Sizing Us And Them: A Lesson In Transparency

In 1972, prolific British dramatist David Campton wrote a seemingly simple one act play called Us And Them. If you've never heard of Campton, think of him as a playwright much like Arthur Miller, except leaning more toward the absurd.

His play, Us And Them, begins innocently enough with two groups of wanderers looking for a place to settle. And once they each find a plot of land stage left and stage right, both groups agree to mark a line between their two territories. Over time, the line becomes a fence and a fence becomes a wall and the wall grows in size until neither side knows what the other is doing.

Eventually, both sides begin to wonder what the other side might be doing. They wonder long enough that their thoughts turn to suspicion and suspicion to mistrust and mistrust to fear, with each side believing that the other is plotting against them. As fear takes hold, both sides unknowingly make preparations for ensuing conflict until eventually it explodes. In the end, two survivors, looking at the waste they have inflicted on one other, come to the conclusion that the wall was to blame.

The lesson about walls was never about walls.

The irony about the play is that the lesson left by Campton was never about walls despite the interpretation of some high school theater teachers. The lack of transparency did nothing; only people and their obsession with the wall and fear of the unknown were to blame for mutual paranoid destruction.

If the recent publishing of the annual Edelman Trust Barometer is any indication of direction, the tone of U.S. politics with its incessant finger pointing at itself and other institutions has become a wall for the modern era. In fact, the U.S. was the only country in which trust in all institutions has declined.

As trust has declined overall, with growing frequency, the public has demanded more transparency. They demand it from businesses and business owners, politicians and government, executives and corporations, reporters and the media, themselves and each other. Tear down the walls, they exclaim with increased regularity.

It isn't only about institutions either. As Valeria Maltoni pointed out, trust in our own peers seems to have fallen in comparison to teachers, analysts, individual executives, and certain experts, where it has risen. While there are many theories as to why, it seems clear enough. Those capturing increased trust are perceived to have less power and cause for agenda or, in the case of individual executives, have already been forced to exhibit more transparency.

Forced transparency is a function of mistrust.

There is a reason the writers of the Constitution built in checks, balances, and transparency. Looking back in history, the founding fathers could find no evidence of a trustworthy government. Right. They mistrusted government or, more exactly, the agenda of men who might abuse its power.

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." — John Adams.

Even James Madison warned that any nation which reposed too much on the pillow of political confidence would sooner or later see the end of its existence. Plainly speaking, we weren't supposed to trust our government or, more exactly, any men who might abuse its power. Even Patrick Henry pointed out that the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government. And Adams himself later lamented some moments where he overreached as President.

But what about each other? For the age, the founding fathers placed more trust in citizens to self-govern. Their only fear was that the public might fall prey to believing in promises of "necessity," aptly described as the plea for every infringement of human freedom. But other than that, they placed their trust in individuals and upheld the individual's right to be considered innocent (trustworthy) until evidence proved that they were not.

My primary point is that Americans are supposed to be suspicious not of government or hammers, but of those who are entrusted to manage its power. Our suspicions of everything else, with exception to those who have broken trust, are often made up. In other words, we obsess too much about the other side of the wall.

Authenticity is the measure by which we all benefit.

Although Maltoni cautioned me against using the term authenticity, favoring honesty, I still prefer it. Authenticity means being trustworthy, honest, and genuine. Contrary, transparency is a remedy of mistrust.

To help appreciate the difference, consider the micro view. A spouse who trusts their partner may never need ask any details if the partner has to meet someone for dinner. The trust is based on the authenticity their partner, specifically their resolve to never have an affair. It is only when the partner breaks that trust by having an affair that a trusting spouse might require transparency.

Please don't misunderstand me. Transparency can be considered an admirable quality, given that when we choose to share our thoughts, beliefs, lives, and stories, it can be considered a gift. But like all gifts, when it is demanded, it loses value.

Of course, someone offering up too much transparency (especially if they demand it of others), can also confound. The magician, for example, makes it a point to prove there is nothing up his or her sleeve before performing magic. The criminal might be the first to ask everyone to empty their pockets (especially if they passed the stolen item or hid it away). The agenda-driven professional may promise transparency but then never deliver after the contract is secure.

Most walls are only illusions and made by people.

In the play Us And Them, the wall was never to blame. Whether the wall was there or not wasn't even relevant. Most mistrust is created from within our imaginations.

Just as we've seen in plenty of other stories and in history itself, if we lived without any walls (truly transparent, with cameras in our homes), the level of mistrust would increase exponentially as someone would be charged with deciphering our every motivation. Or, equally correct, one could say there is no trust in a world where people aren't given the freedom to exhibit it.

It seems the solution is not attempting to bind individuals to greater degrees of public scrutiny as some people propose by policy or regulation or declaration, but rather binding people to cooperate in environments built on mutual trust, based on nothing more than "what is" as opposed to "what might be." That is what gave us the strength throughout history to accomplish micro tasks like rock climbing or macro tasks like landing on the moon.

When you think about it, this direction even holds in the earlier micro example that explores jealous spouses. The are four common breakdowns of trust in marriages, with one being functional and three being dysfunctional. Maybe more.

Functional mistrust is an outcome of evidence, which is the only one that warrants transparency as a foothold for restoration. Dysfunctional mistrust, on the other hand, is caused by our own insecurities, misinterpretations, and/or misapplying past experiences with people who don't deserve it. In those instances, we might take a harder look at ourselves more than others.

Three related articles about trust and power.

• Distrust in leaders: dimensions, patterns, and emotional intensity.

• Poverty is more likely cause of mistrust than race, says study.

• Messaging trust and the decline of peers.

Incentivizing Behavior: How Algorithms Kill Good Ideas

The newest bright and shiny object at the center of social network news is undoubtedly Quora, which is a question and answer network that reached 164,00 unique visitors in December (and likely doubled in January). But all that might be for naught.

According to TechCrunch, Quora wants to develop an algorithm to measure online rank and user quality. Good luck with that. It's a mistake.

While algorithms can be useful, they also diminish the overall quality and value of any network where they are applied. Google understands this about human interaction. It's one of the reasons the popular search engine recently announced a harder look at search engine spam, beyond the changes that took place last May.

Much like photons and electrons in quantum mechanics, people behave differently when they are measured.

If you are familiar with quantum mechanics or wave-particle duality or the uncertainty principle, you already know they behave differently when they are observed and/or measured. People behave differently when they are observed and/or measured too.

And, the more people know about how they are measured, the more likely they will be influenced by the measurement. Even one of the first scoring systems widely adopted by marketers influenced their behavior as participants. As soon as Todd And's Power 150 was adopted, participants focused on improving the measures. Back then, it included things like Google Page Rank, Bloglines, and Technorati.

Since the so-called Power 150 move over to Advertising Age in 2007, it has undergone several overhauls, some good and some not so good. The new measures now include PostRank, Yahoo InLinks, Alexa Points, and Collective Intellect.

Throughout all those changes, an interesting phenomenon occurred with every addition and deletion: The usual list leaders would tumble down, sometimes as many as 30 places, before rising back up to their relative places. It's no secret why this occurred. It demonstrates a tactical shift in which measurements the list leaders concentrated tactical efforts.

