Playing With Fire: Ron Paul And Public Relations

Part of the art of public relations is always appreciating that you are communicating to more than one public at a time. Some candidates participating in the South Carolina debate forgot that on Monday.

Much like mainstream candidates mistakenly did during the 2008 Republican primary, they largely ignored Ron Paul. When they did acknowledge him, it sometimes included backhanded comments designed to label Paul as a little bit kooky. That is a mistake, much bigger than most people realize.

Note: This is not an endorsement of any candidate nor political analysis beyond the often unseen impact of public relations in the field. For companies, it is a worthwhile observation on brand loyalist reaction, especially as it relates to aggressive jabs at the competition and dares people to take sides. 

The Potential For A Ron Paul Public Relations Backlash. 

Although many mainstream campaign strategists (national and state) dismiss and distance themselves from unflappable Paul supporters, many of them need Paul supporters to win, whether it be the primary or general election. They don't like to admit it. But they do.

So when candidates such as Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum attack Ron Paul with characterizations that allude to the idea that Paul is from another planet or perhaps irrational, they are playing with fire. Paul supporters are not like any other base in the bid for president. 

Paul supporters are better organized than any other base (especially on the Internet), regardless of any direct involvement by their candidate. Paul supporters remember every rub, rib, and rude comment aimed at their candidate or their ideas. And Paul supporters are unafraid to make it their mission to make someone lose, even if it means tossing the election to someone who they politically disagree with on every level and even if someone eventually earned a Paul endorsement.

I know. I listened to Paul supporters take delight in damaging campaign signs (among other things) in several state races four years ago. Never mind that the candidates they attacked were ideologically closer to their views than the opponents who won. They were out to teach lessons. Even after accepting apologies, it didn't matter. They are quick to forgive, never forget, and always extract retribution.

In fact, it doesn't even matter that Paul was booed at various points during the debate by the audience, which no doubt fueled a few of the more brazen comments from his rivals. His supporters still took note of how each candidate reacted to and responded to Paul in turn. And that's why Paul won Twitter, even if Gingrich won the debate (according to most analysts). 

Always Pull Publics Toward You; Never Push Them Away. 

There seems to be little doubt that Paul has the ear of the nation when it comes to many domestic policy points. He tends to attract and empower younger voters and, according to a recent poll, older voters.

Analysts can pinpoint any number of specific issues that rally people around Paul (they especially like to draw out his stance on drugs, leanings toward isolationism, and abolishment of income tax), but the overarching message that resonates more than any other is that Paul sees things differently and will not back down from what many say is the hopeless cause to restore a Constitutional government.

This platform raises two questions. Can he really deliver a Constitutional government and are Americans ready for one? The answers are why many people wonder about his electability.

However, even if some of his ideas are so surprisingly foreign to most Americans that mainstream voters cannot even grasp the basic tenets of his platform and Paul cannot always articulate those tenets in a way that makes sense to the mainstream, whoever wins the nomination cannot afford to push Paul supporters away (about 20-25 percent of primary voters). Already, some of those who used to say anyone but Obama are now saying Ron Paul or no one.

The same holds true for companies and organizations. For example, consider what AT&T did when it started targeting heavy data users by penalizing them. They have turned people who used to be AT&T loyalists into people who may choose anyone but AT&T on their next contract.

In both cases, the decisions being made have short-term solutions. But over the long term, both strategies could backfire. Not everyone who is pushed away for short-term gains will come back.

Being Temporal: Communication Trend For 2012

If there is one trend to watch that consumers want and candidates, consumers, and companies do not, it can be found in the art of being temporal. It may be the biggest communication shift this year. And I'm not convinced everyone is going to survive it.

Last year, I sat through many meetings listening to voices of dissent at the very mention of the idea. Most people want to stand up on a singular specific statement and ride it for as long as it will carry them (or try to operate with no message at all). In most cases, it can be the biggest mistake that can be made or just as big of a mistake as not having any message.

Don't misunderstand me. I've been a proponent of well-defined messages for some time. Within the confines of a single advertisement or blog post or television spot, one point sticks better than 20, especially if everyone talking about you has a different or conflicting story.

The average person consumes an entire novel worth of content every day. So we can't expect people to remember every detail. In fact, the more details they are exposed to, the more likely they are going to remember the least preferred message. And if there are any contradictions, they will be remembered.

Messages that are too rigid don't hold up either. In communication and especially politics, singular messages make people look scripted, inflexible, and disingenuous. The same holds true for companies. There were dozens of companies that said the same thing over and over last year, and the only message that stuck was they weren't to be trusted or, worse, they were complete idiots.

The Art Of Temporal Communication.

Temporal communication could be defined as the art of crafting ever-present value-based messages that are reinforced by clusters of as-needed supporting messages, which allow for flexible communication in a variety of circumstances and demonstrate a contrast between them and their competitors.

Or, in using the illustration above, (a.) an overarching, ever-present value-based message with temporary circumstance-specific (b.) messages and actions that reinforce (a.). Some companies already do it. And they do it well.

• Apple is an example, with innovation being its overarching message. Everything — its products, services, storefronts, customer service, delivery systems — reinforces innovation. You don't have to be an Apple fan to agree that it often leads the charge toward innovation.

• Zappos is an example, with personalized customer care being its overarching message. Everything — product choices, shopping cart, customer service, delivery policies — reinforces customer care. Even if you have never ordered a single product from Zappos, you might have heard about a mountain of great experiences.

• Dreamworks is an example, with free-spirited creativity being its overarching message. Everything — its movies, creative process, employee perks (like on-campus art classes) — reinforces free-spirited creativity. Even if some movies are better than others, the brand Dreamworks conjures up fun.

None of these messages limit employee communication nor do they require memorized definitions. On the contrary, it empowers communication by delivering the overarching message wherever and whenever possible to customers and non-customers alike, and in as many ways as possible. These companies do it so well, their messages are the primary contrast point between them and everybody else.

The Oversimplified Example Of Temporal Communication.

When people decide to go on a diet, they often tell people they are on a diet or dieting. The statement conveys a very narrow message. The message might even be accurate, but it isn't really a good one.

Besides reinforcing a negative stereotype (being overweight) and concentrating on scarcity (giving something up), dieting places the dieter in one compromising position after another.

If someone bakes homemade cookies, the dieter is forced to break their diet or reinforce that they are too overweight to make an excpetion. If someone doesn't gradually lose weight, they see it as a failure (and sometimes other people). If they do start to gradually lose weight, it's not uncommon for other people to derail them by telling them that they no longer need to diet.

What if they had a different message? What if they decided to be health conscious or fitness focused instead? What if that was their overarching core message instead of being on a diet?

A health conscious or fitness-focused person can more freely adapt to a rapidly changing environment. They can eat one cookie. No one is going to argue for them to stop. They aren't going to over do it. And it doesn't even matter what their temporary weight might be. As long as they are doing, they are succeeding.

It also opens up new messages that reinforce the primary message. For example, if someone says they are on a diet, only not eating proves it. If someone says they are health conscious, any number of actions or messages can reinforce that message: hygiene, exercise, food choices, etc.

Did you see so-and-so today? They ran a mile. Did you see so-and-so today? They ate an apple. Did you see so-and-so today? They're looking great! Well, of course. They're always health conscious.

