Archive for the ‘Dot.life’ Category

Tethering ourselves to the web

What are the next steps for social interaction, and what happens after the conversation’s been going on awhile? Do we stop pouring forth linkage and retweets, what Seth Godin calls, random pokes, and go out and make something?

What how does the social factory make value?

When thinking about where we are in social business at the moment, what comes to mind is the image of the child still on walking reins, trying to be let loose in a playground. Children who are held onto for safety by their parents.

We’re still in the infancy of the social revolution, but the dawning sense is one of spectacular change on the horizon – a new renaissance of the self.

Depending on the quality of our leadership it’s a change that can be an emergence or an emergency, as some people call it. We are at a crossroads.

It’s a change that for many means they are unanchored, like life is for the 250 million people, and counting, who are unemployed across Europe with the means to feed their futures.

Social business is us. As Danah Boyd has written, social business is what we will make it.

Right now in the evolutionary chain of our connected development, we’re all plankton, on our way to creating spectacular new life forms.

This TED talk is a six-minute metaphor of what we are capable of and a film that recognizes traits we’re all capable of, including the species that eat their kin.

The biological nature of social organization in business is based on the idea that affinity is stronger than structure.

When affinity is stronger than structure, social molecules collide and they find each other using social media. Instead of the ‘eat or be eaten’ karma of the primordial soup, enlightened and connected society can support and nurture one another as a healing and generative mesh in action. We have the means to create useful action out of shared interests. We can define the types of interaction and cultural collaboration that add and generate value. Using social technology and social crm we can create a contribution economy out of a return on involvement.

So the question becomes, how can we create sustainable, collaborative culture and move towards enlightened evolution this time around?

Well, it might have something to do with tethering.

Consider the hashtag as a digital maypole around which people converse, share ideas, and commune generally. The hashtag is an example of tethering.

In a social organization, contractual ties are looser, sufficiently loose to allow the kind of personal expression that supplements corporate reputation and personal reputation. That’s especially appropriate perhaps, given that the fixed contract relationship is increasingly being seen as an unnecessary overhead and people who are out of work want ways to contribute and prove their worth. That’s another kind of tethering.

These days most of the best people would not like to be employed, but they may choose to be tethered to a good organization and be part of it that way.

People with social leadership skills, the linchpins, are able to consider now who they tether themselves to, which raises the talent bar, saves costs and builds a better culture. When good people associate themselves with an organisation, it enables them to up their game.

Social organisations can help develop this sense of tethering, and platforms like Kaggle show how it can be done.

And finally, it’s worth that in the digital age, we all want to connect and release what we’re capable of as generative value which can be the better for society, as a new kind of cultural interaction, one where people choose what they associate to, because the web enables that.

For all organisations going social, consider the nature of the contract that underpins it. Tethering can be a good source of generative value because it works two ways, symbiotically, as we stretch our legs into a new social chapter of interaction.

 

 

Working it through

It’s just a perception, but I sense an important threshold’s been crossed over the course of the last few weeks.

‘We’re working it through’, was how Danny Alexander described what was happening in the days immediately after the General Election in the UK a month ago, after the electorate handed back the most exquisitely hung Parliament to politicians for more than a generation.

‘We’re working it through’, is how Mark Zuckerberg might put having to deal with consumer mutiny over privacy control plus an increasingly deep questioning by some Facebook users about what the DNA of Facebook and the core values of ‘being Zucked’ are all about.

‘We’re working it through’, also describes the grim reality as B.P. struggles to find an authentic response to a global sense of condemnation, cynicism and disbelief that’s attaching itself to the B.P. brand as surely as the oil slicks are landing on the beaches of Louisiana.

These three situations all have something in common. They all ask for organizational adaptability at a deep level. They challenge what all the parties involved stand for and represent.

What’s interesting about the phrase, we’re ‘working it through’ is that it’s an iterative, hands-on approach to problem solving. It involves contradictory pairs of muscles and often the engagement of opposites to achieve progress.

In the case of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats who have formed the Coalition Government, ‘working it through’ led to harnessing a collective imagination and a bigger ambition than either was capable of alone. It led to ‘new politics’, a clear and confidently articulated manifesto, a shared cabinet creating credibility for the platform of an inclusive ‘big society’.