The same phenomenon is occurring on Twitter. As Klout is adopted, participants adjust to accommodate the new measure of incentivized frequency because more tweets equal more Klout.

It also equals more spam, more auto messaging systems, more paid and fake followers, more conformity to popular opinion, and more time on the platform. Mike Judge already predicted the outcome of this path.

Why adding algorithms to networks changes the nature of the networks.

Quora originally started as a network where people ask and answer questions. The primary objective was to create a database of information. As such, the participants mostly attempted to provide the best possible answer to the specific questions being asked.

As Quora adopts a ranking system, the objective will fundamentally change. Instead of answering a few questions by providing the best possible answers, many will be predisposed to answer more questions with whatever information is likely to generate the highest number of up votes. These lead to a fundamentally different answer.

As David Armano, senior vice president at Edelman Digital, pointed out after I questioned his post that placed even more qualitative merit on up votes: Quora isn't a database of information. He defines Quora as a marketplace of opinions.

Coincidentally, the supply of opinions outpaced the demand for the action some years ago. Mostly because, as a commodity, opinions are the only limitless product in a world searching for something increasingly rare. One good idea that works.

Haunting Professionals: Public Relations Vs. Propaganda

A little less than two weeks remain before I begin teaching Writing For Public Relations at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I've served as an instructor for just over a decade, and I've found that every year brings a new set of challenges for working public relations professionals as well as those intending to enter the field.

This year, more than any other, there is one challenge in particular that haunts me. Bruce Spotleson, group publisher for Greenspun Media, brought it up three years ago and has reinforced the notion every year since. When he joins the class as a guest speaker, he unapologetically considers that today's public relations professionals may be the stewards of tomorrow's truth.

He's touching on, of course, the unintended consequences of social media and social networks. As news continues to decline and people become more reliant on the Internet, they will increasingly lean on public relations professionals for their news.

It is imperative public relations professionals learn the difference between public relations and propaganda.

Long before social media and social networks became a preferred means to disseminate online information, the future of the Internet was already considered a double-edged sword. On one side, it could be the answer to corporate dominance and media concentration by stimulating the free flow of information. On the other, as a medium, it also allowed for an abundance of misinformation to be spread intentionally (by people with agendas) and unintentionally (by sloppy research and source reporting).

There have been dozens of compelling examples in the last decade, ranging from George Bush's IQ hoax (which some people still believe) to Kennedy's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, once claiming that a U.S. Navy missile had shot down a commercial flight based on a report by an extreme propagandist. Last year, I also tracked the impact of a single biased release.

Collectively, people do not discriminate for content accuracy as much as they do for content affirmation. So for some bright people, including Randal Martin, who wrote Propaganda & The Ethics Of Persuasion, counting on the fifth estate might not be enough.

The gatekeepers of content and information (public relations professionals) may have to develop a dual allegiance. They must consider the best interest of both the organization and the public. And, they must remember that while effective communication may be designed to change behavior, it does so by providing information and not manipulation.

"That is to say, [manipulation] involves some sort of misleading communication, emotional pressure, appeals to the subconscious, and suchlike," Martin suggested. Or when it aims to infringes on the autonomy of any person.

For example, on the micro level, a blogger may request someone to promote or weigh in with an opinion on a particular post, which represents a fair exchange. But when a blogger attempts to leverage association or favors as a means to coerce promotion or a like opinion, it drifts into propaganda. On the macro level, communicating the disadvantages of a lifestyle choice is fair, but skewing statistical information or capitalizing on an emotional incident to set policy or discredit an unrelated opinion is not.

If you set some recent political exchanges under such a review, you may discover the system is riddled with propaganda. Likewise, some social media participants lean toward accepting propaganda tactics as an accepted, even admired, practice.

Perhaps public relations might consider the definition of German sociologist Jürgen Habermas. He suggested that ethical communication might be subject to being meaningful (understandable), truthful (accurate), sincere (pure intent), and appropriate (valuable given the context). The only dilemma that arises, according to Martin, may be those occasions when the public prefers to surrender its autonomy, placing their trust in representatives. (I might offer up, however, the desire for a simpler life with fewer decisions does not warrant infringing on the autonomy of others.)

What this means for public relations professionals, in particular, is accepting the responsibility to verify sources. Liz Scherer, Jeff Esposito, and Doug Haslam all concur that truth and accuracy are fundamental to the profession.

"Public relations — good public relations — is about getting the message out," reminds Haslam. "Yes, it's advocacy. But the good public relations professionals don't lie."

Esposito adds that public relations professionals can learn from history. He says that major media institutions aren't critical provided professionals are willing to do their homework. It's an important distinction because sometimes even the pros themselves are being subjected to internal propaganda.

It's increasingly important for the public to identify propaganda too.

Spotting propaganda isn't necessarily an easy process. It requires substantial effort to track down originating sources, the ability to decipher primary messages and subtext, an assessment of who might stand to gain, the context of the presentation, the techniques used to share the message, and the infusion of bias (e.g., favoring the well-spoken or ill-spoken spokesperson).

One local example that came to my attention is the reinforcement that Spanish is the "most spoken language in the world." It's not. Mandarin Chinese has more native speakers. Both Mandarin Chinese and English also lead as a first, second, and foreign languages (combined). English is the most learned language in the world, followed by French. Hindu is also widely spoken as are others.

Yet, two area teachers and one television program recently made the claim for Spanish, encouraging children to learn Spanish as a second language without attribution. Interestingly, Virginia Tech recommends French as a more global second language (for English speakers).

I certainly wouldn't want to dissuade someone from learning Spanish. It's especially useful in the southwestern United States and South America. But it does strike me as strange that teachers would spread misinformation, knowingly or not. One even required it as a test answer.

Related Posts About Propaganda.

• PR, not Propaganda.

• PR Firm Behind Propaganda Videos Wins Stimulus Contract.

• Did the Father of Propaganda Convince America that Fluoride Is Safe?

Flipping The Scale: Influencers Are The Most Influenced

You've all read about all the gimmicks. Heard all the pitches. And taken in the all the analysis.

Almost everyone points to the same conclusion. If you want to succeed in social media, you need to find influencers. Right?

WRONG.

Most experts, agencies, and scoring systems aren't leading companies to influencers. They are leading companies to people who are among the most influenced. Sure, this might not be true in every case, but it does apply to a growing collective.

How commoditizing influence turns influencers into influencees.

• Influenced by cash. Many influencers will spread a message for cash. The rates varies, ranging from a blogger who might drop in a link for $25 per insertion to celebrities asking almost $3,000 per tweet.

• Influenced by perks. If you can convince someone to write something positive about your product or service for nothing more than perks, it speaks volumes about how easily they are prone to be influenced. In some cases, a mere coupon for a cup of java could do it.

• Influenced by information. Those pursuing some semblance of a thought leader moniker need the inside scoop to create an illusion of thought leadership without original thoughts. Designating them as the first string of PR-friendly reviewers with every product launch will lift them up.

• Influenced by attention. Since social media places a premium on affiliation, the simple process of sharing their opinions, insights, and flatteries could influence future coverage. Reciprocating with even a few mentions and re-tweets pays dividends.

• Influenced by comments. While some of the top influencers don't respond to every comment, many respond as quickly as possible because comments are still considered important. So who yields influence: the commenter with a two-second quip or the author dropping everything to pander to the commenter?

