketing objective. The battleground for business and marketing power is often intent on developing brokerage as a means of cultivating dependency and seeking control over people’s minds, using direct or indirect commands to ‘like us!’ and the ease and convenience of zombification strategies designed to nudge and dilute free will. Decode marketing speak and very often consumer choice often is the elephant in the room, the thing that technology applied to marketing and advertising can obliterate because it’s too random. With so much invested in the way we do things, marketers often assume it’s easier to change the nature of the consumer than the nature of the business model.

Yet the skill and the insight involved in letting things happen is like that of a good sailor with their hand on the tiller, and the metaphor for social businesses as a means of cocreated and generative value can be a boat where people are in it together. Social businesses where people connect because they want to are essentially an odyssey towards value created out of a common purpose, need or desire. It puts problem solving, not profiteering, at the heart of the corporate intention. That kind of interaction between people is the warp and the weft of healthy social fabric for a distributed, networked age.

Contrast that with what we are seeing revealed as ‘wounded people and wounded organisations’, as Anne-Marie put it over lunch. We’re seeing networked opportunities blocked by obedient gatekeepers only trying to do their job and organisations stuck in vicious repeat loops confined by their own protocols. When the risk of breaking out of ‘the way we do things around here’ is regarded as culturally and operationally too disruptive, what happens it that emergence becomes emergency and business models become calcified.

We say at Visceral Business that ‘affinity is stronger than structure’ because the accessible connectivity of the web enables people to do the things they want to, not just what they have to do. But what we have in the here and now as reality at many levels is a failure of the systems of leadership to enable that.

The healing mesh of social business is what happens when you put skin into the game. A fantastic advantage of the social web is that people can reach out to one another, and do, which creates the opportunity for a new kind of social fabric, woven together out of connected intention. That kind of co-operation can be the fabric for an emergent civilization.

The intangible values that bind us also drive the tangible benefits that can be experienced as part of an open access economy. As Anne-Marie put it, ‘People are eager to go above and beyond what is expected in their work – but leaders are failing to provide systems and performance environments that let people find meaning in their work. People find meaning in their relationships with work and with each other. They need to be given opportunities to learn, to contribute, to be listened to, to be appreciated, trusted, to be socially included and to feel safe. In fact, to be treated as human beings.’

Social organizations can be the conduit for that kind of activity and effective high tech and high touch strategies can enable new kinds of interaction across social, mobile and local touchpoints, on and offline. As a terrific article by Mary Joyce put it recently, the more we understand about innovation, the more we understand that it is a social process.

So the healing mesh is essentially the intention of people coming together in a certain way with specific value beliefs attached to that way.

Out of that thought, myself and Anne-Marie have come up with a project we’re calling ‘the Petersham project’ as a homage to the source of the thought and a line of enquiry to explore the question, what’s the kind of cultural code needed to enable a healing mesh, and how can it be realized?

There are several people we’ve thought about inviting into this project, and if you’re interested in becoming part of it please find either me or Anne-Marie on Twitter. We’re looking to manifest this healing mesh by creating a forum for people who share the fact that they are all sympathetic and attuned the potential of the social web. We’re aiming to develop an exciting piece of learning, helping organisations, groups and communities to determine for themselves how they can perpetuate a healing mesh culture, in the same way as our understanding of ‘flow’ is so powerful as a set of insights.

Anne-Marie characterized the need by saying ‘there are too many dysfunctional workplaces and there is no excuse for that. We know what healthy workplaces can look like and there is an opportunity for us to conceive of them, driven by values that can now come together in a powerful way. Some of us see the opportunity beginning to be squandered. The Petersham Project, as we see it, is a way of declaring specific values and beliefs.’

We both think by opening up our sense to this question the fun will be in seeing how these emerge. We think the healing mesh is here already. It is emerging, area by area, city by city, and hashtag by hashtag, as a mesh of the committed. It is a mesh of those who seek to heal by leaning in to the questions looking for answers, the issues that need solving and the needs that are being asked to be met.

Social business ask questions about how open access, interactive organization and sustainable business can be most lucrative and how people can commune together to meet needs and solve problems. As organisations become more dispersed, there’s a paradox in this development. The social fabric and cultures of connected enterprises are increasingly going be dependent on the ties of the healing mesh and the way in which the committed bind together as a social fabric, with the ability to drive the strength and viability of a vibrant networked economy that can be taken forward. We would love to hear your thoughts on it.

 

 

How will you make your mark in 2012?

Picture credit http://bit.ly/vafRYw

One definition of genius we really like round here is genius is ‘the ability to connect two seemingly unconnected things’.

Truly successful social businesses do this, they make connections between ideas and people. They also stimulate responses to create action potential, like synapses do when they fire. Social businesses make things happen, powered by affinities and the connective tissue of networked technology. And there’s no doubt that 2012 will be hallmarked to no small degree by the impact social business will have on it.