It didn’t take much to turn the dial on the mood music about the election. In a few days it shifted from mainly doom mongering conversations of conflict, woe, indecision and a re-election within the year, to ‘lawn love’ and a decidedly pacified and somewhat surprisingly positive reaction from the electorate.

It was the body language that did it, a change in behaviour, the emotional maturity to go from combatants to colleagues in pursuit of a collective national interest.

There’s a creative truth that comes to my mind in this context which is, ‘if an idea’s not working then it’s time to get a bigger one’. I think both David Cameron and Nick Clegg became receptive to that as a result of that impasse; our politicians have become more consensual and to some degree at least, have adapted. For the time being, it’s paid off and the voters have been largely assuaged by their creativity.

The difference for Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg is the opposition to what’s being pitched on user privacy’s led to the biggest backlash a social media platform’s ever experienced. This is new territory. It raises questions about what happens when you represent the digital footprints of more than 500 million people and how much licence any provider has to act unilaterally in a connected age.

The response has been that there are privacy protection groups within Facebook promoting user control over privacy settings to fill this vacuum of management. In doing so, they’re acting like the cleaner fish of the network, helping Facebook stem the attrition of disgruntled users, in many cases persuading them to stay within the network better than Facebook’s capable of doing by itself.

It makes good business sense for Facebook to embrace these efforts and to knead them into their overall operating recipe. It’s an example of how the seeds of corporate strength and survival are often to be found within the opposable forces of a networked organization, in the same way as recombinant genes are said to be part at the core of our own DNA and our sustainability as a species.

The question in this is how many organizations recognise this and are equipped with the capability to be this adaptive?

As B.P. embarks on one of the largest shoring up exercises in corporate reputation we’ve seen in years, spending $50million on a slick damage limitation communications campaign, are they capable of being hands-on and credible enough to connect with the gritty realities and the issues, from a position of blatant integrity, to restore the trust that once existed in its brand?

Blatant integrity is present when people and organizations are comfortable with being held up to scrutiny and we’re big on ‘blatant integrity’ at Visceral Business. Organizations that can manage this welcome attention as a compliment knowing it’s a commercial currency, and welcome the opportunity to cushion and objections because they’re more interested in creating a moment of truth than making an expedient sale. Knowing that one leads to another in a skittish, no-mercy, click happy culture, they see the value in relationships over transactions.

Increasingly, corporate success is a co-owned and co-created experience. Increasingly, this is an experiential economy in which control has to be surrendered in the interests of benefitting from a multiplicity of voices, the voices that are at the heart of what’s known as swarm smarts, and of working that through.

B.P. illustrates how interested parties that give a brand attention have a range of perspectives that need to be incorporated into the strategy of the adaptive organization at speed. B.P. has often appeared in denial about this, which Tony Hayward’s ‘I want my life back’ comment only served to amplify. The quicker a business environment develops, the bigger the risk any kind of blind spot is, and the agility with which an organization can react is a severe test of how well a brand is truly aligned with its stakeholders.

For an engaged brand, challenges will come thick and fast because that’s a facet of iterative learning, and working through the unknown is ever-present characteristic of doing business that often requires a degree of faith and goodwill to succeed.

The big imperative for all organizations now is to know how to operate iteratively like this. In Rework, 37 Signals, an organization I greatly admire, suggest that these days a business plan stays relevant for about 15 minutes. This is an inherent characteristic of a lean organization and an important shift that all brands and businesses should now consider.

The UK Election, Facebook’s privacy saga and the social and environmental accountability of B.P. are all examples that illustrate formative organizational experiences. They represent a shift that goes beyond social media. What we are entering now is a new chapter in how we organize, a shift that goes beyond a social revolution to a semantic one.

The semantic web has arrived and the semantic revolution’s about collective smarts. It’s about how, when it comes to solving management problems, we’re going to need to feel comfortable ‘working it through’ and to be able to lead and inspire confidence from that position.

Smart organizations will evolve by creating adaptive fits with their stakeholders at a deeply engaged level.