• Influenced by scores. it seems almost sad that some individuals are so influenced by algorithms, they will change their behavior to accommodate. Even one of these companies recently expressed the danger in overemphasizing such scoring systems.

• Influenced by influencers. As social media developed a hierarchy of influence, it also developed bubbles, which Umair Haque recently called relationship inflation. Like soap bubbles, niche influencers tend to gravitate toward each other, stick together, and prop each other up (regardless of merit) by trading influence.

• Influenced by criticism. Much like brands, influencers tend to be hypersensitive to criticism. Some so much so that no one even knows where the criticism originated before it is responded to with the force of countless minions.

Companies aren't chasing influencers. They are chasing influencees.

When you take the time to think about it, companies don't seem as interested in influencers as much as the potential to influence. And the agencies, experts, and analytic tool specialists point toward influencers as the answer to everything, they seem to be advocating the exploitation of people who are temporarily popular. This tactic is a descent into propaganda.

If you really want to distinguish true influencers from the rest, they are generally people who are unencumbered by the banner of influence currently embraced by social media. They tend to focus on something else in entirety, such as imagination, creativity, innovation, and truth.

You can't buy their love. You can't ingratiate them with praise. You can't inflate their egos. They don't care what you think.

True influencers are innovators, often (but not always) without mass followings of people until the innovation is proven. You know their names. They include people like Steve Jobs, Kurt Cobain, Paul Gauguin, Martin Luther King Jr., Leonardo da Vinci. Alfred Hitchcock, Galileo Galilei, Confucius, etc.

There are thousands of them. But even so, they share some similarities. Generally, while influenced by other individuals (some obscure and some well known) and experiences, the greater weight of influence in their lives came from the ideas that preceded them, eventually leading them to ideas and innovations that transcended their existence.

Innovation alone leads to tangible influence.

Sure, there is something to be said for popularity, persuasiveness, and punditry. Those mechanisms can help a good idea or innovation spread faster than those that never make it to a drafting table. But social media would be remiss to continually place more emphasis on the mechanism of attention — employing propaganda to persuade people that unoriginal, biased, bought, stolen, or otherwise fictional and inflated ideas — than the innovations themselves.

Bad ideas, after all, can be spread just as fast as good ones. We've known this since the dawn of time. And for every advent in communication, there is always an equally powerful mechanism for information manipulation that follows.

The growing evidence seems to suggest that the "influencers model" is a mechanism for information manipulation that follows the merit of social media. Special thanks to Geoff Livingston, Olivier Blanchard, and a few other punks for the conversation.

Being Yourself: An Anti-Personal Branding Introduction

The usually adept Jonathan Fields wrote an interesting commentary inspired by a comment made by Paulo Coelho, which had attracted more than 37,000 "likes" in agreement.

Coelho had written "what other people think think of you is none of their business." Fields then contended it might be the opposite. In the real world, Fields says, what other people think IS your business.

The Paradox Of Personal Vs. Public Images.

In his book, Life, Keith Richards mentions that he is entirely aware of the image that is Keith Richards while still remaining true to himself, the real Keith Richards. Think about for a moment.

You don't have to be a rock star, especially online, to appreciate that many people have both. It's the core premise of "personal branding" and "image consulting" that if you look your best and project your greatness, you will attract greatness. The theory is sound and provable anywhere communication (verbal and nonverbal) interconnects — even politicians learn that there is a time to wear a suit and a time to wear a blue shirt, sleeves rolled, and khakis as if to say "I'm not with the suits; I'm one of you."

Working in advertising and communication is one of the best professions to see this stuff play out on a regular basis. People expect account executives to wear suits, creative professionals to be hip and cool (or unaware, almost anti-socail, and reclusive), public relations pros to be in between, and social media types to adopt something in between cool and tech. And, for the most part, many people dress the part.

We don't learn this stuff in college or anything. When you really think about it, we learn it in high school. At a certain age, our peers demand some semblance of sameness in sometimes cruel and unusual ways, reinforced by scads of ugly duckling movies that transform otherwise dismissed boys and girls into beautiful, popular people with a little makeup and a wardrobe change much like Ally Sheedy did in the movie Breakfast Club, despite the underlying anti-stereotype messages. A little bit of sameness can go a long way.

Sure, there is some truth to that. Not everyone can thrive in a lifestyle carved out by someone like Charles Bukowski and be happy. But neither should anyone expect to be happy putting on a mask every day because that is what people expect.

You don't have to wait for the world to catch up; it's really about you, anyway.

I appreciate that Fields says someday the world will catch up and allow people to be whatever they are, but I don't think they have to. There is a different dynamic at work. The world seems more than capable of accepting whoever we might be, as long as we're true to who we are.

It's the very reason someone like Don King can tease their hair up into a crown and make it work while other people would seem too buffoonish. Can you imagine Bill Gates sporting a King hairdo? But that is the point. Gates would look silly because it doesn't fit him as person.

Where personal branding people get it wrong is they often tell people to adopt stylings that reflect what's expected and accepted. Ergo, if you want to fit in, adopt the corporate culture, even if that isn't who you are. Hmmm ... is it any wonder the most extreme cases, musicians and artists and actors, are the most likely to suffer personality snaps and drug addictions?

Coelho is right; Fields only partly so.

Coelho provides some truth in less than 140 characters, but it's not enough to give people some indication of how to do it. It requires several steps, with the most important step being the one step that many people don't know. Be true to yourself.

There are a surprising number of people who don't know who they are, so they struggle with it. (That's okay. I did too, at different times, years ago.) But that is the first step. If you don't know who you are, then chances are nobody else will either.

Where I am sometimes disenchanted by personal branding experts or image consultants is because they seldom consider the first step. Instead, they tell people to imagine some famous fantasy as the end result. Business owners do it too, trying to emulate companies like Apple or JetBlue even if they aren't anywhere close to those companies.

It's one of the reasons we help companies (and sometimes candidates) develop core messages. We help them find out who or what they are, find the differences that make them unique, and then encourage them to stop trying to be vanilla because consumers (or employers) seem to have taste for that flavor. After that, it's a little bit easier.

So unless you're someone whose nature is to go against the grain, you can find ways to be yourself while demonstrating that you can meet the group or corporate culture halfway (a lack of empathy, after all, is a different sort of problem). In other words, embrace and promote your differences while demonstrating that you respect their sameness. It's a much stronger position, and allows you not to care so much what other people think about you.

You might even consider "anti-personal branding" of sorts. It's an awareness that character (who you are) and reputation (what people think you are) are two different things. If you want to succeed, all you need to do is diminish the space between the two.

Challenging SM Experts: It's A Numbers Game?

Chris Kieff is a pretty bright guy. In his interview about Ripple6, he mentions how he helps companies realize their marketing and business goals through social media. Smart stuff in one line.

Less likable was his recent thinking about social media experts and his reaction to the criticism and praise revolving around them. The primary reason is because it feeds the delusion that social media is a numbers game.

Social media is not a numbers game. At least, it won't be forever.

Ike Pigott once framed it up as it relates to duality and juxtaposition. It was one of my favorite posts that he wrote this year, but the discrepancy goes deeper.