This raises some significant considerations for marketers. For social marketers that concentrate mostly on the ‘media’ part of social media, the ultimate aspiration and the holy grail of social, is to go viral. Social contagion’s the big win, the coup. The crucial key performance indicator is to make things shareable.

What social media like that thrives on however, and not entirely healthily, is often a shareability based on the open-mouthed factor of things that are either insane or incredible, spread out of disbelief, or momentary pleasure, and not much more.

Are we shattering an ecosystem we can all thrive in by doing so? As this mildly amusing article in 2002 accurately predicted, and Nick Carr’s book The Shallows has covered since, our attention spans are getting shorter.

We’ve slowly been turning into digital goldfish where everything competes with a ‘best ever’ or ‘awesome’ kind of hyperbole for share of mind, in the place of simply being interesting and sustainably relevant to a particular group of people with a shared interest, purpose or sense of communal identity that has longevity.

If the two chief gratification buttons in life are ‘fun’ and ‘meaning’ what’s relevant in this context is how, as Thomas Friedman and the historian Walter Russell Mead have both observed, after the 1990s revolution that collapsed the Soviet Union, the Russians had a saying that seems particularly apt today:

‘It’s easier to turn an aquarium into fish soup than to turn fish soup into an aquarium.’

Have a think about that for a moment. It’s the essential reason why some viral social media campaigns can actually be unhelpful to brands. The sticking plaster on a short and increasingly unpredictable sales cycle, social media campaigns that are designed to go viral can end up fostering audience relationships based only on instant and temporary engagement in a similar way.

In 2012, social media tactics unconnected to core social values can serve up content that at a deep level devalues rather reinforces the impact of a social brand and its sustainability. Social business brands need a purpose beyond profit or product and a core sense of the big picture.

The good news is here though. Beyond going viral, is going scalar.

To make a mark in 2012, the genius of making connections between two seemingly unconnected things is the kind of social media integration that can quite literally scale your business. Going scalar is pulling people into your business who are advocates beyond the act of sharing.

Scaling business through the harnessing of participation and deep insights that go beyond likes, +1’s and unique views can mean walls can become permeable membranes between a brand and its users, that business becomes designed around connections instead of divisions, that being ‘on brand’ can happen anywhere by anyone, and that talent can be brought into the business; that target audiences can be replaced by shared experiences that have lasting impact.

There’s no internal and external in the social organization, so the costs of managing another marketing channel (as social is so often seen as being) or of outsourcing your voice (as agencies so often encourage) become part of a leaner, more connected and more empowered constituency of committed users that can co-create the future fuel for business strategy with you.

It’s a sustainable strategy for how a brand’s or organisation’s social voice can get bigger, and have lasting impact. That’s why the two words embedded into Visceral Business are ‘is us’. We really believe in enabling the kind of social business that can create shared value, long term stakeholders and sustainable cultures.

If you want social business success in 2012 going viral’s not necessarily a bad aspiration, but going scalar’s possibly going to be a better one.

So the question is your business sufficiently adapted and suited to scalar, or will it rely on the flash in pan of short-term virality? Can deep authentic connections help you make your mark in 2012? It’s a genius opportunity.

Falling in love with the back of the product


Few people in the modern industrialised world haven’t got something to thank Steve Jobs for. Some of his legacy’s very obvious, some it goes much further than the products themselves and is less so – cultural narratives of empowerment we’re only beginning to fully appreciate in reflection.

Absence is, sadly, often a way to view true value.

The ‘blow the top off my head off’ moment for me, and my first encounter with Steve Jobs’ genius, came in 1984. As a 23 year old account manager, I was given the job of producing the first advertising that Apple ever did in the UK.

It was nothing as glamorous as the famous Ridley Scott ads shaking up the States at the time. The budgets they had over there were way beyond what we had. Apple was still a relatively fledgling company and we were a new market, but we did get to do some classy and arresting black and white advertising in the quality press, perfect for the slightly unconventional architects, creative agencies and other firms that Apple were pitching to at the time.

What was really great about the gig though was the free prize that came with it, an Apple MkII that cost £5,000 installed in my office. £5,000! That alone made it a bit special. But when I got to move that mouse and wiggle a MacPaint digital spray can around a screen that it did it for me. Nothing like it had ever existed. It was a wow moment, a creative wonder that went way beyond working, and I was sold.

I think I can honestly say I can put my entire love affair with geekery down to that moment, just in the same way a stroll down the Kings Road at the age of 11 made me fall in love with creative design. Those moments are visceral, they go deep down and they stay with you.

