Checking Vision: A Starbucks Lesson For Small Business

Someone asked a good question last week. Fredrick Nijm, co-founder and CEO of Addoway, mentioned that many companies, especially startups, sometimes see too many changes to adhere to a vision statement.

He's right to some extent. But before discussing why he is right, consider what Howard Schultz, president and CEO of Starbucks, discussed this week with NPR. As soon as he returned in 2008, he closed about 7,000 stores for several hours to retrain Starbucks employees.

Why? In Schultz's opinion, growth had given way to small changes that was driving Starbucks away from its vision. One example cited in the article related to how the company steamed milk. Size and scope had prompted stores to re-steam milk, which is more profitable and produced a higher yield. But it's also one off from the mission and vision of the company in terms of meeting its commitment to excellence.

"To establish Starbucks as the most recognized and respected brand in the world and become a national company with values and guiding principles that employees could be proud of.“ — Starbucks vision statement, 2008

The vision was not perfect, given the first part is not necessarily achievable and the second is, arguably, already achieved. But incidentally, the company has been working toward developing a new vision. In the interim, it has mostly been operating on a mission to "inspire and nurture the human spirit - one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time."

What is interesting is that the mission has little resemblance to the one employed by Starbucks four years ago — "Establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles while we grow." Both, I might note, weave in elements of the vision. And, you have to consider the various principles and values the company has adopted to appreciate the full scope of what Starbucks is trying to do.

This change no doubt plays into the logo change earlier this year. While the company received its fair share of criticism over the matter, the change of the mark wasn't made on a design whim. It was made because the company had already been changing its mission and vision in ways that included coffee but went well beyond the primary product.

How Do Startups Keep Pace With Change And Maintain A Vision?

To Nijm's point, vision statements are less about corralling a company and more about providing a bellwether (along with a mission and values) that the company can measure ideas against. Ergo, while reheating milk makes the company more profitable and speeds the process, it also fails in the face of the company's mission and vision.

Although Starbucks is a big company, this case study fits well within the biggest challenge small companies and startups face on a near daily basis. I'm working with one company right now (not even launched), which in staying true to its preliminary vision, decided to make manufacturing a core component of its operation as opposed to contracting the manufacturing and branding the product.

In the short term, contracting out the manufacturing seemed like a good idea because it would reduce startup costs. However, in retrospect, the owner decided contracting out would compromise the quality. He is right. After all, many people know that the McDonald's of 30 years ago is not the McDonald's of today, which also required a vision change to keep pace with growth.

It was a defining moment for that company, for instance, to decide that growth and profitability was more important than purchasing a specific quality of beef. And therein lies how a well-defined mission, vision, and values are a bellwether.

Growth. Companies need to revisit their mission, vision, and values during growth spikes that clearly cause them to move away from their foundation. (When growth or profitability take precedence, a company like McDonald's may de-emphasize quality. And lately, the company is being forced toward health consciousness.)

Acquisition. When companies purchase other companies, they need to determine whether the acquisition can adjust to the parent company or if the subsidiary can reasonably act autonomously with its existing mission. (This has been the Achilles of Yahoo since its beginning, buying up companies that were poor matches and attempting to make them yield.)

Shift. When companies take on new niche products or services, sometimes those products or services slowly begin to dominate the initial scope of a company. (For example, I recently worked on an account to rebrand a mold remediation company that grew into an environmental demolition and construction company.)

Era. Not all products and services are timeless, especially in the medical and technology industries. Consider all the industries that are struggling — print publications, auto manufacturers, etc. — and you'll recognize what happens when companies begin to believe they publish newspapers instead of journalism or work in autos as opposed to transportation. Or perhaps the better example is how the March of Dimes transitioned from ending polio to benefiting premature babies.

Exploratory. Small business owners and startups are often given opportunities well outside their scope of service or expertise. The existing vision can easily help them decide whether or not the opportunity is worth changing their direction. Or, they may operate in a temporary exploratory mindset, provided they understand that they will have to adopt some permanence.