Social media for business is less about getting numbers and more about finding the right numbers. The potential reach is not the entire online population but rather a fraction of the entire population, plus about 5 to 10 percent and minus competitor loyalists. And, at the same time, you have to maintain one-on-one relationships with whatever numbers there might be.

In other words, some companies can thrive with the tiniest of online networks. Others will die despite massive popular appeal.

It has been this way for hundreds and thousands of years. And I suspect it will be this way for hundreds and thousands more. Popularity is no indication of talent or expertise or sustainability. It's often an indication of someone resonating with the status quo, before someone else with an innovative idea topples them off the top with a better way or better gauge or better whatever.

Wilde. Shakespeare. Ford. Beethoven. Cervenka. Warhol. Einstein. Tesla. Lennon. Jobs. Hurley. Lombardi. Socrates. While many of us know these names as influential, none of them seemed all that influential before their influence had already made an impact. And mentioning this could be important to the conversation given that the most influential "social media expert" (if there is such a thing) could very well likely be someone who has 100 Twitter followers today, or, more than likely, hasn't even been born yet.

Companies might keep this in mind while they attempt to overlay metrics onto their decision-making process. While metrics can certainly help us get the job done, they can be equally misleading. While Kieff has a point that it is fair to expect that a so-called social media expert might be expected to participate in the platforms they profess to know, basing decisions on scoring dismisses the varied unseen approaches to this space.

There are plenty of communicators who keep their Facebook pages mostly personal. There are plenty of communicators who invest more personal time on other channels than Twitter. There are plenty of people who never bothered to join a ranking list or algorithm. And so on and so forth. Not to mention, simply participating in all of them doesn't make you an expert, even if it may give you a better understanding.

Searching for someone who understands social media.

Such a decision never starts with a short list of vendors based on nothing more than modern trophies. It starts with understanding the objectives of your business and then finding someone who can help you realize those marketing and business goals using social media or, perhaps, a much broader perspective, making social media a portion of your overall communication strategy.

Sure, I know nobody likes hearing that the answer isn't some short list of criteria. But if anybody wants to be honest, there really isn't any magic formula. If you want a sustainable social media program, all you really need are the people who will match what your company can offer to the people who are already looking for it.

Some of the most prominent and most successful social media programs today did not start with a social media expert (and some did). That alone makes the compelling case that it's not a numbers game. It's about results.

A few related posts you might find enjoyable.

• Down With the Teflon Revolutionaries.
• 9 Points On Why I’m Not a Social Media Expert.
• Let’s “De-Friend” All Self-Proclaimed Social Media Experts!

Raising Psychology: Affluence Advertising

Earlier in November, the American Affluence Research Center advised luxury marketers to focus on the wealthiest one percent of the market and ignore the rest. According to an article by Luxury Daily, it based its decision on a completed study that surveyed the wealthiest 10 percent of American households.

"Luxury brands and luxury marketers should be focused on the wealthiest one percent because they are the least likely to be cutting back and are the most knowledgeable about the price points and brands that are true high-end luxury," Ron Kurtz, president of the American Affluence Research Center, Atlanta, told the magazine.

The logic is that luxury marketers need to focus on the audience that is least likely to be cutting back. They are also the most likely to be knowledgeable about the price points and brands that are at the highest end of luxury. However, while the advice might seem sound, it misses one key component of the luxury marker — obtainability.

Sometimes added value isn't the only commodity; exclusivity and identity resonate.

There are several ways to market a luxury product or service. Demonstrating value is one way, but exclusivity and identity are important. An average income household might invest in a green innovation that is generally considered a luxury item because it is an extension of their values.

And, equally likely, consumers are willing to splurge on luxury items for special occasions because, despite financial constraints, the act of purchasing the item or its rarity makes it appear more valuable. In the deepest corners of the recession, consumers were splurging while they were on vacation for very significant reasons.

In addition, the perception of a general product on any particular day can elevate its value. For example, Porsche is often associated with wealth. Cadillac used to be associated with wealth, but as it became more readily accessible to the general public, it lost some stature as a luxury purchase.

This might make an interesting topic for expanded discussion, even without all the evidence that is contrary to the advice of the American Affluence Research Center. Its research seems right, but the conclusions it draws would only drive more marketers into an extremely competitive and small market. Don't be foolish. Instead, take more time to get to know your customers.

Recovering Cautiously: Consumers Test The Waters

As some companies are slowly thawing pay freezes and even considering the addition of new employees, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) says retail sales climbed higher in September. This is the third consecutive month, with slight increases spread across nearly all segments.

The uptick is slight, with an increase of 0.6 percent over August sales and 7.3 percent over September 2009. Retail sales (excluding auto sales) were up 0.4 percent over the previous month and 5.4 percent over August 2009. The largest increase over August came from electronics and appliance retailers. Sales increased by 1.5 percent.

Why Electronics And Appliances Continue To Rise.

Unlike clothing stores, which bolstered their sales in August with back-to-school shoppers (and dropped in September), electronics represents an industry where innovation continues to propel the industry forward. In the last few months, technological improvements seem to capture all the attention.

Appliances aren't much different. However, in addition to innovations that promise to be more environmentally friendly, energy conscious, and cause less wear on clothing, the industry and retailers have worked hard on marketing rebates, one-time sales, and extended credit (where customers don't have to pay interest for six or twelve months). These approaches tend to bolster immediate sales without devaluing products.

Consumer Awareness Reveals Which Companies Do Better.

When you look across various industries at market performance, the top performing companies have one thing in common. They appear to be listening to consumers and either evolving the product to add value (innovation) or better communicating what they offer (credibility).

Companies that rely on discounts without added value or expertise will continue to struggle. Even while announcing modestly promising news, RILA was cautious. The economy has been sluggish for the past three years, with many businesses holding off hiring until new rules and regulations are fully understood.

"Every aspect of the economy, particularly those industries reliant on consumer spending, remains challenged by the fact that nearly 15 million Americans are unemployed and millions more are underemployed," said RILA President Sandy Kennedy. "Without a meaningful improvement in the job market, retail sales gains will be sluggish and hard won."

Again, for marketers, those hard won sales seem to be tied to innovations and better services. If you cannot offer a more innovative product, then demonstrating that you care about the consumer (market knowledge) can go a long way. Simply put, beyond innovations, customers are wondering who they can trust.

Losing Contacts: The Open Network

A couple years ago, I considered moving out of the Las Vegas market after being approached by a Fortune 500 company. The offer was nearly perfect until they tossed one question that was a deal breaker in my book. It was about my "book" or what was once called a Rolodex.

"How many media contacts do you have in your Rolodex?

Seriously? A tech company even using the term seemed suspect enough, Fortune 500 or not. But the real rub was that it just doesn't matter how many business cards you've filed away. Social networking has created an open network, where the value of industry connections and media relationships are based on quality, not quantity. I tried to explain, but they just didn't get it.

"It just doesn't matter what the industry is, any seasoned public relations professional can create a fistful of media contacts overnight and the quality of the relationships will be established almost immediately based on the initial interaction."

That was the power and promise of the social network. Even if you didn't have certain contacts, doors could be opened easily enough. Almost everyone on the planet is one or two or three degrees removed from the contacts you have today (assuming they are real relationships).