A whole plethora of stories of Steve’s insight, vision, daring, focus and social impact have been unbundled as he steps down as CEO, and the reputation of the man, how it’s translated into serious dollars and cents in a way that has briefly made Apple this week the world’s largest company, is worth thinking about. Because Apple, despite everything about it that has been about product design, has also been about the quality of its people.

Brands like Apple are personality-led. Their culture, values and ways of doing things, built from and inspired by passion, have set it apart. And what stood out in the tributes for me is Robert Scoble’s take on something very important, nothing to do with the shiny sleek surface design that Apple’s renowned for.

What Robert Scoble’s said about what was special about Steve Jobs was this: Steve’s the ‘only one guy in the industry [that] has ever told me to look at the back of a product to understand its beauty’.

It’s worth considering that back in the day when Apple was spawned, user-friendly was a term that didn’t exist before then. Quite simply, no-one had ever thought of things that way.

Now, user-friendliness has become a holistic user experience. As organisations and all their touchpoints become more social, we can all learn a great deal from that little piece of Steve’s wisdom.

The look and feel of a product, the way Apple approached it, was ground breaking, it still is. Product focus is still important, but needs service and making meaning attached to it, now, to matter.

Today, the ‘back of the product’ is its people.

What makes Apple distinctive is the legions of fanboys and girls, people happy to be defined in no small measure by that ethos and what it’s led to for them.

Social organisations are all about this. Falling in love with the back of the product and understanding its beauty in the social organisation is about bringing out the people who are a part of it, making connections that go way beyond technical.

We can take people out of the boxes they live in within organisations and make more of them, relishing the inventiveness and creativity they have inherently. We can produce things of wonder as connected networks, like Steve Jobs did. The intellectual understanding and emotional commitment is there, often disaffected and unused; as with a technology reinvented and reimagined, with guidance, vision and social leadership, it can transform, in just the same way he did it.

Business didn’t used to be personal. Now it is. 

Steve Jobs’ focus can live on in a new way.

The Social Media Supermarket

 

It’s not what you’re thinking. This is about what lies beyond the many tracking, posting, collaborating and measuring apps there are out there, all of which are a veritable supermarket in their own right.

As any supermarketer will tell you, there’s a big shift involved in helping a consumer in from the point they see the banners outside the store – the media – to how they actually navigate through it and the nature of the user experience – the modeling. The point is that social brand architecture, or the lack of it, can make or break a social brand.

In the early to mid 1990’s a lot of my time was spent advising retailers. We used fundamental sets of assumptions that were in service to, and all about, how customers shopped a store. Many of them are still used today.

Navigating one’s way through a large supermarket is one of modern life’s complex organizational events. Navigating the web’s and virtual organisation’s a step on from that again, which is why services like Google helping by pushing stuff to us.

A socially branded organisation is somewhere between the two. It has a multitude of elements – social objects – and a complex range of activities going on inside it, similar to the number of lines a supermarket may carry on its shelves.

It has a wide choice of elements that consumer and participants can pick up and engage with. It’s accessible via the web, but is still one with a threshold, a sense of inside and outside in terms of belonging that makes it a virtual environment; a brand is by definition an identifiable space.

If you’re a maker of a social brand or business, or a consumer of and participant in one, the degree to which that social organisation can be thought of as your ‘local convenience store’ in terms of familiarity and loyalty, depends on how well the user experience delivers an interesting and sensible shopping experience that makes it something that’s easy to go back to.

In the same way as those retail principles did out of physical spaces two decades ago, there’s a big need to make sense of the digital cultures of brands today, because the curation and cultural meaning of social brands is crucial if people are going to come along and browse, select activities to participate in and commit to involving themselves in your brand, what we quite quaintly call ‘social engagement.’

There’s the things like the merchandising of your hashtags, how are you doing that?

There’s the clustering of social and digital events. How do people get a snapshot of all of it very quickly? It asks for a framework for social category management.

There’s the livery of your social brand architecture. Just as there are semiotics – colours, images, words – associated with fresh food, the pharmacy, the deli, the meat, fish and diary sections of a supermarket, things that create distinctive associations and triggers of understanding, so there are social semiotics. There are the ways people sense-make online around different parts of the social organization as well as unique and distinctive cultural attributes you can call your own, the social differentiators and protocols, visual and verbal languages and points of focus, that need to be easily known.

Many companies are using social media for rapid fire business as usual in the same way as supermarkets are geared to everyday transactional exchanges. The social media supermarket today is a trolley-filling of Likes and +1’s and Share buttons and clickthroughs. But these items are not where the value is for consumers. The cultural value of store environment, the ranging, matters just as much, the social ambience and the ease of shopping.

No social consumer’s going to go out and put 10 Likes and 5 +1′s’ on the shopping list of their social activity today. That’s why brands must become ‘go-to’ destinations to be truly socially potent.