Semantic value is going to be our daily bread of the future. Semantic value, as we’re beginning to see, depends on the ability for diverse forces to work together. Semantic organizations will have the kind of adaptable, recombinant genes, the big ideas, heightened ambitions and the new horizons that our survival as a species has always depended on.

‘Working it through’ is a means of communication and engagement that’s becoming a critical success factor. Which is one reason why organizations and brands need to know how to engage at that visceral level if they want to succeed in the semantic age, not be defeated by it.

Thanks to Erica Marshall for the photo.

Twitter lists and identity

The idea that our brands are the sum total of the perceptions of others who experience us has never been more relevant. Twitter lists are a significant step towards the social integration of our identities into the wider ecosystem.

If you really want to know what marketing in 2010 might be about, this is a pretty good place to look.

And thanks to everyone who’s put me on their list.

My Twitter Listed Pic cropped

What is leadership?

Yesterday FutureGov held an event in London and I gave a talk in which I asked whether in public services and social business we can raise the game of social involvement. (big thanks are due to the excellent Dominic Campbell at FutureGov for the invitation.)

At the end there were a couple of questions about leadership. A much-bandied word, maybe it’s time again to look at what it means.

Since the formative experiences of Seth Godin’s triiibes.com community began over a year ago I’ve come to agree with Seth that the ingredient that’s being easily missed in social communities, and the one that’s maybe being ducked in connection with the idea of social business, is how we develop concepts of leadership.
(more…)

What species development can teach social business design

From the Australian National Botanic Gardens website:

‘The Bottlebrush is a plant native to Australia and is found all over Australia, from its tropical north to its temperate south.

The flower spikes of bottlebrushes form in the spring and in summer and are made up of hundreds of individual flowers. The flowers can be spectacular and they are irresistible to nectar-feeding birds and insects.

Most species are frost tolerant. Many species can tolerate or thrive in damp conditions. They grow well in a wide variety of soils, except those that are highly alkaline. Plants grown in full sun produce the best flowers.’

The Bottlebrush is one of a kind, one of the things that makes ‘down under’ a place unlike any other. Culture is often all about coherent differences. Species of distinction are the things that make a place, a person, an organization, an experience, unique and irreplaceable.

Species differentiation is at the heart of the health and wealth we enjoy by having a diversity of life. There’s a similar value in encouraging species differentiation in terms of social business.

Social business design may very well spell the end of the ‘me-too’ brand.

(more…)

Re-tuning the returns

Reputation Statement of Accounts

In the last week Social Business Design has been firmly put on the map and legitimized. Social Business Design emerges as a commercial sector in its own right as a couple of key practices reach critical mass, the highly respected Altimeter Group and Headshift/Dachis Group, with a merger announced yesterday between two of the space’s most talented consultancy teams.

Stepping up like this, they represent a venerable array of talent and a commercial sector that’s ‘go’ for launch.

Social business design sits at the intersection of organizational development and marketing, and can loosely be described as the practice of developing communities of engagement to generate ideas, activities and outputs for commercial and social benefit.

As organizations adopt the principles of social business design, intangible, soft assets like brand value, purpose, human resources, processes and capabilities come to the fore. Social business design is about engendering involvement and it’s inbound.

Slightly differently, marketing services and ‘broadcast’ media operate on the basis the message and transaction are the means to the end. Marketing services communicate primarily outbound.

It’s interesting to compare the two in the light of the IPA effectiveness awards season that’s currently underway. Geoff Russell of the IPA has written about the dangers of ‘hammering costs from suppliers whose “product” is intellectually and creatively based’.

That the marketing communications industry is currently shoring itself up against the imperative of working smarter and reducing costs whilst it’s looking at the next best thing in performance effectiveness is interesting. And in the context of social business design, how effective that can be, on a long term sustainable basis, is coming under the hammer.

What makes social business design a ‘must-have’, is that digital technology is ushering totally new states of commercial play. Social business design that involves taking into account trust networks, relationships and behaviours as much as it does tools, channels and transactions, has implications for traditional marketing and media management, which tends to operate much more at arm’s length. How will ‘broadcast’ and outbound marketing effectiveness compare against social business design effectiveness when, in social business design, performance effectiveness has built-in conduits?