Crunching Numbers: Why CNN Couldn't Predict Iowa

The CNN article comparing the Republican presidential primary candidate online scorecards just prior to the Iowa caucus last Tuesday (hat tip: Geoff Livingston), demonstrates just how little the network understands social media.

While the lead line — a strong Web presence must be part of every political hopeful's strategy — is right, CNN doesn't really understand what it all means. The online scorecard, as they called it, doesn't mean anything, especially with the number they cherry picked from a handful of social networks.

Sure, CNN qualified it, saying "these numbers may have no bearing on how the candidates actually fare with Iowa caucus goers." May? Show some backbone. They have no bearing on the outcome and they won't in any other state either.

Why online scorecards mean virtually nothing to political campaigns, especially primaries. 

A quick recap of the presidential nominee hopefuls showed Ron Paul winning Twitter, Rick Perry winning Facebook, Ron Paul winning YouTube, and Newt Gingrich in a dead heat with Mitt Romney on Klout.

(Klout? You've got to be kidding me, CNN. Here's the scoop on Klout. Quit pimping it for a score.)

In the end, the Iowa caucus goers returned a decidedly different verdict, placing Mitt Romney (who was dead last on YouTube) and Rick Santorum (who was dead last on Twitter and has the worst possible top Google search result) in first and second (or second and first or perhaps tied, depending on how you see the caucus counting snafu). So what happened?

The social media numbers CNN chose to report don't consider proximity (there was no analysis of how many lived in Iowa), candidate preferences (some people likely follow more than one or all), degree of influence (which way they leaned), the sentiment of the interest (sometimes people follow candidates for comic relief), or the greater body of communication (offline) that bombard people on a daily basis (likely 100 to 1). And about a hundred or a thousand other things.

Heck, those numbers didn't even consider the most rudimentary question — who is registered to vote and for which party, if any. And there was no way to count the closeness of the communication (e.g., one visit by a candidate at your home carries more weight than a gazillion tweets). 

And there is the rub. Not even the silly mention machine that the Washington Post runs on the bottom of its website can account for anything. It counts "tweet" mentions in the last week, with Gingrich capturing 56,000 and Huntsman picking up 23,000. (Huntsman is worth following for the entertainment value lent to his campaign by his daughters, but that's about it.) And yet, more and more media outlets reward candidates for capturing buzz ups by placing their faces on the page, like online advertisements.

The real social media numbers that matter aren't the social media numbers you can find.

None of this is to suggest that an online presence doesn't count. It counts. But no one can really measure what you need to know to have a semblance of an accurate prediction.

The bottom line is some percentage of all their followers, friends, subscribers, and viewers do count. They are registered loyalists who either have influence over caucus goers or are caucus goers — people who will actually share the messages with other people who will listen or, more importantly, vote. In other words ... each candidate had about three peeps in Iowa who fit this description except Santorum and Romney who obviously had four and five, er, five and four, er, four-and-a-half and four-and-a-half each.

In realizing this, it might even one day make us pity any politician who actually takes online advice, never appreciating that it was started by a few hundred people from a foreign country. Oh wait, this already happened. Never mind.

The best online analysis on political campaigns has nothing to do with politics.

Seriously. Because politics tends to be overtly pronounced — bigger success and bigger blunders — this is an excellent opportunity to watch the ebb and flow of the net, immediate reactions that buffet the candidates around like Ping-Pong balls. And while you watch it, don't be overly amused (even if it is amusing) because the same thing can happen to a business any time.

Decent social media people can understand the numbers of any social media program. Good social media people can understand the marketing and public relations ramifications. And great social media people can feel whether or not something is sticky or slippery. There is an art to it, specifically one that appreciates the human behavior of individuals, groups, and the masses.

And, at the same time, if you are interested in this political cycle as it pertains to some future outcome, keep in mind that the Internet has undergone some dramatic changes since the last presidential campaign. The mass adoption that has taken place, along with less scrupulous non-voting outsiders masquerading as concerned voters, will make predictability impossible. And that is the only thing you can count on in all future elections.

Developing Presence: Brand Relevance

You can read about it almost anywhere. Social media has changed marketing forever. Social media has changed marketing campaigns. Social media has changed brand marketing.

There are literally hundreds of articles about the impact of social media. I've written a few posts on the subject, well before before social media became the catch phrase for anything online. But I still find myself asking if it really changed marketing. And if it did, then what did it really change?

Did social media really change anything?

To really understand what social media changed, it might be useful to consider the most significant change to communication prior to the Internet. That change would be the introduction of television.
In 1941, watchmaker Bulova paid $9 for a 20-second television spot before a baseball game. The graphics weren't anything special, but the message was clever: America runs on Bulova time. From that day forward, some people argued that television changed marketing.

After all, television advertising became the most effective mass-market platform on the planet. Companies could buy up local, regional, national, and even international spots to deliver relatively quick memorable messages, ideally, in between segments of programming chosen because of their ability to reach particular audiences based on demographics and psychographics.

But did television advertising really change marketing? 


Those who argue it did, probably don't understand marketing and advertising as much as they think they do. Television did not change marketing as much as some people think it did.

It didn't change the products. It didn't change the mission or vision of the companies that bought spots. It didn't change physical distribution channels. It didn't change the importance of developing strong contrast points or a unique selling proposition between one product and closely aligned competitors.

So what did it really change? Mostly, it changed message delivery.

And social media? Sure, it goes further than television did. After all, some companies exist solely because of the Internet (just like some solely exist because of television). But, by in large, social media didn't change marketing as much as it did message delivery, but one step further than television.

What is social media and why does it fit within marketing? 

Social media describes technologies that people use to share content, opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives by interacting with each other in an environment. It is one of the few communication vehicles that empowers people and companies with the potential to become broadcasters with the ability to reach people on a one-to-one, one-to-some, and one-to-many basis. So yes, it is a powerful platform.

But there are many things it did not change about marketing. It did not change most products. It did not change most missions and visions. It did not change the need for a strong contrast or unique selling proposition.

What it did, for the first time on a mass scale, was create an environment that allowed marketers to receive near real-time feedback on their various marketing messages. And, it helps to hold them accountable.

When a company changes a logo, people might have an opinion about it. When a company offends prospects, social media can deliver a negative return on investment. When companies fail to deliver on customer service, the complaint doesn't exist in a void.

But even within this context, that doesn't change marketing ideologies. In fact, there are scores of social media companies that neglected traditional marketing. So what does social media really change?

Social media adds brand relevance to the marketing mix. 

Aside from real-time feedback, social media offers a very distinct marketing advantage. But most companies never consider it. In fact, this is why small businesses have mostly stalled with social media and why social media has mostly stalled with big brands.

Most companies invest all of their online activities in broadcasting mass media messages online. But what most companies miss is that social media gives brand relevance equal weight to brand reputation.

Coca-Cola makes for a great example. It might be one of the most celebrated brands online, but the perception does not measure up to reality. Coca-Cola has 36 million fans on Facebook but less than .2 percent are active. Why? Because Coca-Cola puts out a steady stream of product-centric messages, the least interesting messages on the Internet.

"Do you remember your first Coke?" "Rumor has it only two people know the secret ingredients of Coca-Cola." "Make a sour lemon smile - pop it in a Coke." ...

The monotony of it all is almost overbearing. It's like going over to a friend's house to talk about how great they are, every single day. Even the most once loyal friends would eventually burn out.

It's understandable. Brands and small businesses have a hard time talking about anything else. They want to push product. They want to drive sales. They want it to be all about them, every single day.