Consumers shop the stores they like because they know where the categories are and because they’re easy to navigate. It’s not just about what social media can do to get people ‘into’ the social organization, it’s what you’re going to do with them once they’re in there that matters. The modelling of your social environment makes sense of the media and the platforms that support it.

What we see is that many organizations are currently frantically trying to put social media on their shelves while ignoring the basic layout of their social environment, but without a social brand framework at an operational level it’s an approach that can only lead to a shallow depth of engagement and restrict the size of user buy-in.

Beyond the frenzy of tooling up to be social, social brands and organizations have the challenge of creating special ambiences, experiences and making sense of what’s on their shelf.

They should be considering the question  of how they’re going to create a compelling user experience, because when there’s a high volume of goods and competing calls for their attention on offer, what really matters is the means to navigate through it in a way that’s capable of continually connecting with a consumer’s desire to shop.

 

 

Being a Visceral Business and your Brand’s Eu IQ

There are a lot of people trying to put their finger on the special sauce that makes a social brand succeed, to seek and find the Holy Grail as far as where all this wired up connectivity is headed.

We think in a nutshell it come down your brand’s EU IQ. A brand’s or organisations EU IQ is a combination of Enjoyment and Usefulness. It’s how well the brand’s proposition offers this and how well it connects, communicates and stimulates conversation around it.

The big win in raising any brand’s profile is to amplify the sense of purpose, mission and cause it has, and that’s a strange muscle for many brands to flex because logos have mostly been badging devices and the ticket of entry to transactions.

Social brands ask for involvement and the fostering of relationships, where the intangible value of gathering around a cause to support a cause, to solve a problem and to pursue a goal has a big part to play.

And then there’s the enjoyable part. It’s got to be fun right? Social brands can work out how they enrich and add something to the quality of people’s lives through sheer interest and enjoyment, especially when brand moments are throwaway conveniences and utilities that you’re using but it isn’t going to change the world. Unless you want to compete on price and convenience, a brand’s Eu IQ is a core differentiator.

We’ve spent a great deal of time looking at where the business drivers in today’s markets are headed and think it’s time for new models of organisation to push the boat out beyond what Sara Roberts calls Qwerty thinking. As I said in my TEDx talk last year, there’s progress to be made by moving away from a mechanical approach to a biological one and reframing organisational transformation so that it promotes the organic strengths and capabilities within the brand and its essence.

The acid test, we think, consists of 5 markers for successful social organisations.

1. They’re Networked, incorporating network principles into their behaviour and operating via a
 distributed model, either in terms of how they’re structured and/or how they reward people.

2. They’re Seamless. Community blurs the lines between the inside and the outside of the organisation 
and collaborative, two-way dialogue’s built into all interaction.

3. They’re Open. The business model demonstrates transparency and user-centric perspectives.

4. They’re Compelling and the brand is congruent and credible. It has social and commercial
 value, comprised of people, rituals, symbols, values and behaviours that create competitive edge
 beyond the logo, that are the platform for a sustainable business.

5. They’re Beyond Profit. Their operating framework’s neither ‘for profit’ or ‘not for profit’, it’s ‘beyond
 profit’, satisfying a triple win for the business, the quality of life of its people and for the planet. They recognise social currency includes time, money, love and attention as part of the mix.

The blend of this may vary, depending on the business and the type of business its in, but as conventional business models find it harder to sustain business margins and deliver returns in value, hitting the mark on these is becoming a good bet for investment, participation and buy-in.

What do you think is the special sauce of social brands? Could it be the visceral connective tissue of people coming together around brands they understand and believe in? I’d love to hear your point of view.

Social brand curation: How are you doing yours?

Brands are moving on from being labels and concepts, packaged and sold to others.


Social brands are collaborative exercises, created from user-centric approaches to business planning embedded into the core of the organisation.

Social business applies emerging technologies and organizational, cultural, and process changes to improve business performance, and in an increasingly connected global economic environment this means collaborative workings that flex together, creating synaptic action potential, right through to the fingertips of customer service.

Social brands are collective experiences too, to some degree or another, where everyone’s memories matter, the sum total of the moments that shape them, that make an impact.

What matters isn’t just how many click throughs or likes a brand gets; a social brand has traction because events happen in which people learn something about themselves, they’re iterative in nature and value is co-created. Gamification is a hot flavour at the moment because these moments that tingle are being recognized as part of the collective experiential value of a brand.

It’s also why data aggregation tools like Intel’s Museum of Me are fascinating. They help us see things in a new way.

As human beings, we’ve an innate need to see ourselves reflected in order to know who we are. This is a fundamental part of how me make sense and meaning, a strand of social anthropology that’s been going on since ancient man first picked up a shiny stone or looked upon its image in water.