And then I read Fear and Loathing on LinkedIn this morning and realized the opposite is true too. If everyone's doors are open to you, then your doors are likely to be open to everyone else too. As HR technology writer Steve Boese pointed out, everyone has access to your network.

It used to be, you'd only have to worry about competing recruiters luring your best talent away to what is usually seen as an uncertain path, now it looks like soon your friends at LinkedIn may help guide the way a little more clearly," wrote Boese. "But don't be afraid, if you lose that top marketing manager you can probably find another one soon enough."

The same can be said for small shops, consultants, and, well, any business really. Online networks are open books. And if you don't think that someone isn't interested in stealing away your employees, clients, customers, and maybe your spouse, then you might be as naive as new snow.

While the value of quantity connections used to carry value on the supply and demand side, it just doesn't scale. One thousand exclusive connections only mean something when they are exclusive. Today, those 1,000 connections are an open book. Of course, it's nothing to panic about, as Boese suggests. It's the best thing that happened for everybody.

"Fear melts when you take action towards a goal you really want." — Robert G. Allen

The remedy is never fear or attempting to lock down those precious connections. It's very much the opposite. Make them precious. Make them count. Because in the new economy, the quality of the relationship isn't secured by keeping your connections hidden or bombarding them with frequency. It's based on something else, which is closer to friendship.

I have many friends, but only a few close ones. Those I could consider close (and I don't necessarily mean "secret keeping" close) are the kind of friends that I could reach out to once every ten years and we would pick up where we left off, as if the last time we connected was a week ago. I have many acquaintances that are very much the same (former students included).

It's the only kind of relationship that has real value, and you can even make them with first-time connections if you are adept enough, value them enough, and keep them off the agenda. Anything less isn't a connection, it's only a contact. If you focus more on the former as opposed to the latter, you can almost guarantee that your employees will be unrecruitable, your client unstealable, and your future connections unwavering (even if you never met them beyond a post, email, or tweet).

And if you don't believe it? Well, then keep doing what you're doing. You'll figure it out in your own time, probably when you grow weary of the revolving door. And that's something you can count on.

Drinking Kool-Aid: Palms Resort Guzzles Klout

The Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas had set itself out to be the party place in Las Vegas when most resort owners were overly concerned with themes. It has always been that way, even back in 2002 when developer George Maloof Jr. opened the property.

"If anything, Las Vegas is a party place and it will always be a party place. We (The Palms) will strive to be party central," Maloof told me a few days before he opened the property.

Making good on his promise, Maloof set out to build a trendsetting property. And by most measures, he did. If any property sparked the party-club atmosphere that Las Vegas has become, it's easy enough to make the case that it was The Palms.

The Palms' Kool-Aid Is Klout.

By becoming celebrity central, it only makes sense that The Palms would eventually embrace social media. It made a move rather late in the trendsetting scheme (Vegas lags behind in social media with programs run by people fresh out of three-day workshops) and the program is largely broadcast oriented. However, they are doing a fine job, overall, in a meandering sort of way. At least I thought so, until I read just how much Kool-Aid the property had drunk with Klout.

David Teicher wrote an interesting article about The Palms for AdAge. The chief marketing officer, Jason Gastwirth, is building a "Klout Klub." Specifically, people with higher Klout scores will receive access to more amenities than people who do not.

Unfortunately, what Gastwirth doesn't know is that Klout, as interesting and fun and silly as it can be, doesn't measure influence. It only pretends it does much in the same way star-bellied sneetches believed they were better than sneetches without stars.

Right. Like all Twitter "influence" algorithms, it tracks RTs and mentions as some sort of indicator of influence. They are not.

In fact, Klout is largely static and makes more mistakes than most. For example, unless you manually update the score and are extremely active on Twitter, your score will stay the same as the time you first stumbled upon it. And, for someone like me, as an example, I have an ultra low influence score because I only use Twitter to keep up with and have conversations with about 2,900 people in the field (generally people with very high Klout scores).

I could change that, if I wanted to. Gaming Klout is relatively simple. If you participate in chat sessions or run one, your "influence" measure will skyrocket because Twitter chat sessions are indicative of generating heavy RTs and mentions. (You can also create a dummy account and have them chat you up, if you want to.) And, of course, you can gin it all up with auto follows and searches for people who automatically follow back. That's just for starters.

What Klout Doesn't Count.

However, even more daunting than that is what Klout doesn't consider. It doesn't consider the 3,500 subscribers here. It doesn't consider a multitude of other social networks. It doesn't consider thousands of people who recently discovered one of our side projects. And it doesn't consider any of the other social media programs we help manage. It really doesn't measure anything.

In fact, it is equally interesting that Klout scores a fledgling Twitter account for our side project (usually manned by volunteer Justin) with 28, 20 points higher than mine, despite having only 120+ connections. That is fine with me, especially because it claims I have "influence" over one person whom I haven't chatted with in six months and another person in more than one year. It even says I influence my wife, who posts once every three months on Twitter.

So, the bottom line is that by Klout standards, I almost have anti-influence. That is fine with me because I've never thought to chase influence anyway. But what that means for properties and companies and organizations like The Palms, as they brand their bellies with stars, is that they are very likely catering to the wrong people — people who have "influence" in the most illusionary way possible.

You cannot cheat and hope to find influencers.

Personally, I get bogged down by the whole influencer game. Sure, I write about it now and again and make it a point to share other articles that debunk it, like Ian Lurie, who continually shows that most algorithms cannot see what social media pros really need to see.

But all in all, the influencer model is largely based on perception and faux popularity within a single environment. If you want to understand what kind of a mistake that might be, consider your local DMV. If someone with oodles of influence at an organization or within the community has to go to the DMV (without someone doing it for them), they will be waiting in line just like everybody else.

Does this mean they don't have influence anymore? Or does it mean that influence has nothing to do with social networks and everything to do with anything those algorithms cannot measure? Or, perhaps, the better questions is: Are star-bellied sneetches the best?

Whatever your answers, if I were the one in charge of The Palms social media program, I would flip the whole concept on its head. I would find people with real influence and invite them to join a "Palms" social media club instead of something based on Klout. Or, I would allow people with an interest in The Palms the opportunity to have the velvet rope lifted because they already plug it, day in and day out.

You know ... I would reward customers instead of catering to numbers. But that's from someone who is apparently as anti-influential as they come, at least, according to Klout. Have a nice weekend.

Banning Books: Words Want To Be Free

In the last nine years, there were 4,312 challenges to books in libraries and classrooms. The American Library Association defines a challenge as a formal, written complaint filed with a library or school, and requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness. The association estimates five times as many complaints are submitted, but are never made formal.

Most the challenges are due to “sexually explicit” material and “offensive language.” Those challenges do not count material deemed “unsuited to age group,” which has its own subgroup. Violence finishes fourth; homosexuality a distant fifth.

Three Examples Of Censorship.

Twisted by Laurie Halse Anderson.

In 2009, some parents complained about several novels containing foul language and cover topics — including sex, child abuse, suicide, and drug abuse — deemed unsuited for discussion in coed high school classes in Kentucky. The result was that several books were withdrawn from classroom use (but remained available in the library and student book club). One of these books was Twisted.