Except, this thinking runs counter to online communication, with consumers (not companies) dictating which topics they'll talk about online. The burden to prove brand relevance belongs to the company.

How to demonstrate brand relevance within topic spheres. 

For most companies, it need not be difficult. Scanning mission statements or mottos of Fortune 500 companies, some have logical starting points. If Albertsons wants to make life easier for its customers, it could introduce new products, highlight healthy choices, and share recipes. Estee Lauder has no shortage of natural and retail beauty insights, especially those used by celebrities and consultants. Mattel has no shortage of popular and nostalgic content to draw upon. And so on.

But it doesn't have to be this obvious. Social media can further any number of communication goals, ranging from shifting public perception (e.g., environmental issues) to becoming a subject matter expert.

Or, it might be simple. An Italian restaurant in Las Vegas might consider cooking, culture, and proximity as topics. An eco-tourism company could engage in topics like environmental issues, history and culture, or photography and art. Accountants can share insights into wealth management and legacy planning. And so on, all while staying true to their mission and vision.

How to increase brand relevance is instinctively a marketing challenge, especially because the solutions are as varied as the organizations operating within any market segment. In fact, it's the same approach employed by so-called influencers who have risen to have some sway within their subject areas.

Standing Up: Communication Stops Bullies And Abusers

The knock at the door was fierce, followed by an aggressive sequence of door bell rings. It's not unexpected when you have a preteen in the house, even if most of his friends show more respect.

It wasn't a friend.

I may have never known it, but my son came bounding up the stairs a moment later.

"Can I go outside?" he said. "Some kid wants to fight me."

"Um, no you may not," I said, still in disbelief over what I heard.

"What should I tell them?"

"I don't know," I said. "Tell them to piss off before they piss me off."

So that is what he did, but not exactly. He told the kid to come over tomorrow at high noon, a nearly subconscious nod to the diminishing reruns of westerns that some of us grew up with three decades ago. I was amused, but still not pleased.

As three kids loitered in front of the house, the primary antagonist still stung by my son's matter-of-fact response and the promise of a new fight time the next day, I asked my son what it was all about.

Turns out, the principal aggressor, who had a head or two of height on my son but no martial arts sparring medals to speak of, was nothing more than a bully. My son explained it all on the quick.

The bully had been harassing a girl at school, a friend of my son's. A few weeks ago, she would have considered herself an online friend of the bully. But his social network conversations with her had recently turned from banter to advances. She wasn't interested. He couldn't take no for an answer.

Apparently, it wasn't enough to keep the rejection to himself. Every time the bully would pass her in the school hallway, he call her a bitch. Every time he gathered with a few friends at lunch, he would whine away about how she was no good. And every time he had a chance, with a glance or sometimes more physical stance, he would squeeze in on her space and make her feel uncomfortable, vulnerable, and afraid.

My son put a stop to it. He called him out. And while he wasn't looking for a fight, he was looking to stop the harassment.

"I think you should leave her alone," he had said. And the bully left her alone, almost immediately.

But like many troubled and tormented youths today, stories tend to spread. Eyewitness accounts are sometimes embellished. And the bully knew that if he let the shutdown stand, his reputation for toughness, despite being propped up by nothing more than fragile fakery, would be at an end.

"There isn't going to be fight tomorrow," I told my son. "There isn't going to be a fight at all."

Since the bully and his friends were still loitering in front of our driveway, I took the opportunity to have a chat with them. I did because I already knew something about bullies that the bullies never count on.

Most of them are cowards, crushed out easily any time you hold a mirror to their faces, exposing them for what they really are under their puffed chests and furrowed brows. I had something to tell him.

Only fearless communication can crush a bully and end abuse.

Bullies, child molesters, and domestic abusers have one thing in common. They hate open and honest communication. It makes them powerless, especially because they draw their strength from secrets.

They, people allegedly like Arthur "Jerry" Sandusky from the Penn State scandal, count on any victims and occasional witnesses to cover up the destruction in a shroud of silence, leaving their misdeeds to be shared with the unfortunate few who empower them out of fear, ignorance, or lack of character.

I'm not the only one who knows it too. Half a world away in Australia, Kristin Brumm is organizing a global online event to bring awareness to domestic violence. It's called Speak Out, named after her decision to come forward and put an end to her own abusive relationship. She was lucky.

She didn't have a champion like my son. She didn't even have a witness like the one that Mike McQueary could have been. She only had herself; and frankly, she is remarkably fortunate to have found such courage even if she was unfortunate enough to find it too late and at a price too high.

Today, Brumm struggles each day to make up for her silence. She does it in a way that requires an equal measure of courage. She is helping others by asking bloggers to speak out about abuse on November 18. I'm ahead of the curve, only because I would like you to consider speaking out too.

They way I see it, the whole lot of them fall in together: teenage bullies, child molesters, and domestic abusers. All of them prey on people, trying to make themselves feel big by trying to make others feel helpless. But the truth is that none of them, whether they use physical or psychological abuse, has any more power than they are afforded. Take away their secrets and they crumble when someone calls them out.

What I told the neighborhood bully, suspending his reign. 

I didn't have to say much when I went outside, commanding him and his friends to stay off my property. I told them that there wasn't going to be a fight, not because my son wasn't ready but because I wasn't going to allow it. (Given my son possesses a second degree black belt, it would have hardly been fair.)

"My son isn't afraid to fight you, but I won't allow it," I said. "But you need to know that he would whip the shit out of you if I did allow it. So you might want to move along before I change my mind."

The kid shrugged, so I pressed.

"There isn't going to be a fight today, or tomorrow. And I'll call the cops the next time I see you here," I said, as they finally turned and started to walk away. "Am I clear? Because I can't hear you."

The kid paused for a second before burping out a timid and barely audible "Yes, sir."

But then something else happened. Much like the apparent pain caused by the initial shutdown a few days before, he recoiled as he faced is own embarrassment.

"Tell your son to mind his own business next time," he spat.

"What? No, I will not," I said. "He did the right thing. So maybe what you need to do is go home, wipe your nose, and learn how to be a man, without bullying girls. Yeah, he told me what you did. You're a punk. And I'm glad he stopped you."

He shoulders sank as he sulked away. But even more telling was how his friends reacted. When I had wandered outside, they looked to be as tight as thieves. As they turned the corner, they were frayed. His friends were obviously unaware that they had turned out to support someone who bullies girls.

The bully, I'm told, gives both the girl and my son a fairly wide berth at school. We can only hope the lessons go further than protecting the pair of them. I think it will, as long as people shut bullying down.

And therein lies the lesson. As one of my friends said when I mentioned it on Facebook a few days ago: Teaching our kids to be bully proof isn't enough. We have to teach them to stand up to it. He's right. All too often, bullies will grow up to be tomorrow's domestic abusers or child predators.

There is only one remedy. Speak out. Stand up. And shut them down. Do it today.

Exceeding Potential: What My Son Could Teach Yahoo!

There aren't many days that go by where someone doesn't ask what's up with Yahoo. It happens so often, the quip might even make a great tagline. Yahoo! What's up with us?

As a company, everybody there seems miserable. You can't really blame them. The next phone call you receive from the chairman of the board might be to fire you. Not that anyone was surprised. Plenty of people said Carol Bartz was the wrong captain to helm the sinking ship. And even when she did the right things, most people didn't notice.