As organizations coming together socially, the ‘collective we’ in the social brand has the same urge in it.

For individuals drowning in information, brands can create significant value by curating their stories, the purpose beyond the profit, the place where collaborative management makes sense in exciting and visceral ways.

All brands and organizations have a story in their soul and a whole set of stories within their collective culture. As has been mentioned before in this blog, there’s an opportunity for these stories to be told in highly compelling ways by brands, ways that help them to become distinctively social. Point of differentiation 2.0, if you like.

This Guardian timeline of modern music’s a really good example of the opportunities available in social brand curation and part of the excellent work in data journalism the Guardian data team are doing.

With data dashboard and performance management front and center as part of a brand story, think what your organisation’s next annual report could be like. There are immense opportunities for adding value through social brand curation.

What could your social brand be like if it was based on a wiki of collective experiences that you gather, as a movement? Thta’s the kind of brand people want to be part of, either as a fan, employee or an investor.

Social brand curation’s a good way of creating a contribution economy, where there are levels of sustainable participation built into the brand. It can help deliver the kind of brand experience that can boost value and differentiation around what brands do.

We think how brands tell their stories is going to be a cornerstone of future operational success. Good social brand curation creates compelling and credible stories based on the logic of the data and the magic of the people. What’s your approach to social brand curation?

What’s your social worth?

Warning: Stocks may go up instead of down

 

 

Picture credit from New Think Inc

Beyond the vanity search on Google and the thrill of the Klout score, a new sense of social worth is emerging, significant and long lasting.

And despite the litigious dramas being played out at the moment on Twitter and elsewhere, it’s becoming more possible for social brands to be in naturally in command of their reputation more than ever before.

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, is the head of a very hierarchical sense of the law and he’s dealing with a networked jungle. The Lord Judge says social technology’s out of control and it is, by its very definition.

The social web is out of control because what matters in the social mindset is not what a Fleet St proprietor thinks but what a friend does. This is frightening to many still wedded to industrial-style marketing management and that’s the mindset that will keep brands back.

The golden ticket to this nirvana of social brand goodness comes through developing a slightly adjusted sense of worth. The currencies of social worth are not the same now as they’ve always been. What we’re seeing now is a convergence of mobility, technology and value that radically affects the genome of reputational systems fundamentally, of brands as organisations and of brands as people.

To riff badly on a John Lennon line for a moment, happiness today is no longer a warm gun, it’s a warm digital footprint. The social internet involves thinking about how your brand is creating network effects in the long term.

So getting a quick thrill about a Peer Index ranking is one thing, but if you aren’t maxing out the opportunities for your brand that this intersection of mobility, technology and value provides, then it’s arguable whether you’re doing much good at all.

Celebrity today is not a steady state. Attention is moving too fast and too far for that and influence is being increasingly grown out of inter-action. That makes it inherently more fleeting and strategies have to therefore become more self-sustaining.

In parallel to this, with mobile money coming on-stream and the creation of Empire Avenue, the last few weeks have ushered the birth of micro-credit.

This kind of social technology allows people to contribute in many possible forms. It allows for a ‘contribution economy’ to become possible, one with several components to it.

If you ‘follow’ me you’re giving me attention (thank you). Attention is a commercial currency and part of the contribution economy.

If you ‘Like’ me, you’re spreading a good word about me. That like raises my stock and is precious.

If I give you a hat-tip and credit you for doing, saying or producing something valuable, I‘m strengthening our connectivity and networks by doing so.

If you donate money to me by buying my stuff or supporting my cause, or if I pay you for your time, another investment has been made. The one we’re most familiar with, the money economy. The master/slave economy.

The social web is not based on master/slave relationships, it’s based on target moments, not target audiences.

So if, as an employer, that contract ends for some reason? Well, it’s more in my interest than ever that I maintain some kind of social contract with you; after all, we’re connected on LinkedIn.

As a consumer, I might not need you today, but if you create target moments and I like them I might just hook back in again with you sometime in the future.

All these kinds of relationships become valuable. This is the power of weak ties.  Weak ties allow for the possibility of many different kinds of social economic contribution to be made, contributions that can support your reputation far better than pure monetary gain, plus they can indemnify you to be able to deliver again and again over time.

Child’s i Foundation, the netroots charity run by Lucy Buck that I am a trustee of, has been grown on recognizing social worth of others and everyone’s contribution.

That combination of giving time, money and love is one that’s very important to us, and something we really focus on recognising. Just recently, our first babies home, Malaika babies home, had its first birthday. The value that went into creating this milestone is enormous and wonderful to see.

It means a great deal to us that David Tait, our chairman, is walking up Everest and is such a big part of what we’re doing at a personal level instead of just running a meeting.