While none of the references in Twisted are graphic in nature, the book mentions erections, sexual fantasies, kissing, petting, and intercourse. None of which are described. There is drunkenness, and mentions of drugs (but no real usage), and the principal character considers suicide after he is jumped and beaten. He goes as far as putting a gun in his mouth. Some might consider this a point of awareness in the resolution to live or consequence of the actions we take against people. But others see it as something best left locked in a closet.

Hills Like White Elephants by Ernest Hemingway.

Pulled from a Litchfield (N.H.) Campbell High School elective course classroom (2009) after parents voiced their concerns about several short stories in a unit called “Love/Gender/Family Unit” that dealt with subject matters including abortion, cannibalism, homosexuality, and drug use. The parents said the stories promoted bad behavior and a “political agenda.” The Campbell High School English curriculum advisor resigned.

The Hemingway story is about abortion and how an American, fearful of the impending responsibility, attempts to manipulate the principal character, Jig, into having an abortion. His goal is to present the operation as a simple procedure that is in her best interests, a panacea for all that is ailing her and troubling their relationship. The ambiguity leaves a good deal of room for interpretation, including that someone could easily use the story as a platform against abortion.

I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou.

Ocean View School District middle school libraries in California now require parental permission for the book, which was simply considered "inappropriate for children.” It was also challenged in the Newman-Crows Landing, Calif. School District on a required reading list after a trustee questioned the qualifications of staff to teach a novel depicting African-American culture.

The book is the first of a six-part coming of age story that shows how strength of character and a love of literature can help overcome racism and trauma. In the course of Caged Bird, Maya transforms from a victim of racism with an inferiority complex into a self-possessed, dignified young woman capable of responding to prejudice. Most guidance sites consider it appropriate for ages 13 and above. The most concerning point of this story is that the trustee, someone well removed from children, was making the decision to remove the book.

The Interpretation Of Words Is Twice As Dangerous Than Words.

In some cases, challenges within schools and classes are sometimes the result of one parent asking for their child to be assigned different material. In such instances, parents are well within their rights. They need to take an interest in what their children are exposed to and when they are mature enough to consider the context.

Unfortunately, in making individual requests, some parents accidently convince teachers or administrators (or other parents) to misapply their concern. Some people honestly believe that what might be inappropriate for one child must be inappropriate for all children. And in extreme cases, they think questioned material is inappropriate for adults too.

And this why Banned Books Week is so important. Words and ideas want to be free, but not for the reasons most people believe. Sometimes the stories present ideas not to glorify their existence but rather to consider the human condition and help us make better choices.

It seems to me that self-assigned gatekeepers (especially those beyond parents) need to be less concerned with the content of any book and more concerned with what is being taught within the context but outside the content. Or, to be clear, more parents ought to read the books that their children are assigned to appreciate what positive discussions might come from them.

More importantly, they might be better prepared to refute or reinforce what children are being taught beyond the pages — in the classroom or by their peers. It is for this reason alone that dialogue, not diatribe, leads to enlightenment. Or, in the words of Henry Steele Commager ...

“The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.”

Faking Fans: The Flawed Netflix Apology

In 2007, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) learned that staging fake news conferences, complete with fake reports, was a bad idea. While the tactic defied common sense, spin remains alive and well in some public relations circles.

Netflix Inc. hired actors to pose as fans in Toronto, including stereotypical roles such as "mothers, film buffs, tech geeks, couch potatoes." The gimmick, according to Netflix, was to use the actors to gin up enthusiasm and attract a crowd.

Misleading the public was bad enough, but the Netflix actors began to offer up even more excitement by accepting media interviews. The gimmick was undone after reporters noticed the actors even had instruction sheets on how to act and how to give a good interview.

"We are embarrassed," spokesperson Steve Swasey said. "We regret that this put a blemish on what should have been a perfect day for Netflix."

While Netflix claims embarrassment, it continued to place spin on the situation. Swasey said they are not sure who decided the actors should give media interviews under false pretenses. However, the deception is in the details. It didn't accidently happen if the actors had media interview scripts to work from.

In fact, as Swasey says it was never the company's attempt to mislead the public or the media, the Globe and Mail published the instructions given to actors. It says very clearly that "EXTRAS are to look really excited, particularly if asked by MEDIA to do any interviews about the prospect of Netflix in Canada."

All of which begs the question whether Netflix is embarrassed because of the actors or simply embarrassed that they were caught. The latter seems obvious, especially for a company in the U.S. where the FTC recently accepted a settlement from Reverb Communications for boasting about fake app reviews.

Faking fans, reporters, and reviews is not public relations.

While the allure of being the star is always tempting for some, public relations professionals are always tasked to do more than represent their clients. The profession asks them to serve both organizational and public interest. This is doubly important, even in marketing, when you consider how much hinges on a company's ability to make a realistic promise.

In this case, Netflix had always accurately conveyed a brand promise and delivered on that promise. It seems to defy logic that the company should attempt to prove it delivers on promises by risking its reputation with a lie and then persisting to lie by attempting to downplay the bad decision.

The takeaway here is pretty obvious. Faking a splash is less effective than not making a splash. And, equally important, companies caught in the act might as well confess it up front before someone releases the script and undermines the sincerity of any apology. At least, I think so.

Surveying The Public: When People Don't Know

If reality was the same as public perception, we would live in a much scarier world. I might even give up driving all together.

Traffic Perception.

• According to AAA, 52 percent of all surveyed drivers said they feel less safe on the roads now than they did five years ago. The leading reason cited by American drivers was distracted driving, with 88 percent of motorists rating drivers who text and email as a very serious threat to their safety.

• According to State Farm, teens ages 14 to 17 think the chances of getting into an accident are higher when you drink and drive as opposed to text and drive. Sixty- three percent strongly agree they could get into an accident if they text and drive.

• According another AAA announcement, texting by Golden State drivers has nearly doubled since the introduction of a state law 19 months ago. It was designed to prevent distracted driving, but the study said it doubled. It was based on combining three studies.

Traffic Reality.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently released an updated 2009 fatality and injury data report showing that highway deaths fell to the lowest number since 1950 (a 9 percent decline from the year before). The record-breaking decline in traffic fatalities occurred even while estimated vehicle miles increased. Fatalities declined in all categories of vehicles including motorcycles.

There was also a 5 percent decline among people injured. There was a 5.3 percent decline among all accidents, including those with property damage but no injuries.

More recently, the adminstration also released data that suggested distraction-related fatalities represented 16 percent of overall traffic fatalities (the same as 2008). However, there is a bit of a numbers game in play-- 16 percent of less is still less.

The Perceptional Gap.

Traffic safety is important and no one can dispute that distracted driving (especially texting, but also eating or putting on makeup) is stupid and nothing about this post is meant to distract from striving to reduce accidents, and fatalities, even more. To anyone who loses a loved one, numbers don't matter even if the reality is we will never achieve a zero year.

However, the takeaway is that sometimes our perception and reality are different. Specifically, traffic safety is getting better even while the public believes it is getting worse. (While writing this, I recall Ike Pigott made this observation in July.)

There are a number of factors contributing to the perceptional gap. Traffic safety concerns receive two to three times as much coverage as improvements. Local news stations frequently lead with accident recaps. Millions of dollars are spent on fear campaigns every year. And even the administration that announced the "good news" had announced a $13 million ad campaign to target 20 percent of drivers who they say admit to having driven after drinking (just days before).