They're looking to change the world, while longing to change themselves. But that's not the order in which things happen. If you want to change the world, change yourself. But before you can change yourself, you have to know where it is you want to go. You have to have to have a vision.

What my son could teach the next CEO of Yahoo. 

My son is 12. And like many 12-year-old boys he has limitless potential. He also has an aversion to working hard at something to reach or exceed that potential until he really has to work hard at something, which usually requires a vision and an incentive (the actualization of that vision).

That all changed recently. He has been meeting and exceeding his potential for weeks now, and he is happy to do it. So what changed?

I shared an observation with him during our recent trip to Denver. And the observation was the curiosity of the least likely source: two different Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents.

The first agent greeted us with a smile, checking our identification against boarding passes before (jokingly) asking him why he and his sister (age 5) didn't have IDs. I'm glad she did. All children tend to become impatient after waiting in a long line, especially when they know it's only going to be the first of many.

Her brief conversation with them broke up the monotony. Not just for them, but her too. You could tell. She wore her friendliness like a badge on her face. And her pleasantness was immediately infectious, even for the people directly behind us.

The second TSA agent my son interacted with wasn't as pleasant. Just as my son had walked through the metal detector, the agent's partner, who was feeding the bins into the X-ray machine, had stepped away. And because he did, my son's shoes and electronics waited patiently at the opening.

The TSA agent huffed at him and told him he had to go back and push his own tray through. (Why she didn't ask the people behind us to do it, I'll never know.) Her decision resulted in several awkward moments as my son traveled against the stream.

Meanwhile, the agent huffed and grumbled the entire time. And just like the infectious pleasantness that spread across rank and file passengers the last time, so did the apparent nastiness of the second agent.

The lesson here is much bigger than a communication tip. 

After we returned from vacation, I recanted the experience to my son on the same day he demonstrated little interest in meeting his potential (or our expectations as parents). The specifics don't matter, but the conversation does.

"Did the first TSA have to be nice to you?" I asked him, setting the stage.

"No."

"So if the first agent didn't have to be nice to you, why did you think she was?" I led, even as my wife conveyed an expression of bafflement.

"I dunno."

"She was exceeding her potential," I smiled. "She didn't have to be nice to you because her job description is only to check identification and file people through. But she set a higher bar. The other agent, on the other hand, was just meeting the status quo. So which one was happier?"

"Well," his eyes lit up. "The first one. She was really nice and made people happy."

"Exactly. People who are happy tend to work toward meeting or exceeding their potential because it feels good and helps other people feel good too. So the only question you have to ask yourself isn't whether or not you want to do something but if you want to be happy."

"Okay," he said. "Can I go on my computer now?"

Sometimes you have to have patience as a parent. I told him he could, and hoped for the best.

The next day, our conversation paid out in dividends. He did everything expected of him, without ever being asked, and a few other tasks as well. When he was done, I asked him how he felt and he was happy. We all were.

Of course, for my son, he already had an advantage over Yahoo. He already had a vision and knew what to do to get there. Some people, including Bartz, never do. Sure, they do a lot of things but never really have a destination that they can be proud of. Even her goodbye to employees said as much.

The choice of whether to get by or exceed expectations is always yours. But the real question to ask yourself, no matter the job or task at hand, is whether you want to be happy or a just another Yahoo.

Sharing Passion: Patch Adams And BloggersUnite

If passion can be defined as a deep, overwhelming and powerful emotion one possesses for someone or something, then compassion might be defined as the ability to impart the best of it with someone else. The feeling they experience might even be different, leaving those touched mesmerized by their passion even if they don't adopt the same fervor. But the results are the same.

It's something not all communicators consider — and yet it is the foundation that sets so many campaigns and causes apart from one another. We rally around certain brands not so much because we're soda pop loyalists, airlines aficionados, or whatnot, but because the people behind the product have an uncanny passion for it that we can't quite understand, especially so if it is something as simple as three-ply toilet paper.

Of course, this particular post has nothing to do with something as commonplace as wipes. It's about a man who became a doctor, not so much for the profit his generation assumed it would bring but with an intense passion for the people who needed his help.

Dr. Patch Adams and his uncanny ability to transform passion into compassion.

I co-wrote an article about the International Day Of Compassion this weekend, but held off on adding something here because I thought the topic deserved a different angle. Instead of being informative, the life work of Dr. Patch Adams might be used as a teaching tool for a purpose one-off from medicine and more closely aligned with humanitarianism.

Since 1991 (and before), I've been honored to have donated my time to more than 60 different nonprofit organizations at one time or another. Some still leave me with a sense of pride today and others left me disenchanted, distressed or even disenfranchised. The difference, which can easily be applied to the private sector, is where people place their passion.

Those that make me smile for the honor of service, always managed to keep their focus on whatever cause they generally supported — teaching someone to read for the first time, rehabilitating homeless veterans, helping an orphan smile, or ensuring a parent could stay in the city where their child received medical attention. There are hundreds of examples.

And then there are those that slowly drift away from the cause or sense of purpose, pouring their passion into internal or even state politics, executive and staff paycheck protection, or just wanting to be right more often than they ever do the right thing. There are a few dozens of those, thankfully not as many as the former.

Dr. Adams is an exemplary model. Even when his expectations were proven wrong, he ignored any setbacks and persisted in sharing his passion, changing the world in sometimes small and sometimes extraordinary ways. And what makes his successes so uncanny is that he seldom asks for donations or volunteers but gets them anyway — even if it takes longer than he sometimes hopes.

He doesn't have to make direct asks or sales pitches or follow policies. Instead, he asks people who cross his path to share his passion — spreading humor and compassion whenever and wherever possible. He does it in a unique way too, making people want to support his dream and pursue some dreams of their own. You can see it firsthand by learning more about the Gesundheit! Institute.

But even more than that, Adams does something that few people ever do. Even if they don't make a donation, volunteer, or help him in another way, he still has made the world a better place by sharing his passion for compassion. And it still spreads.

Passion and compassion apply to communicators in the private sector.

It's the fundamental difference between social media programs that work and don't work (traditional campaigns too). Profit-driven (or deadline-driven or volume-driven) programs tend to deliver flatter campaigns, even if the short-term ROI is high.

Have you ever wondered why? The great unequalizer is often underpinned by passion for the product and compassion for the people who might buy it or have an experience. Or, in other words, I've never met someone who is successful peddling products they consider "boring" (passion) or unconcerned with each individual customer's experience (compassion). At least, no one successful in the long run.

Or, in yet other words, if you cannot communicate with passion and have the intent of compassion, then don't. People can tell. Sooner or later.

Moving Forward: Success As A Verb

“Success is a journey not a destination. The doing is usually more important than the outcome.” — Arthur Ashe

Sure, you’ve seen the quote used often enough (usually twisted and unattributed) that it borders on cliche. And it might seem out of place for someone who tends to be outcome focused. However, it doesn’t make the concept any less valid. Success works better as a verb than an adjective.

I had a discussion with my son the other day. Although he is only 12, he wanted to begin some type of physical fitness training.

So I gave him a schedule suitable for his age. But he almost didn't commit because the first few days surprised him. He wasn't as strong as he thought he was and had to reduce the weight related to some exercises. It was discouraging, he said. I'm weak.

I encouraged him not to give up. He was already succeeding because he was moving in the right direction. Everything else is just a matter of time and commitment.