We accept and depend on donations, but Child’s i shows it’s cool to be involved via love, and time and attention as well. That what makes everyone involved in Child’s i matter to one another and propels us.

Network law and these emerging senses of social worth mean that weak ties tell us more about our investment opportunities and whether what I’m doing has value or not. My Empire Avenue metrics tell me in what ways I’m contributing and creating value.

That’s a significant step towards looking at the reputation of brands in a whole new way.

One day, employers will look at it this way. They’ll look at how much money than can saved by not having disconnected players, how much brand traction can be created by finding the people that care about what they do and by bringing them deep inside the business, and in recognizing much the people dimension does affect their stock in trade.

This is an operating environment that some may consider to be a lawless networked wilderness that must be controlled and contained. The reality is that it’s an evolutionary environment in which free will, choice and relationships are increasingly augmenting utilitarian marketing and transactions where everyone creates the brand. I don’t think it’s a co-incidence that the investment darling of the social network world this week has turned out to be LinkedIn, the network for professionals that contains the biggest asset base in the world for personal worth. Scammed for profit or not, what people ultimately won’t budge on is their own sense of self-certified integrity as vouched for by others.

The social web is out of control. The law that’s emerging is a networked one. Because what matters are what friends think, your weak ties, the way your reputation is something crafted online. The question is, what are you going to do about it?

 

 

Dialogue is authenticity

The best ideas come out in conversation.

Have you experienced how ideas often tumble out when talking with someone, or in the shower, or even talking to the voice in your head?

It happens a lot, collectively and individually.

It’s only when we engage iteratively in that way that ideas get honed and polished, stimulated by the prism of different perspectives.

What happens is that in dialogue, we engage more than our brains. The interaction sets off our sympathetic nervous system, the power ingredient that creates a better solution.

Listening to an excellent talk by Tim Wu at the Royal Society of Arts yesterday on the Rise and Fall of Information Empires made me think about this too.

Tim highlighted an obvious but at the same time profound insight. It’s the acid test you can use to see whether an organization or person is generating new value or protecting expiring value. It’s done by watching whether a company is devoting its energy and focusing its behaviours on innovation or defence.

An innovation mindset will spread to others, as the sympathetic nervous system reacts towards it; a culture of defence will spread fear and propulsion away from that mindset. This is a basic survival instinct.

Collaborative dialogue however, one in which both parties adapt a little, will create solutions. That is why and how organisations benefit by adopting the behaviour of leaning into situations and becoming lean and agile in terms of working across silos. As with contracting pairs of muscles, in partnership with others they’ll also generate power.

I’m bearing all this in mind when it comes to reacting to the news today in the Guardian that ‘the US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media using fake online personas designed to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.’

It goes on to say, ‘the contract stipulates each persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 controllers must be able to operate false identities from their workstations “without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries’.

The article itself sparked a little conversation between Katie Smith and myself that led to this tweet -

Which led in another way, to this post – the observation that I want to share being that the grand shuffling of old protocols that disruptive technology’s creating is having quite a profound, but manageable, effect.

It’s having an effect across a number of management forms – across forms of government, upon business models, and upon marketing and communications. They all face having to accept a re-arrangement across traditional flows of power, and how to augment the duality of new power relationships into their businesses.

Even technology requires bio-feedback to work well, as the stricken Japanese are finding.

In all contexts, that feedback’s the single greatest reassurance one can have. Open data allows and enables this.

All this means that the value of win:win social contracts is ascending, whilst competitive power, based on I win:you lose management principles aren’t.

In communications and marketing terms, then, the implication is that dialogue’s never been more important to a successful operating model. We need to consider this and how to build dialogue into organizations through new processes.

It’s not enough to simply broadcast content using social media. Even if it’s done by as many people as possible within the organization who are ‘social communications’ literate, there has to be interaction and ongoing dialogue, as well as conversation which has the potential to be asynchronous.

Social media is about doing more ‘human business’ than has been done previously in the past. Increasingly, brand authenticity in this social media context is dialogue.

The kind of authenticity that breeds dialogue will be where relationships connect at a deeper level, that generate collaborative conversation, because the sympathetic nervous system will also be engaged at that point. Ultimately, this way of marketing and communicating will be more productive.

The challenge for organizations however isn’t small – all the triggers that reinforce the old ways of being have to be looked at as well as assumptions that can sit within a business model or marketing strategy.

This is one of the things we look at when going deeper into organizations to switch on dormant performance.

In real life and on-line, sock-puppets don’t do dialogue. A good volley of questions and answers and co-created conversation is where insight, ideas, value and satisfying user experiences are to be found.

Dialogue is authenticity. It’s also sustainability  – could this be something it’s now time to embed into an operating model and marketing strategy? What are your ideas on it?