Weakness. Or, as mentioned in the original article, companies might consider their vision when it's already failing for one reason or another. Perhaps it is because they hired people who never embraced the original vision or perhaps it is incredibly weak and not transformative. Either way, companies without an adopted vision tend to have various departments and individual people who could be working against each other or in different directions (whether they know it or not).

The short answer for small companies and startups on when they might change their mission, vision, and values is at a major event. However, the better answer is to weigh every operation and decision against the vision to begin with. If those decision makers did that, chances are that there would be fewer sweeping changes as they developed.

But then again, that may even be the difference between a company vs. an enterprise or an organization vs. an initiative. While both usually have some direction, one doesn't necessarily have any end in sight, which is probably why most enterprises and initiatives eventually end.

Working Without Vision: How Flailing Begs Failure

It doesn't happen often, but it happened last week. Someone from an Internet publicity company challenged the importance of having a vision during a Kaizen discussion. The discussion was framed around a recent poll suggesting almost 80 percent of all companies deviate from their strategic plans. The professional received ample push back, given the audience.

"Vision is not necessary for profitability, neither long term or short term," he said.

At a glance, the numbers certainly bear out his argument. Marketing consultant Kevin J. Clancy has researched this topic before. He found as many as one-third of all Fortune 500 companies do not have a vision statement. And, of those that do, only 22 percent have transformational vision statements, which strive to change the world (or at least the segment of the world in which they operate).

However, the story of visionless Fortune 500 companies is misleading. David Kinard dug up some interesting research last year. One-third of all Fortune 500 companies in 1970 had ceased to exist by 1983 and nearly two-thirds had vanished by 1995. Not surprisingly, he alludes to the idea that of those that failed, most lacked a working strategic plan, which includes a well-defined achievable vision.

So the answer is more of a mixed bag. You can be profitable without a vision (or an outmoded vision). But the real question is for how long? Ten years? Fifteen years? That might work for serial entrepreneurs, but it doesn't do much for a sustainable company.

Given the failure rate of small businesses and upstarts is even greater, it might make you wonder why so many fail or, more appropriately, why do so many fail despite success and profitability.

More than likely, it seems short-term success can be managed with a mission alone but long-term success is the function of operating in a singular transformational direction or frequently updated adaptive direction. Either will do, but companies, much like people, are apt to be pulled in too many directions without one.

Three examples of failings for abandoning or operating without a vision.

1. Focus failure. An advertising agency start-up earns immediate attention because of its cutting-edge creative and begins to grow. As it does, it also begins to solicit larger accounts that have a stronger voice in the creative process, forcing the agency to produce substandard creative work in favor of retaining the larger accounts.

2. Growth failure. A hamburger stand that prides itself on fresh ingredients reaches critical mass and decides to open two more stores. However, the continued growth forces it to streamline its operations to keep up with demand. So, instead of preparing all the ingredients at each site, it decides to centralize prep work with the consequence of losing its proposition.

3. Profitability failure. A frozen dinner manufacturer develops the right recipes and quickly dominates its niche. However, in order to continue growing, the company has to maximize profits, which could mean smaller portions, cheaper ingredients, or inferior packaging. Any number of these decisions could have consequences.

Those are a few examples, but there are plenty to choose from, small and large companies alike. Blockbuster comes to mind in that its struggles were largely related to moving away from a vision that hinged on its diversity and toward a protectist model.

Had the company stayed focused on its vision, it would have led the electronic rental models (Netflix) and developed blue box (Redbox) before either competitor saturated the market. But it didn't. It did have, however, a solid 25-year run.

The simplicity of a vision and the complexity of applying it.

A vision statement is nothing more than knowing what your company is going to be when it grows up (or in 10-30 years if it is already grown up). And its values are the limitations it has adopted while pursuing that vision. While writing a mission statement can be just as important, the vision statement pinpoints the destination you are hoping to arrive at sooner or later.

Nike is hinged on inspiration. Apple is hinged on (simplified) innovation. Toyota Worldwide is hinged on harmony. And the more aligned they remain with their vision statements, the more likely they will still be successful in 10, 20 or 100 years. The more they are driven by outcomes like expansion, profitability, or market share, the less likely they will achieve that destination.