A few days later, he found that the exercises were getting easier. And with every day he succeeded in completing a schedule of sets, he felt a sense of accomplishment (and was impressed by early results). I feel stronger, he said. His muscles tighter.

So, I used his discovery as a teaching opportunity. I mentioned the Ashe quote, but in a different context.

“No matter where you are in life, all of it is nothing more than a temporary state of being.”

In other words, it doesn't just apply to fitness. It applies to everything. Weak; strong. Fat; fit. Poor; rich. Burning water; celebrity chef. Struggling hack; brilliant author. Eager entrant; respected professional. Unread blogger; popular publisher. So on and so forth.

Almost every label you can dream up is nothing more than an adjective that takes a snapshot of the place where you are, without considering the place you're moving toward. And as such, they don't matter all that much.

I suggested that my son picture two extremes in his mind on a mile-long line. Imagine where he was on that line. And then imagine imagine moving toward the extreme he wants. Once he did, I told him to erase it all and focus on the movement in the direction he had picked. That's all that matters.

Let's face it. Most people never reach either extreme destination. And if they do, their time there is only temporary. A best-selling author only retains the title until his next book. A boxing champion eventually gives it back. This year's best actress isn't necessarily the same one who will accept the prize next year.

What's more important than adopting the snapshots as labels is continually moving in the right direction at a comfortable pace. Pace is important, but only because people generally work on several dozen goals at once. (No one can set the highest pace for all of them they eventually want.}

The secret to success is never thinking you’ve achieved it.

While it might come across as a paradox, most people who are successful find themselves striving for some higher or seemingly unreachable benchmark. Meanwhile, people who say they are successful are usually on their way down, perhaps already having enjoyed a brief moment of weightlessness after being shot up into the air with the full force of 4 Gs.

Imagine what would happen to my son a few years from now if he set some benchmark of success based on how much weight he could lift. If he stopped working out after reaching it, it wouldn't be long before he wouldn't be able to do it again.

In other words, success as an adjective isn't a place you stay. It's a temporary state of being while we are continually moving in one direction or the other.

At first, my son thought this sounded a bit discouraging. But then might find it liberating. If he wants to build strength, the act of building it makes him successful. That will never change (unless he gives up or moves in the other direction), making the verb more powerful.

Whereas the adjective is a snapshot, success as a verb is a journey. And knowing this, he doesn't have to think of himself as weak (he's not anyway, given his age) nor afraid of what areas need more work than other areas. All that matters is he is getting stronger every day and I wasn't only talking about fitness. Success is a verb in anything we do.

“I run on the road, long before I dance under the lights.” — Muhammad Ali

Listening To Experts: Or Social Media Intellectuals?

Although a recent Hoover Institution video, Peter Robinson interviews Thomas Sowell, had political overtones, it also inspires some questions that fit for social media. Are the experts that your company is listening to "experts" or "intellectuals" and why does it matter?

If you ask Sowell, your company might be cautious listening to "intellectuals," people whose end products are only ideas. It might be worthwhile to consider other intelligent people who produce end products like vaccines or buildings or campaigns and programs instead. The difference between the two isn't only in what they know (or think they know) but it's also a matter of attitude and accountability.

The latter is one of the first distinctions Sowell points out in the interview. Intellectuals do not have accountability to their ideas whereas people who execute ideas are frequently held accountable. The reason for the exemption is obvious. Intellectuals can fault the execution. They can fault the data drawn upon to make their conclusions. They can fault unexpected events.

The concept makes for a compelling argument, especially when it's moved to a new field like social media where there are few experts and many thought leaders. It might even be safe to say that some people are operating within the sphere with nothing more than ideas or, more specifically, opinions — ninjas who are so unfamiliar with a sword that they still struggle with their butter knife at dinner.

Five Warning Signs That You're Working With A Social Media Intellectual.

• The belief that their knowledge of things far exceeds their experiences.
• The notion that superiority in one field transcends into superiority in all fields.
• The willingness to provide advice without having the benefit of consequential knowledge.
• The over-reliance on studies, surveys, and statistics without looking at individual people.
• The unwillingness to rigorously review data that might run contrary to their own conclusions.

These types of behaviors abound in social media. Some social media experts tell executives how to run a company. They have ideas related to political policy. They make a living as consultants without ever managing a campaign (beyond their own). And they draw conclusions based on a singular study. And social media people search for validation more often than truth.

It doesn't have to be social media people, of course. The entire communication industry has a tendency to over reach into topic areas where they have no experience or even consequential knowledge.

I remember one "expert," for example, who suggested an ice cream company make whatever flavors people could dream up (and then convince them to sell it) without ever considering the operational nightmare of cleaning out the machines in between every new concoction. Suffice to say, it was an intellectual daydream and not even a very good one (and that's without mentioning all the problems associated with nut allergies).

Don't get me wrong. It seems to me that intellectuals can be very useful, especially if they dream up stuff that other people do not. But any company hiring them as consultants has to vet every suggestion and rigorously research the contrarian views.

Why? Because at the end of the day, unlike the intellectuals who think about it, the people who actually do it will be held accountable. It's especially true when such advice begins to drift away from social media and into human resources, customer service, production, pricing, loyalty programs, how your shoes look with blue pants, what your spouse might like for dinner, and where your kids should go to school.

Sure, you can ask their opinion on all that stuff if you like. However, opinions from intellectuals — especially those propped up by popularity — are exactly what they sound like. They are opinions, and they might even be opinions of lesser value than non-intellectual experts who happen to be immersed in the business of doing. Or, at minimum, doers will be well equipped to vet.

Rethinking Mobile: The Future Of Advertising Is Portable

There isn't any doubt that mobile will play a big role in the future. And if there was any doubt years ago, there is none now.

Last October, 234 million Americans ages 13 and older used mobile devices; 60.7 million people in the U.S. owned smart phones. After the holidays, you can expect most of these numbers soared even higher, and that doesn't consider the tablet market like the Amazon Kindle or Apple iPad. Communication is everywhere — on the desktop, on the laptop, in the living room, and within the palm of your hand.

Mobile Doesn't Mean Mobile As Much As It Means Portable.

Three years ago, I quoted Rishad Tobaccowala, CEO of Denuo Group, a Publicis Groupe, to underscore the point. He said "the reality of it is that the future does not fit into the containers of the past.”

But when you look at the way the Web has developed since then, it's becoming much more clear that mobile isn't the answer to the future as much as portability. You see, while there might be an emphasis on mobile phones and tablets, plenty of people still sit in front a desktop or plug content into their television sets to consume everything from entertainment to education and from current events to vintage history.

Sometimes they even use two or three devices simultaneously — Tweeting a comment about the show they are watching on television in real time or throwing out ideas related to an article or post they are working on without ever pulling up a new browser. No, not all of it is obvious. Most of it works in layers.

So what is the reality of communication? The reality isn't that the future does not fit into the containers of the past, it's that the future needs to fit in every container of the future. So if you don't consider portability, your marketing is missing out.

Applying Portability To A :30 Television Commercial.

For simplicity of the conceptual model, consider a :30 television commercial.

Ten years ago, most commercials were relatively niche. Thirty seconds aired in between bits of news and entertainment being viewed by people with relatively specific demographics. On a good day, people might even talk about it around the water cooler at work or perhaps a child might recite some jingle to justify the toy making their Christmas list.