 

The State of the Social Brand

Picture by the brilliant Paul Clarke for Headstream

Steve Sponder, Chris Buckley and the great team at Headstream have pulled together an index of Social Brands for the first time this year, the Social Brand 100.

They kindly invited me to be a part of the process and judging panel and discuss the findings to an invited audience on Friday and this post is a collection of reflections and observations from both the event and the report itself.

The Social Brands 100 was a crowd-sourced project in part, with nominations coming in from across the Twitterverse initially that were then assessed by the judging panel and researched by the Headstream team, with Brandwatch as monitoring partners.

It follows in the wake of some significant league tables, most notably Altimeter’s Engaged Brand Index and iCrossing’s Connected Brand Index. I think we’re still only taking the very first steps to where social brand assessment will ultimately lead and the opportunities for data curation and social performance are wide open given the scope for real-time reporting, destructured organization, storytelling and new parameters for value and business management.

As an addition to these resources and the latest statement on the state of the social brand, Headstream’s The Social Brands 100 Index makes for interesting reading for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it tends to suggest that for many social brands the emphasis is still primarily on social media rather than social business.

There are a few notable exceptions of course. Dell, the No 1 brand ranked on the list, took up the social brand mantle in earnest as a result of a public outage of poor customer service from Jeff Jarvis in a tweet in 2007. That moment created a successful turnaround of its business and of brand perceptions, the kind of turnaround Dell would have had to have previously spent a huge amount of advertising to buy, but that word of mouth has fueled instead.

Dell is a good example of social media success and deserves to be at No 1, because without network effects and a deep-level business reappraisal, Dell’s social brand reputation would not have been possible.

Giffgaff, the brand that CNET’s been quoted in the report as describing as ‘O2’s bonkers-barmy crowd-sourced network’, comes in at No4 because it’s reinventing the way a social business can run itself. Starbucks is worth another mention for the way it has been embedding incoming conversation and co-creation into its business model.

Having said that, the vast majority of brands on the list cannot yet be described as businesses that have integrated user partnerships into the way they structure and appraise how business performance is being developed.

Social media is still skin deep for many, and the big tussle at the moment is whether social media will be subsumed into the way things have always been done, (one panelist describes it as ‘just another channel’, for example) or will it be a pivot for the emergence of social business models that offer thicker value in the longer term?

So here’s a question or two: What’s the appropriate blend of transactions and relationships when it comes to doing business in the 21st Century, and how does that vary sector by sector?

One of the key audience moments of the launch event was when during the Q&A Virtuous Bread met MuddyBoots during a conversation exchange. It was a real-time demo of how people as brands are enjoying connecting with one another. So it’s worth considering to what extent is that kind of affinity going to create a world-wide mesh of collaborative business interests in the future and will automated non-friendly transactions still be done by people? Ted Hunt wisely raised the issue of ‘socialwash’ about how deep many brands will allow the impact of social media to be.

The next line of enquiry is how only one charity was mentioned in the Index, the brilliant netroots charity Child’s i Foundation of which I have to disclose I am a Trustee (shameless plug – if you aren’t aware of what we’re doing, please check us out.)

How could this be, that only one charity is nominated, when such a core part of a not-for-profit is its volunteering base? It’s puzzling that this is an entire sector dependant on social and philanthropic participation, yet none of the major charity brands seemed to be recognized as socially engaged ones. One possible explanation is that charity brands have to work that much harder at being recognized for raising the quality of engagement and performance using social media. In a way, there’s a similarity to the Big Society argument, the people involved have always participated. Perhaps this is something for not-for-profits to bear in mind, and public sector organizations; when it comes to being seen to be engaging with people, they themselves have to be the change.

Retail, FMCG and consumer product brands on the other hand (which between them made up 54% of the overall index) are more noticeable for stretching beyond their conventional, transactional ways of inter-acting when they become more social. The move away from broadcast is more palpable. This may be only a temporary state of affairs though, as notions of value shift beyond consumption and, economically speaking, this is highly likely. With no health or pharmaceutical brands in the Index at all, it certainly appears that social definitions of well-being may be changing.

What’s heartening about the Index is that, firstly, it shows that established brands with brand equity and a heritage built up over the years can sit equally well and side by side with young, digital and quintessentially ‘unstructured’ brands like giff gaff and Child’s I and be social brands. The objective for all brands then is how to make the transition as effectively and elegantly with as minimum an amount of operational disruption and as much reputational value as possible.

The second element of the Report worth highlighting is that inclusion within Headstream’s definition of a social brand is that a social brand has a ‘moral centre to its purpose’. By including a crowdsourced element within the nominations, this Index has looked at brands from the user’s perspective as well as from the brand’s point of view. For them, it’s not all about the money even though, when it comes to adopting social media, the CEO might like it to be. So this is an Index that illustrates how social brands require a set of operating objectives they can defend with ‘blatant integrity’ able to handle interest in them from all quarters in order to develop the kind of quality of engagement that makes them stand out for being social.