Social business design dynamics are that affinity is stronger than structure, the net worth is in the network and the power and potential of network communications increasingly makes much marketing communications activity a tax paid for being unremarkable.

In both social business design and traditional marketing communications, being worthy of attention is the point of power. But if attention and ideas are emerging as commercial currencies, what happens when organizations and people aren’t trusted and we’re inclined to give them less attention? There are significant implications for marketing services in there.

The transactional value of digital is that it offers ease and convenience as well as significant opportunities to streamline, but the transactional value of digital is one that it’s easy to overplay whilst relationship angles can be neglected and not be fully taken into account.

Over the years, the marketing communications’ industry relationships with clients have frequently been downgraded from partner to supplier. The irony is the transactional use of broadcast media as a tool to deliver commercial growth is being more and more highly scrutinized, something the industry itself says is a barrier to the development of effective ideas.

In contrast with ‘broadcast’ media, social business design harnesses collaboration and involvement. It can create, track and measure dynamic business pulses of activity and momentum and has that as an embedded advantage. The significant stepchange in social marketing this week is that it’s getting real; it’s moved from being less about media to more about business.

And with that, a crucial part of social business design that will come to the fore is going to be business model design. Businesses, how they’re positioned and the propositions they offer will need to be redrawn in the light of the emerging social dimension to business design. Organizational purpose and how to create sustainable social as well as commercial benefit becomes a key requirement. The focus will shift to being about organizing consumers, leading and managing in totally new ways.

So maybe we’re on the brink of re-tuning the returns measured and valued as part of social business design. The next time you think about how and where your business value is coming from, you may like to consider how much potential there is in developing collaborations to focus on creative problem-solving, as much as the value that may come from doing more for with less.

The two are utterly inter-linked, and it’s a fair bet that the creative potential of inter-relationships in social business will be at the heart of a new organizational effectiveness and a new commercial return.

Has paid for media had its chips?

fish and chips

James Murdoch, heir apparent of the mighty News International, blew open simmering hostilities between the old and new worlds of media on Friday.

It took a significance of timing and location – the 20th anniversary of his father’s audacious MacTaggart speech at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival – for people to sit up and take notice, otherwise the slide towards ‘free’ might have driven over him completely.

It was a swingeing attack, designed to be provocative. The erosion of his father’s corporate model is potentially so great that to halt the tide of it involved James Murdoch attempting to mount a perception turnaround of pretty much Evil Kneivil proportions.

This vaulted ambition involved labeling the BBC, one of the most trusted brands in media worldwide, as ‘chillingly’ ambitious, and denouncing a much-loved public service and world class national institution as state sponsored journalism, all because the profit party at News International is ending.

The concept of public service is one that News International barely understands. Their fight for a monopoly domain over satellite broadcasting, for example, was pretty much a textbook example of the ethos of winner takes all. The clarion cry for fair play sounded pretty lame in that context, coming as it did from the lips of one of the standard-bearers of the ruthless competitive corporation.

No matter how thuggish the attack though, its content was feeble. In a hyper-connected society, public service is a sensemaker. In times of disturbance it’s a glue, it is public service that has the capability to underpin seismic shifts with common sense, giving them a meaningful foundation that people can buy into. News International doesn’t see its purpose as this, it only computes the profit motive, and in days like these that is an issue.

Nor does it get the fact that the emergent economy will be built on attention and ideas and in a hyperconnected world ideas that spread, win, something unlikely to be helped by a paywall. In ‘the good enough’ economy, ease and convenience triumphs, meaning making content hard to access doesn’t work there either. In both these contexts ‘paid’ becomes a barrier to, not a measure of, success.

Robert Peston pointed to a fatal flaw of the ‘paid’ model from would-be providers like News International, that the ‘high priests’ of opinion have failed us and have been failing for some time.

With the evidence of ruling class failure apparent in practically every sector, is it any wonder then that peer care is coming across as a quicker and more benign alternative to the posturing of experts. There’s more trust emerging in local communities of interest than in the oligarchies of opinion, and when local and arguably more reliable opinion can come from grass roots without having to pay a premium for it, the adage of scarcity equals value no longer applies.