Today, as mediums converge, that same 30 seconds can have a much longer shelf life and reach dozens of different audiences and communities. The most obvious placement might be YouTube. But with some adjustments and a willingness to adapt the content to fit any number of segments, the possibilities are as endless as the strategy allows.

People might see the commercial and comment about it on Facebook (using their phones). Or they might see it embedded in a blog post. Or they might see it on a website, while browsing with a tablet. And then they might see it reinforced in front of the television.

If the creative is sustainable enough, they might even share it with their friends, people who may not fit the demographics of the most likely buyer (but might pass it on to people who do). This only scratches the surface when you include email marketing or hundreds of other social networks or (thinking from the public relations perspective) the thousands of people who write about and review products or production.

“Creative without strategy is called 'art.' Creative with strategy is called 'advertising.” — Jef I. Richards

The connector (with) is where advertisers and other communicators need to set their sights. Creative directors and marketing strategists will do more for their clients by considering multiple platforms and devices, not just one. After all, a television commercial isn't only a television commercial anymore much like a 'blog' doesn't always have to be a blog.

Ahead of the pack, it seems to me that Amazon is getting it partly right. Apple is too. It's only some content publishers (especially newspapers) that are still struggling with the concept.

What makes them different? Apple and Amazon aren't thinking in terms of delivery devices anymore. They are thinking in terms of sensory reception or deeper. And if they are not, they ought to be. Sensory reception is about the person, not the medium.

The two sensory receptors that can be touched online are primarily audio and visual, even if audio is confined to the alliteration of the written word. Everything else — especially the point of delivery — is simply a matter of strategically aligning the content to fit the space, which is why the future is a little less mobile and a lot more portable. Any device, anywhere, anytime.

Nurturing Teams: Keep Incentives Simple

Many people had a chuckle after learning about a sales team that was given an all-expenses-paid trip to Fargo, North Dakota, for missing their sales goals. Had they hit those goals, the makers of Hot Tamales would have sent them to Hawaii instead.

But some executives might ask whether or not it was smart. Infinitely so.

Just Born, the family-owned candy manufacturer that has been in business for eight decades (three generations), believes in motivating and engaging employees. One of its many philosophies includes that great things happen when everyday courtesy, kindness, and humor are woven into all our personal and professional interactions. And the Fargo team vacation underscores it well.

While some companies create incentive programs that make employees feel like they lost something, this company simply gave them something else. So instead of having an office filled with people who "lost" going nowhere, about two dozen sales people shared an experience that may even be a better team building vacation than had they won the most luxurious team trip.

Case in point. One of the sales associates told the AP, succinctly in good spirits, "Twenty to 30 years down the road, when we see each other, we're going to say, 'Remember Fargo?'" Whereas nobody seems to be dwelling on how they lost a trip to Hawaii, which is what they would have done otherwise. Worse, they might have even second guessed their sales, which increased by two percent (as opposed to the goal of four percent).

Developing Incentive Programs That Work.

Many employers put significant thought into employee reward programs, but sometimes they forger that employees do too. When faced with a rewards program, many employees ask: do I value the reward, can I realistically achieve the results, and is the reward really related to my (or my team's) performance?

Case in point. I worked with one company years ago that gave employees annual bonuses related to individual store sales, with the managers (up to 5 percent), assistant managers (up to 5 percent), and employees (up to 1/2 percent) receiving a scaled percentage of their salary as a bonus. While store managers seemed to be motivated (they received credit for new clients), it didn't connect with many employees — in-store sales people, stock personnel, or delivery drivers.

Why not? Because the bonuses were not related their performance. They were more motivated to excel in areas related to their job descriptions (and semi-annual raises).

In some cases, the program even split the team because as managers left the store to find new clients, employees felt deserted by management. In other cases, managers would aggressively pursue the bonuses as money they already counted on at the end of the year, sometimes wearing their performance emotions on their sleeves.

Even more daunting, store managers were also competing with outside sales reps. What made that especially interesting, however, is that outside reps' sales had to be filled at stores (and stores received credit for those sales). In sum, it was a mess.

Keep It Sweet, Simple, And Equal.

Now take a good look at the Hot Tamales sales incentive. The incentive was simple, sweet, straightforward, and singular in how it was structured. But best of all, even when the team didn't achieve its goal, they received something that fits in nicely with the company's philosophy, sense of humor, and is a memorable team building opportunity (maybe even more so than if they had received a trip to Hawaii).

Spreading Emotions: Two Studies Touch On Social Interdependence

As social beings, people are naturally interdependent. Just how interdependent isn't entirely understood, but one study and one report — one from the University of British Columbia and the other by the American Psychological Association — demonstrate that our ability to share emotions runs much deeper.

At the University of British Columbia, Christiane Hoppmann, professor of psychology, gleaned insights in the Seattle Longitudinal Study. This long-term study has followed more than 6,000 individuals since 1956. Their emotional state, according to the findings, is often tied more to the emotional state of their spouse than their own personal success, good health, and inner peace.

The study was recently covered by the MSNBC. While the study focused primarily on married couples, researchers theorize that it happens the same in friendships or with individuals who share a lot of joint experiences.

Stress Spreads Rapidly Through Immediate Social Circles.

This seems to be supported by a recent report from the American Psychological Association, which reveals that 90 percent of children and adolescents surveyed said they can tell when their parents are stressed based on how they act. The actions do not always have to be direct; people who are stressed exhibit less patience, irritability, and forgetfulness.

But parental stress doesn't end with the parents. As many as 47 percent of preteens (8- to 12-year-olds) and 33 percent of teens feel sad when their parents are stressed. The Dallas News recently spoke with several psychiatrists who believe such stress can lead to stress or even depression in children.

Social Media Magnifies The Emotional Charge.

Dan Zarrella tracked the impact of overly negative remarks and attitudes online over 100,000 accounts. His findings suggest that while negativity might create a spike in attention, negative people tend to lose followers over the long term.

Recently, Zarrella expanded on his tracking to conclude that people don't like spreading negative news on Twitter or Facebook. In fact, he rightly suggests that is why people turn increasingly to social media as opposed to mainstream media for their news. They've reached their threshold.

Marketers Might Consider What This Means.

When you visit a Facebook account like Delta and a Facebook account like Coke, you will find decidedly different experiences. The members of one are mostly positive. The members of the other are mostly negative.

It's pretty easy to guess which is which. What is more difficult to ascertain is how many members don't take the time to "unlike" the account. They just don't go back, unless they have another negative experience to share.

Imagine what this might do to anyone visiting an account looking for positive information about a company. Otherwise happy people could easily become hyper-sensitive in looking for more problems. Ergo, you reap what you sow. And every now and again, it really pays to consider what you might be spreading.

After all, if spouses and parents can spread stress and depression, it stands to reason that they have an equal shot at spreading kindness and happiness too. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean everything you write about or talk about has to be another Kumbaya session, especially if it is faked. But it certainly might give you another reason to remain constructive in your approach while tempering how many "Debbie Downers" you enable or even how often you watch the news.

Banking On Friends: Why Bulk Is Going Bust

Experian Marketing Services' CheetahMail recently released an analysis that ought to wake up bulk promotion supporters, especially those relying on email as a means to deliver messages. The analysis pinpoints just how significantly emails from trusted sources outperform other marketing campaigns, even when the offer is the same or inferior.