For communicators, it's always something to keep in mind. Crowd sourcing and surveys are great, but it's the work done after the data has been compiled that makes a real difference. Sometimes statistics lie, but sometimes people who contribute to those statistics lie too. Even if they don't know it.

Buying Into Brands: Not So Different From People

Every day, people make second-by-second judgments about other people within their proximity. It happens so fast that much of the information is processed in the subconscious, managed by whatever cognitive filters we've built up over the years, e.g., we might avoid people who look angry or flash a smile to someone in return.

Over time, those perceptions might stick with reoccurring experiences and repeated exposure. If the person always seems angry, our mind eventually labels them as an angry person. Conversely, people who are always smiling might be categorized as happy.

Our Judgments About Brands Aren't Much Different Than People.

A new study conducted by the Relational Capital Group and a team of researchers at Princeton University recently found that we shape opinions about brands much the same way. We develop perceptions about the brand based on experiences and repeated exposure, with brands that have warmth and competence.

"Since the emergence of mass market brands, products and services have been defined by their features and benefits," said Chris Malone, chief advisory officer of the Relational Capital Group. "This new study suggests that features and benefits are simply an incomplete subset of the broader categories of warmth and competence that consumers perceive and judge brands against."

The study links back this new understanding to early development. According to the study, the researchers recognize people as the first brands, with faces acting as the first logos. The most common judgments people make toward symbols: their warmth (intention toward us) and their competence (ability to carry out these intentions).

To break down this understanding further, warmth includes traits such as friendliness, helpfulness, sincerity, trustworthiness, and honesty. Competence is reflected by traits such as intelligence, skill, creativity, efficiency, and effectiveness.

"We've found strong statistical correlation between consumers' perceptions of each brand's warmth and competence and their intent to purchase and remain loyal to that brand," said Dr. Susan T. Fiske, one of the two lead researchers. "These findings are consistent with other studies we've conducted that validate the influence and predictive power of warmth and competence on human behavior. In effect, it shows that people were the first brands and faces were the first logos."

The Uphill Battle For Brands To Earn Trust And Succeed.

In the eyes of the consumers, however, brands have to earn trust to break away from the preconceived notions that already exist about companies in general. Specifically, many companies convey that they are primarily interested in advancing their own self-interest and can't be trusted, especially when no one is watching. While the study provided examples of companies that have succeeded in doing this, it didn't offer concrete suggestions for improvements.

Having studied this concept before, we know several. Here are three that come quickly to mind, with an emphasis on warmth.

• Innovative companies tend to earn trust quickly because they have worked to do something for the customer first.
• Customer service oriented companies tend to exhibit warmth because they create a people-to-people connection.
• Engaged companies, such as those who have off-sales conversations online, are frequently considered more helpful.

Once a company or organization can dispel the notion that it only has self-serving interests, repeated exposure and reoccurring positive experiences will prove the company's competence. For example, the warmth associated with Apple convinced people to test drive Ping, but the execution made some people question its confidence and intention.

Conversely, when Apple originally launched the iPhone, the warmth people associated with the brand overcame the prelaunch criticism. And then, when people learned Apple really did reinvent the smart phone, it reinforced a perception of competence.

You can apply these findings to nearly any organization. Our most immediate judgment is generally based on our perception of someone's intentions toward us. Ironically, these initial perceptions are often proven incorrect (for good or bad outcomes), but it doesn't change the fact that this is how we're wired.

Embracing Silly: The Seriousness Of Social Media

"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts never to heaven go." — Hamlet (III, iii, 100-103)

When social media turns serious, it strikes me as silly. It doesn't mean there isn't any value in the communication being offered. Although sometimes, with furled brows and lessons to be taught, that is the way communication plays out as Matt Lawton reminded me yesterday.

"pls enlighten me, what is so 'silly' about the @shelholtz post It’s time for the anti-social media guru meme to die? I think u shld explain or it's rather rude." — Matt Lawton.

If you ever read his posterous blog, you'll occasionally find some funny stuff. Even on his Twitter profile, he shares to "learn and laugh." So, I played along, conveying the seriousness of the silly statement.

Really, Lawton's contribution doesn't matter so much. Shel Holtz had already contrasted my comment with one that called his post "great." Nay, I say, there is no contrast. There are as many valid points in his post as there are layers of silliness, including the notion that one can call for the death of a meme by adding to it, especially one as silly as the great guru debate has become.

Let's step back and focus on that for a moment. What's the big deal?

What's The Big Deal About The Social Media Guru Title Anyway?

As Holtz points out, when people attack the social media guru title, they are generally referring to those who have a propensity to use it — inexperienced folks with inflated egos, sleight-of-hand huskers, and whomever has a Twitter account in a room full of people who do not (they claim to be the resident experts of their little worlds).

Oh, and then there are those who are called a "social media guru" when they are introduced as Holtz says he has been. (Me too, for that matter, leaving me to make the point that I would never call myself a "guru" of anything, for a laugh.) And, of course, there are a few respected communicators who enjoy embracing the guru moniker (or, even more laughable, swami). Personally, they can call themselves lunch pail, for all I care.

However, perhaps along the way, they might enlighten themselves and appreciate that Westerners usurped these spiritual titles from the East. You do know that, right?

Originally, being a guru meant you were a Hindu or Sikh religious teacher and spiritual guide (although it is widely adopted in contemporary India with the universal meaning of the word "teacher"). The title was introduced in the West by some Eastern gurus and/or returning Westerners enlightened by the East and then was snapped up in the United States by the "New Age" movement in the 1970s.

The title "guru" quickly fell out of favor after several self-proclaimed gurus were discovered to be charlatans, cons, or even delusional. So why social media people ever thought to resurrect the soiled Western version of the word is beyond me. And now, in an attempt to be different, some want to usurp "swami" too, which perplexes me given that most Westerners would react to the title of "social media rabbi" or "social media pastor" or "social media priest" with alarmist disdain (unless they really are).

But as I said, this is no judgement of people. To each his own.

Mostly, I do think that some communicators have a distaste for "social media guru" as they do "anything guru," except as it was intended. Case in point, "plumbing guru" might score a few chuckles despite being better equipped to clear away darkness from your drain than a social media guru can light your way toward embracing social media.

"This being the case, just who are these anti-guru posts aimed at? It seems to me they’re mainly written by insecure practitioners trying to bolster their own egos and puffed-up prima donnas lording their superiority over their peers in the echo chamber." — Shel Holtz

Then what about those who pen anti anti-guru posts? Or this post, which I suppose is an anti anti anti-guru post? Can we take any of this seriously? I seriously hope not. There is no hypocrisy, except errant judgment about individuals as opposed to behaviors.

My world is much more simple. People are free to call themselves whatever they want. And, other people are free to respond to all those titles —  mavens, masters, experts, Jedi, rock stars, bards, ninjas, thinkerbells, poodle hoopers — as they feel fit. But, at the same time, if any of these folks were truly enlightened as they claim, they would already know titles are meaningless things.

I learned that long ago, and I am still grateful for the gift. People don't relate to titles, they relate to individual people.

Besides, some communicators need the freedom of pointing out the flawed behaviors from "social media gurus" or "public relations professionals" or "personal branding experts" or "pompous journalists" in order to sometimes avoid citing specific individuals as Holtz did. It doesn't hurt anyone because anyone employing one of the more comical titles with effect already knows that the audiences they attract don't come for random titles. They come to see a person.