Of course this touches on the visceral issues of social brand fitness and the critical point of friction in social brand management, the one that every social brand must now incorporate: To what extent will social media start to shape the creation of strategic business opportunities and how social brands develop their business models?

Developing business from this perspective is going to be key in helping social media managers go beyond the channel management of social media into areas of organizational development in a way that brings enhanced value into each and every brand in this Index, and beyond.

How distinctive are your social markings?

Who are we? We’re the sum total of things that make an impressions on our lives.

Our natures don’t exist in a vacuum. Collectively and individually, we’re the things that make us – those formative experiences, the times of achievement and transcended challenges when new levels of experience were reached or we had memorable moments with others we can recall years later.

On a personal level, there’s huge value in the memories and the objects that remind us of these moments.

And on a corporate level too, it’s really no different.

For any organisation thinking about how to become more social, the key is becoming more collaborative. And for any organization thinking about their brand, an important question now is to what extent, and how, does its social identify reflect this?

Brand identities, as signifiers, are a combination of identification and communication. They’re the necessary redux needed to get a sense of something in one easy sitting.

The easy fix then would be to include people more obviously, much in the same way as brands added the word ‘Direct’ after their logos when online presences first appeared. That’s a crude and potentially short-sighted articulation of what being a social brand can be.

In the age of the factory, all one had to do was hang a sign over the door and people would come marching through it, ready to produce and consume, because there were few other choices on offer.

Things have changed, and brands have multiplied. Over time, competitive pressure has demanded that brands have embarked on a journey to develop an individual look and feel; to be more recognizable, distinctive and preferred.

Today it doesn’t matter where you’re a large corporate or a company of one, if you are actively social then it follows that you have a digital footprint, and it follows then that footprint should have some clear markings that create a trail, that leave a clue as to who you are as a distinctive species of value.

At Davos, Goldman Sachs was cited by Edelman as a company that aces social media. Goldman Sachs doesn’t have a great social reputation. It aces social media but it isn’t a social organization.

If you’re a valuable social brand, people will want to follow and participate in what you do, and you’ll let them. So if the biggest social compliment anyone can pay is they seek to include others, how is that being reflected in the unifying thought of your organization and your social identity?

As part of the possible answer to that question, thanks go to Johnnie Moore and Euan for pointing this out recently:

We are conditioned by what we eat, by the economic pressures, by the culture and society in which we live. We are that culture, we are that society.’

Our online social environment is often regarded as primarily a technical and digital phenomenon, but if you dig a little deeper what you’ll realize we connect with in social communities in actual fact are our authentic selves and each other’s native spirit.

Picture by Liddy Napanangka Walker ‘Wakirlpirri Jukurrpa’ (Dogwood Tree Dreaming).

It’s time to bring these to life as part of your social brand’s assets.

Data visualization and story telling are both very powerful ways to articulate social identity, and we should be looking at data visualizations that take data closer to art.

Novo Nordisk has done a great job of telling it’s story online in its integrated Annual Report, but it’s a shame that the great content isn’t brought to life with animated datasets, a visual story, interactivity and rich media that can be an essential part of communicating the social dynamic of a brand.

For food and FMCG brands, the opportunity is to tell useful data stories about food provenance and product journeys as part of being a sustainable brand.

Unfortunately the nature of datasets today is one where the ability to customize information so that it’s part of an organisation’s collective graphical, verbal and behavioural identity is missing. Tools are largely proprietary. This is something we’re seeking to address. The telling of the Microsoft journey below is a good step in the right direction, as are these about Foursquare and Old Spice.

Social brands communicate best when they have clear and recognizable cultural watermarks.

Picture by Quasimondo

They need their art to be seen as well as their output to be engaging. As data journalism comes more adopted, this is a big opportunity for future forward developers.

The challenge is on now to see who will tell the best stories for social organizations by blending data with visual art.

This opportunity to tell visceral stories is the way to develop more effective brand communication and social organization involvement, and if you have come across some powerful data visualizations about brands, please share them with us and we’ll add them to our Tumblr blog of them here.

As Steve Moore has described it, convening, curating and narrating the progress of the collectively smart social organization, and telling stories about ‘the net worth within the network’, and doing it your way, isn’t this all a part of who you are, if you are a social organization?

We’re looking for developers who can collaborate with us on developing powerful data stories for brands. We think that’s one way we can help the artistry of how social organizations develop. If you’re interested in being a part of it, we’d love to hear from you.

Tuhoe Isaac by Ashley Daws. The face of an individual and his identity, honest, unique, full of integrity.