• Friends-and-family emails had 43 percent higher open rates and 29 percent higher click rates compared to bulk promotions.
• Friends-and-family email transaction rates were 85 percent higher and 2.5 times higher against bulk promotions.
• Friends-and-family emails generate higher sales per email than bulk promotions and much higher referral rates.
• Friends-and-family emails with links to social networks had higher referral rates than direct-to-offer links.

Bulk Promotions Are Slowly Going Bust.

Before every social media expert nods in agreement, it might be important to point out that the trust measurements are changing in 2011. While the current trend is to trust people with significantly higher frequencies, the public is already beginning to slowly shift away from "brand ambassadors" who are attempting to supplant the blind bulk promotions.

Friends might trust friends who share links to social networks, but when "friendz" share simply to make pennies on the dollar or because they are enamored with a brand, then any established trust will begin to evaporate. In fact, many people have already filtered the top tier of abusive sharers — that one uncle who has nothing better to do than pass along chain emails and conspiracy memos. They were the first to go and certainly not the last.

Only Careful Sharing Will Increase Trust.

While most "influence" measures are built on a formula of little more than "volume times frequency times mass," those score-trumping trends, especially when linked to rewards for the sharer, will eventually crash. Ergo, while we all appreciate friends who share a new music discovery or review site, people are less inclined to "like" pages and "follow" brands because their second cousin likes to win contests and perks.

The trust evaporation factor may even happen faster as those once engaged are pelted by direct promos because they wanted to help a friend win a T-shirt or some other lowbrow novelty. Smart marketers already know this and have adjusted to accordingly. And those that don't? Many are already crumbling, including some who are nothing more than consultants.

Setting Example: How Ethics Plays Out, And Pays Out

While I would never encourage someone to seek a position to be a whistleblower, Cheryl Eckard, the former global quality assurance manager of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), demonstrated a near perfect example of how ethics ought to play out.

It's a lesson more public relations professionals and communicators might learn. As an industry, I sense many are still struggling to get it right. Well, it's more than a sense. I see exams that demonstrate ethics is approaching a crisis stage.

Eckard received $96 million of the settlement paid by the London-based company, which included $150 million in criminal fines and $600 million in civil penalties. The entire story makes an interesting case study in public relations. But for the purposes of the this post, the best lesson is how to approach ethical dilemmas inside a company.

How Eckard Approached Ethics Inside GlaxoSmithKline.

1. Eckard went to the Puerto Rico plant in August 2002 to correct manufacturing violations.
2. She discovered numerous violations, and suggested how those violations might be fixed.
3. She reported the problems to her superiors and the company's compliance department.
4. According to reports, neither the company nor the plant did anything to address the problems.
5. Eckard was eventually terminated, one year later, allegedly because of continuing to report problems.
6. Eckard turned whistleblower out of concern for consumer safety and public health.

The only area for improvement, keeping in mind it isn't clear if the company fired her prior to her realizing the company did not intend to take action, is Eckard could have resigned and still turned whistleblower. Any member of any company has an obligation to warn the public when all efforts to correct a problem internally have failed.

"We regret that we operated the Cidra facility in a manner that was inconsistent with current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) requirements and with GSK's commitment to manufacturing quality," said PD Villarreal, senior vice president and head of global litigation. "GSK worked hard to resolve fully the manufacturing issues at the Cidra facility prior to its closure in 2009 and we are committed to continuous improvement in our manufacturing processes."

Most reports indicate the plant was in violation of safety standards through 2005. The settlement statement reinforces that the company has not received any additional FDA warning letters since 2005. The plant continued to operate until 2009.

Where Public Relations Professionals And Communicators Tend To Trip Up.

From what I have noted, public relations professionals and communicators tend to fall on the opposite extremes of ethics. Either they pounce, reporting and making public any problems (even if there are none) without giving anyone the opportunity to do the right thing. Or, they don't go far enough, following most steps correctly until it becomes time to resign.

Only about 50 percent say they would be prepared to resign. Only about two percent say they would go public after resigning, potentially allowing public safety problems to occur. This concerns me. It ought to concern you too.

While situations might call for variations, ethical dilemmas are best handled by raising the issue with the guilty party, allowing them to correct the mistake and report the problem on their own. If they do not, then the discovering party should report it up to supervisors until one of them takes action. If no one is willing to, then the next appropriate step is to resign, letting the company know you intend to go public. What else is there?

Enforcing Rules: The Crowd-Sourced Community

For the last several years, when I've taught social media at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, I've warned students away from getting caught up in the duality of the field. In some ways, it's not just the field. Duality is the way people are hardwired.

Just as we have two eyes and two feet, duality is part of life. — Carlos Santana

Ike Pigott mentioned it yesterday, using Hemispheres by Rush as an analogy. But another story that piqued my interest was one by Geoff Livingston, writing for Mashable.

His topic about crowd-sourcing lands within the spectrum of duality. Much like bands, social networks and online communities exist because of crowds. However, crowds are attracted to uniqueness. You have to balance the effort, in being yourself while delivering up what people want.

Livingston penned a solid post, and I encourage you to read it there. The segment I wanted to touch on today is community management, especially rule enforcement (which is his forth point). It's a compelling argument for social media, because it tends to cut against the grain. Community-centric behavior needs to be enforced, he says. Let the community run wild, most say.

Everything you ever needed to know about social media is already written by Dr. Seuss.

Seriously. Dr. Seuss covered most social media topics well before social media was even a glimmer in someone's eye. And when it comes to managing communities, he included a warning story of sorts within Thidwick, The Big-Hearted Moose.

Thidwick, being the big-hearted moose that he was, allowed a Bingle Bug to climb on his antlers and enjoy the ride. The Bingle Bug was appreciative and grateful on the front end. But then, over time, he started inviting folks to the party. Namely, he invited a Tree-Spider, a Zinn-a-zu bird (and his wife), a woodpecker, a family of squirrels, a bobcat, a turtle, a fox, some mice, 62 bees, and even a bear. All of them made their home on Thidwick's antlers.

That became rather uncomfortable for the big-hearted moose. And it posed an even bigger problem when Thidwick needed to cross the river. The crowd promptly voted him down, even though that meant Thidwick would not be able to reach the moose-moss on the other side of Lake Winna-Bango.

Fortunately for Thidwick, at a critical juncture in the story (after being chased by hunters), he sheds his antlers as all moose do about once a year and that was that. He was able to join his friends. The ill-mannered guests, on the other hand, were not so lucky. They ended up on the hunting lodge wall, horns and all.

Now, of course, most people operating in social media cannot afford to simply dump their communities like Thidwick did. You have to find a better way than that (although several blogs, communities, and networks have closed their doors when things went out of control).

And that is where community management comes in to play. The day you have to start enforcing rules is the day you know that you already let things get out of control. For Thidwick, that point was exemplified as the woodpecker drilled holes in his horns. It was already too late.

Community enforcement begins with guidance.

The problem that some social media programs have is, much like Thidwick, they allow the crowd to grow without any thought whatsoever (other than elation that they are attracting people at a steady clip and cheering social media numbers). And by the time problems start to appear, little cracks in the community, it's already too late.

Since I first starting working with social media, I have had the ugly task of quelling several network conflicts, including a few that were outright rebellions. It wasn't very difficult for me to set things right, but it was for various owners. In every case, the cause was a neglected community. Almost overnight, or so it seemed, they had attracted a crowd — but the wrong crowd.