It's not confined to business alone. While it doesn't have to be formalized in writing, most successful people pursue a vision or sense of purpose. And it is on this micro view that the function of a vision might make the most sense. Even if it is not written per se, people tend to have one whether they realize it or not. All movement leads to a destination.

This might even be why it's important not to mistake vision for outcomes like job security. Outcomes are usually the by-product of a vision, not the pursuit of a destination. For example, someone pursuing job security might stay with a job they dislike until their position or company is no longer secure. Someone who pursues to be on the leading edge of a field, however, is likely always to have job security no matter where they work.

Companies operate in similar ways. If a company is always challenging itself to be innovative, it will win. If a company is challenging itself to earn profits, it may enjoy short-term success until someone else delivers an alternative. If a company doesn't have a vision, it may still move in a direction but the destination will be anybody's guess.

Reinventing Brands: Does Social Media Change Companies?

Jonathan Salem Baskin has an interesting theory about social media. He thinks tools like Twitter aren't some dream of customer empowerment, but rather the nightmare reality of the broken relationships between consumers and brands.

"Responding to online complaints is a tax that companies pay because of the chronic mismatch between what consumers expect from brands and what they ultimately get," he wrote for Ad Age. "An individualized response might momentarily bridge the gap, but it won't fix it. Never will."

His overall theory is that social media is similar to a penalty levied by consumers. It might be partly true, but it depends on the company. It depends on the relationship. It depends on the intent of the communication.

A Quick Brush-Up On Branding And Communication.

The secret of branding isn't found in advertising, marketing, or public relations. It's found in a promise and the ability to effectively communicate a promise, deliver on that promise, and prove the promise was delivered.

This is what all customers base their relationships upon, with all of it being underpinned by communication. Consumers do too, except they base their beliefs on nothing more than their perception.

Communication is powerful for companies in its ability to present the brand promise (advertising), establish transaction guidelines (marketing), and reinforce that the promise was met (public relations). It was that simple, multiplied out by how many people the company could reach.

And then came social media. Consumers could suddenly reach as many people as companies (often more) in a space where the companies weren't communicating (leaving unanswered untruths looking like truths). That presented a problem for some companies because those companies could no longer contain distractors like they did the media* (in some cases) and the Internet provided a wealth of new alternative products and services.

*Side note: media tended to be much more limited in its scope, preferring to promote promises, report on broken promises, and occasionally undertake investigative assignments that revealed delivery flaws or uncovered consequences associated with delivering on a promise (e.g., sweat shops in foreign countries). Most, but not all, tried to remain true.

Social Media Doesn't Change All Brands; Just A Lucky Few.

When many companies adopt social media, they generally focus only on one or two communication areas: promise (advertising), customer service (marketing), and proof (public relations). Few focus on all three.

The net result is a flawed strategy much like Baskin says. Many companies act like they are paying a penalty.

However, some companies are different. When they can broadcast the right promise, deliver on the promise, and provide proof that they delivered, social media becomes an opportunity and not an obligation. The opportunity is that social media provides another environment where companies can adjust the promise, adjust the delivery (or expectation), and share the proof.

In such cases, social media can provide the environment to change the brand, but it's still the people (inside and outside) who shape it. Of course, this only works if the company is open to change (unless they already meet this criteria).

Most companies don't. Many just want you to buy the product and shut up, unless you're convincing other people to buy too.

And that's why I think this topic merits further discussion. So, over the next couple of days, I'll share some insights on what happens when companies only employ advertising, marketing, or public relations in their social media programs as opposed to those companies with a much more integrated approach. I hope you enjoy and join in.

Countering Negativity: Flip The Thinking

A survey by Zillow helps put public sentiment about the economy in perspective. Homeowners are more pessimistic about future home values than they were in the last three quarters.

Specifically, 33 percent believe housing prices will fall further; 38 percent believe they have already reached bottom. Few people anticipate a real estate turnaround in the near term. Most believe any increase in home valuation could be more than one year away.

Worse, more homeowners are lining up to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. According to Zillow research, more than 4 million owners are ready to put their homes on the market in the next six months. If they do, increasing surplus could drive prices lower.