We’re at a crossroads currently. One choice is to open up the doors of information to as many as possible, to go with real-time open source information as the means of developing the learnings needed to find the creative avenues to economic renewal and the seeds of renaissance. Alternatively, we can fall into a dark age driven by an anachronistic profit imperative that continues to serve the needs of the few at the expense of the many.

The writing on the wall for James Murdoch is that the News International brand does seem to be out of step with where things are headed. Media has always been transient in value and ‘all that’s fit to print’ all too easily discarded. Rupert Murdoch famously once quipped that ‘nobody ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the great British public’. That held true for a transactional business model but it doesn’t hold good for a relationship one, and that’s the shift that digital brings.

Digital, social media and ‘free’ are not in favour because they’re about tools and channels but because they’re about behaviours and relationships. The BBC is largely speaking a trusted and accountable organization, whilst News International’s profit motive has never been seen as equaling the common good.

The answer to News International’s woes may lie more in a rethink about its positioning and what it stands for and less about its pricing model. The real challenge for News International it seems is to think about having a purpose that’s bigger than its product.

The hyperconnectivity of the social web obliterates the saliency of the transactional model that Rupert Murdoch’s thinking was based upon when it comes to news and entertainment, but it is possible under a banner of purpose to connect people who want to be connected, to involve them in where the story is, to offer traction as the natural alternative to thrust, the unrelenting thrust of push media that’s been at the root of News International’s gradual decline.

Online communication is enabling more literacy and empowerment by choice, consumers are relishing this new found ability and the newly levelled playing field of the democratized web.

Brands now have to offer both compelling entertainment and a credible purpose, those are the table stakes. They must be able to arouse intellectual understanding and emotional commitment to their purpose over and above their product, and this is where News International comes up wanting.

News International has chosen to play the hostage-taker in its relationships with consumers in the past, social brands work instead by garnering permission and consent. The consumer as consenting adult looks for community and democracy as part of the social contract it makes with brands and submitting to corporate deference is a thing of the past. The social revolution asks for brands with blatant integrity, brands capable of being trusted, because they possess a purpose beyond product and can appeal to hearts and heads well before wallets.

That’s the brand challenge for News International. It’s also a strength of the BBC. It’s something that James Murdoch may well find very difficult to displace.

It’s business Jim but not as we know it

Genetic Code

Captain Kirk might well have said this, to paraphrase, if he were at the helm of the Starship Enterprise as he steered it to new frontiers, across a commercial galaxy.

Business is spawning new forms of life, and it’s business Jim, but not as we know it. This is a time for revolution, of turning things upside down, new frontiers, time for change and transformation.

Things have been a quiet on this blog lately because I’ve been away in Sydney, the antipodes to life in the UK, diametrically opposite on the globe and for me it’s brought thinking about things upside down to the fore and the value of being counter-intuitive.

At the same time, Seth Godin‘s www.triiibes is one year old. As a founding member of triiibes.com there since the beginning, Seth’s work on tribes demonstrates that great places teeming with commercial life can exist but not as we know them and that collaborative possibilities are available in new ways. Being a leader in www.triiibes.com over the last year’s been a highly stimulating, iterative experience and a fascinating journey. (more…)

A bit of cognitive behavioural therapy is needed

Reboot Britain (Pic courtesy of NESTA)

Yesterday was Reboot Britain day facilitated by NESTA amongst others, a day containing wide-ranging perspectives and a spectrum of opinion about how to address regeneration in depressing times.

Martha Lane-Fox talked about the enormous disadvantage that’s creeping into UK society with the disenfranchisement of the 17 million people who are not online.

In some powerful rhetoric, Matthew Taylor reflected on whether the finger-pointing for the demise of UK plc should be at the doors of those stubbornly entrenched in old power plays, the system itself or the unwillingness of the majority to do something about it. As he put it, ‘wallowing is nicer than having to deal with something you don’t agree with’. (more…)

Business transformation in 3 easy parts on SOMESSO

Somesso logo

Arjen and Mary at Somesso have posted a three-part article with me on the subject of business transformation, if you have a moment head on over and have a peek, it’s here.

It contains a few ideas and I’d love your feedback. How big is our appetite for transformation towards a better organizational ideal?