That is also why, as Livingston pointed out in his post, Pepsi Refresh had to adjust and enforce its rules address fraudulent voting. That is why Digg dumped several features needed to create a sense of community, but also made it super easy to game the system with reciprocal voting. And it is also why none of the Twitter influence algorithms work.

Ergo, if you want to develop a Christian network, attracting an abundance of atheists might not be such a good idea (or vice versa). However, a few, assuming they maintain decorum, could keep things challenging enough to avoid bubble syndrome. And that's my point. Community management is about being proactive in the shaping from the ground up and forever. It requires balance.

Even Thidwick, whom we are supposed to sympathize with (given the story is a lesson for guest behavior), was partly to blame for his predicament. He assumed that the more he catered to his guests (and the more guests there were) somehow equated to having a bigger heart. He was wrong. Sometimes having a bigger heart means enforcement, but all too often enforcement also means that the manager neglected a problem that already existed.

Guidance before problems start is already the remedy. And the same holds true in inner office disputes too. While there is the occasional bad apple hire, most inner office issues are the result of a community operating without proper guidance. Ergo, had Thidwick drew the line with the Bingle Bug and Tree-Spider, the story would have had a happier ending for everyone.

Being Teachable: Better Communication

One of my friends reminded me of an interesting story yesterday. The story, by John R. Noe, tells how one employee became frustrated by being passed up for promotions despite 20 years at the company.

Charlie was passed up three times in all, each time by people who had been with the company less time. So Charlie decided to confront his boss. He demanded to know why he was being passed up despite "20 years of experience."

"No, Charlie," the boss said. "You have been in the job 20 years, but you do not have 20 years of experience … you have one year of experience twenty times."

The Art Of Being Teachable.

Noe attributed the lack of promotion to making the same mistakes over and over. But mistakes are just reminders that you have plenty to learn. There are many people who never make mistakes, but still never gain experience while they drift along. They simply imitate the actions of the day before, never budging from the complacent comfortability they carve out for themselves.

There are dozens of reasons. Noe cited three: pride (the assumption they already know), skepticism (the doubt that anything can be improved upon), and lack of time (being so busy with the routine, there isn't time to expand horizons).

You have to give these things up to be teachable. And for some people, it isn't easy. Complacency is a drug, more addictive than crack. It might feel good for weeks, months, or years, but eventually it will kill you dead. Maybe not literally. But then again, maybe it will.

Why Being Teachable Is Important For Communicators.

When public relations people or communication folks complain about not getting a seat at the table, I always chuckle. Generally, the only reason they don't have a seat at the table is because they haven't earned it. They bring nothing of value.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean they are not valuable. I mean that they don't bring anything of value to the executive team, even though they have every tool and skill set at their disposal. They can conduct market research, run competitive analysis, scour industry articles, listen to people within the company, and come up with breakthroughs. But most of them don't.

Most professionals misapply a bad habit they pick up in school. They try to force other people's case studies onto the business or over a situation. So instead of becoming strategic thinkers, they strategically imitate what everyone else does. You can see it online, all the time. The most popular posts are laundry lists of things you can imitate. (That's not to say some lists aren't insightful).

You can turn all that on its head, though. Look outside your profession and listen, observe, read, test, experiment and see what will really work for your situation and circumstance. Some of the best ideas I've learned over the years come from areas one or two steps removed from what most people think I do. It's also a path directly opposite of advice that tells you to specialize.

If you want to be a better anything, the ratio of listening vs. talking (or doing) is about 80:20. That's why things take a little longer for some. Communicating (or writing) is only about 20 percent of the job. But there are plenty of people who can plunk out colorful copy if you prefer. Those are the folks with one year of experience 20 times.

Creating Social Networks: Colonies Before Communities

With increasing regularity, companies that have adopted social media find themselves asking the next most logical question. How do I develop a sense of community? There are plenty of answers, but there is only one right answer. You don't.

Online communities aren't developments. They are evolutions of other social structures, much like corporate cultures.

But unlike corporate cultures, you do not "control" the participants. There is no tangible contract. They don't owe you anything on the promise of a paycheck. They aren't likely to invest eight or more hours a day in your organization. And, as virtual nomads (or tribes if they are connected), they aren't likely to identify with fledgling ideas beyond recognizing common interest.

Colonies Before Communities.

Companies don't create communities. At best, they create colonies on new continents such as Facebook or those of their own design. And very much like the American colonies, they are founded for very different reasons and will have very different outcomes.

In 1585, Sir Walter Raleigh had received a charter to establish a settlement in North America within ten years. The intent, much like many companies that want communities, wasn't much more than to exploit the riches of the new world. How they would do this, beyond raiding Spanish treasure fleets, was unclear in some cases. This colony, Roanoke, disappeared without a trace.

Subsequent colonies were established for different reasons. Virginia was established for trade and profits. Plymouth for religious freedom. New York for trade and profits. New Hampshire for looser economic rules. South Carolina to produce rice. And so on and so forth.

The earliest colonists didn't identify with their location as much as their homeland, but they all recognized they generally shared one or two common interests. One colony, Plymouth, did establish a Mayflower Compact, loosely based on the idea that the colonists would agree to certain rules for mutual benefit beyond their understanding of English law. The point of interest here is that the colonists, not England, wrote and signed the compact.

The Risk Of Colonization.

Some colonies take shape much like the visionaries intend. Others do not. And the reasons are as varied as the American colonies. Sometimes colonies are abandoned for greener pastures. Sometimes neighboring tribes invade and take over. Sometimes charismatic leaders emerge and have more influence than the appointed governance of a community manager.

But more important than any of that is to always remember surviving colonies will eventually not be managed by the people who fund the charter, but rather by the people who populate it. In less than 200 years, even early American colonies would eventually develop a sense of identity so strong, they would rebuff the crown and claim sovereignty in the face of change.

Thus, companies and organizations hoping to build communities, especially those designed for trade and profit, may have a few surprises in store for them. Whatever design they have in mind may not work.

South Carolina, for example, was founded for rice production but the cash crop eventually became tobacco. New York, which was originally a Dutch settlement, was taken over by the English. When puritan leaders became too hard in New Hampshire, the colonists began to spread north and inland. In Connecticut, founder Thomas Hooker was asked to leave. And so on.

You can match any of these stories with various company community efforts or fledgling social networks. Some disappear. Some are taken over. Some have member revolutions. And so on. It's amazing, when you think about it, that some do develop into loyalist communities at all.

The Reward Of A Loyalist Community.

When you think about it, the goal of many companies eventually becomes to own a loyalist community. They want people to participate, buy, and encourage their friends to participate and buy as well. It's possible, but not probable, with rare exception.

• Are you confident that the colony will receive as much support at it needs during bleak seasons?
• Are you prepared to hire a community manager or managers with more experience than an intern?
• Are you certain this representative will reinforce the community vision and not a rock star image?
• Are you up for guiding behaviors that reinforce the vision of the community being created?
• Are you flexible enough to know when the vision won't mesh with the participants you attract?
• Are you resigned to the idea that you may own the technology, but not the culture that develops?
• Are you ready to defend against invaders that disrupt the safety and sense of security people expect?
• Are you restrained enough to avoid sweeping changes that shock the community in the morning?

Then you might be ready to fund a colony, with the hope it will return a loyal community. But if you think a social network (even if it is on Facebook) is a campaign or a technology, then your expectations will not likely be met for any sustainable amount of time. The net is littered with more Roanokes than Facebooks and more New Hampshires than Reddits.