So that's why I called the Holtz post silly (which is a far cry from calling Holtz silly for those who embraced diatribe so quickly and DMed me to ask how dare I rub against a guru). Because, the way I see it, if I didn't find his post silly, then it would be soap boxing. I hope not. Soap boxes are ugly, which is why I find this post amazingly silly too.

Except, maybe, for the very foundation of it. There are no rules. Write what you want. Just remember, however, if you choose to call yourself the "cardinal of copywriters," it's a moniker that rightly deserves a snicker or two. All hail, you too, guru.

Flushing Connections: Paul Carr

"I’m hardly the first person to have had the idea: I’m going to shut down my Twitter account." — Paul Carr

Well, he didn't exactly shut it down. He locked it down. Locked down means that he only allows 10,000 people to follow him (sometimes allowing some people to follow him when the account dips below that number).

Carr has decided he isn't going to share as much with as many people anymore. Part of the reason, he says, is narcissism. Part of the reason is Ashton Kutcher. "The more we know, the less we want to know," he says about Kutcher.

I wouldn't know. I don't follow Kutcher. I never followed Carr either. I did download his free e-book from his Website. But I have no idea when I would read a PDF. Maybe I'll buy it for my Kindle app if the first few chapters seem interesting. Maybe I won't.

Mostly, I'm interested in his tact. According to Carr, his everyday life is less exciting and he doesn't want to bore people. Have you ever heard Christopher Moore speak? He's not John Cleese.

Writing can be like that. I'd wager ten bucks most people would never guess that many (maybe most) of the advertising awards I've picked up over the years (when I cared enough to enter) were for humorous commercials. I'm not surprised. This blog is mostly about serious stuff, ranging from consumer research and public relations tips to advertising techniques and marketing psychology. And most people don't know I take very little seriously because I don't present this content that way.

Every now and I again, I slip in a funny post. But mostly, I don't. Funny is hard work. So is keeping a post like this on track.

One Question You Ought To Ask If You're A Social Media Rock Star.

I've met a lot of interesting people in person over the years. Some of them regular people. Some of them politicians. Some of them business people. Some of them celebrities. And since I decided to integrate social media into the mix, I've met a whole lot more.

In meeting all these people, something has always stood out. There are some people who are really good people persons. They make relationships very easily. And then there are people who don't. Charles Bukowski might fit the bill. He had talent. People skills, not so much.

Maybe Carr has talent too. I don't know. Beyond a few posts on TechCrunch, I never read his stuff. But it does make me wonder what kind of social media rock star someone wants to be. Do some of them really have talent? Or are they very good cheerleaders? Or maybe they are just the life of the party? Or just people with good SEO skills? I dunno.

Specifically, I'm wondering if a social media rock star cancelled all their social network accounts tomorrow, would anyone read their blog (or buy their books if they've written any)? And if the answer is no, do they ever wonder what they are really good at?

Anyway, if this post doesn't seem to fit, don't worry about it. I'm sure you'll find something more useful tomorrow. Right now, I'm in Arizona facilitating a strategic session for a client and I did something I rarely do. I pre-wrote this exploratory with the intent to follow it up some time. Or if anyone is interested in picking up a half-baked riff, please be my guest.

Stereotyping: One Bad Habit Social Media Needs To Dump

Earlier this week, I checked up on a Twitter chat session about blogging, but could only sit through one question. The question seemed innocent enough. Who do you target? Bloggers who are consumers or bloggers who are influencers?

The session quickly broke down into defining influence, with the most commonly accepted definition being a combination of "reach" (total followers) and "credibility" (engagement and RTs). Most people know how I feel about that definition. It fits in nicely with personal branding.

Here's a short answer so you don't have to read the personal branding post (unless you want to). Focusing on influence sucks. It can be summed up with an alternative title for this post: How I stopped chasing influence and became a better person.

Have Some Social Media Pros Taken To Trees Instead Of The Forest?

Before social networks, when blogs were the primary source of communication, the general likability of social media was that everyone had an equal voice regardless of reach. Sure, some people benefited from knowing a bit more about a subject, were better writers, or learned a few things about SEO. But let's not split hairs.

Everyone was at square one.

Most people involved in blogging were excited because they could present their ideas with an equal opportunity to be heard. They didn't need any reach, authority, or influence. They only needed to share their insights and, occasionally, they would capture more interest than major media networks. There was ample chaos, but chaos is kind of fun too.

Chaos is not very sustainable.

Most people think nature has a propensity toward chaos. It doesn't. It has a propensity toward organization. Even after the very messy Big Bang, entire universes and solar systems slowly began to organize themselves into pinwheels or other designs. The same thing happens in tiny ecosystems. Move ants to a new home and they will organize shortly after the initial confusion.

People are prone to stereotyping.

For people, part of our organizational structures include stereotyping. It is one of the things I've always found interesting about watching online behaviors. Many of the people who once celebrated the chaotic nature of the Web are now those trying to create a whole new hierarchy to replace experience, credentials, authority, and expertise.

The new hierarchy is kind of an unintentional scam with reach, interactions, associations, and time online as replacements. These things frequently creep into every communication decision being made on the Web — who to read, who to follow, and who to retweet or acknowledge. It's a load, and I don't mean Tootsie Rolls.

Kayne West Already Disproved All Those Influence Theories.

With a few simple clicks, Kayne West disproved everything some social media pros teach about influence.

He decided to only follow one kid named Steven Holmes. So overnight, everyone started following the kid. Even members of the media bombarded Holmes with questions and messages, hoping he would pass them along. West has since stopped following the kid after learning he unintentionally disrupted the kid's online life. (Or maybe Holmes deleted the account as he said he might. I didn't look and it doesn't matter to make this point.)

Holmes' temporary influence didn't have anything to do with reach, interactions, associations, time online, or even trust. It had to do with perceived access. It's something I already knew from covering a few tenuous fan movements and running campaigns for independent films, causes, and other such stuff. Influence can be created overnight and dumped just as easily.

In some ways, it has a negative value. And the reason I'm starting to think making decisions based on reach, interactions, associations, or time online is nothing more than a new form of stereotyping caused by ego, naivete, or scalability.

Skip The Stereotyping And Create Community.

When I was working on a social media campaign for an independent film, I connected with the fans of select cast members. I didn't care how many followers or friends or "influence" they had. I connected with them based on their enthusiasm and our mutual potential to become friends (most of them are still friends, one year later, by the way).

These two dozen or so people often received insider news first. It wasn't always intentional. Sometimes it was because they asked questions and my team answered them as quickly as possible. As a result, their "influence" grew, often at a faster rate than the film. (Doubly so when translation was involved.) And, after the campaign ended, most retained their "influence."

Of course they did. While it wasn't formal per se, the community we created placed them at the center, and not us. That concept was by design. I didn't want to become a quasi-celebrity on the back of my client. Influencers don't always operate that way.

While I don't think it's intentional, the only people propping up influence these days are those who stand to gain something from the illusion of being influential or are trying to create relationships based on efficiency because of social media scalability. Good for them. As a rule, however, I just don't see the value, but only because my team knows better.