"Our forecast remains largely unchanged: We're in for an L-shaped recovery that will likely keep annualized home value appreciation very low for the next three to five years," said Dr. Stan Humphries, chief economist at Zillow. "Given this sentiment, we're surprised so many homeowners believe their market has already bottomed."

As recently as last March, the Obama administration had reworked its troubled $75 billion plan to prevent foreclosures. The idea was to give people a three-to-six-month break on their mortgage payments until new jobs materialized. Unfortunately, jobs didn't materialize, at least not long-term private jobs. The rush to push forth any plan didn't work.

Rethinking Customer Communication Can Improve Outcomes.

The question more organizations need to be asking is how they can help consumers as opposed to helping themselves. Sure, in a robust economy, traditional marketing works because it's based largely on either innovation (creating need) or out positioning the competitor (more common). In a down economy, organizations that aren't innovating need to find other ways to add value.

After all, it doesn't do any good to have the best marketing proposition for a product no one is buying. And marketing needs to consider this in their communication. What specifically are they offering consumers? But more importantly, what is it that consumers need that they might offer?

This falls right in line with some of the best performing Web sites. The Wall Street Journal offers information on business and finances. Lower My Bills provides a place to compare long distance services. Federal Money Retriever provides government grant advice. Facebook offers a popular way to stay connected with friends and family. Google is the most popular search engine for helping people find information they are looking for. And the list goes on.

What does your company's Web site do? If you're like most organizations, your site is not designed to do anything for the consumer. It's designed to help your organization. If it has a blog, it's probably written to sell products or share company news. If it has a social media presence, it's probably designed to attract new friends and followers. Perhaps it includes promotions and coupons, as if discounts somehow add value to something that has no value.

A 5-Second Solution Using Home Improvement As An Example.

Lowe's and Home Depot provide a great example. In the second quarter, Lowes posted an earnings increase of 9.6 percent. Home Depot rose 7 percent. Both have employed a business-as-usual marketing stance.

Home Depot will have a Labor Day sale with gas grills. Lowe's is asking people to imagine new appliances. Meanwhile, consumers are asking themselves whether they will be in the same home next year, negating the need for big home recreation items that won't move with them.

It's mostly the same on Facebook. Home Depot is telling people to do more (grill more, paint more, garden more). Lowe's was telling people to organize their life. Recently, however, Lowe's switched to "Back 2 Campus" ideas, except they aren't ideas as much as they are posts about one discounted product. The latter idea is close to being helpful, but falls short without a choice.

Imagine what might happen if Home Depot or Lowe's did more than justify cautious consumers are a reason for on par sales. If they did that, maybe they would focus on simple renovation projects that can lift homeowners' spirits or, even better, increase the resale value or home valuation of their homes.

Branding: Personal Branding And Reputation Are Illusions

The more people read about personal branding, the more confused they get. It's especially true for public relations professionals and their clients, given how many coach spokespeople to supplant their own name with the company name during interviews.

Geoff Livingston's recent poll on the Livingston blog is a testament to this fact. Almost 60 percent of survey participants could be classified as undecided. And why wouldn't they be? For every post about how to build a personal brand, there are three more that make fun of personal branding.

Why is personal branding such a complex topic?

For starters, branding is a complex topic. When it comes to organizations, people frequently confuse identity with branding. It seems to take a long time before they understand that a logo is not a brand. Logos are merely representations of the brand relationship between the people and organization. Basically, when people see the logo, marketers want those people to attach the context of a fulfilled brand promise to it.

It’s easier to understand than it sounds. Before the BP logo was covered in oil, the BP sun thingy was meant to symbolize its commitment to clean alternative energy.

This brand promise has since imploded because the relationship cannot sustain the weight of reality. Green is great, except when it's blackish brown and covering animals.

Before you can understand personal branding, you have to understand organizational branding. Ironically, most personal branding coaches teach organizational branding and pass it off as personal branding. So you might know more than you think.

The downside is they lied. Personal branding doesn’t work like organizational branding. Personal branding is trickier because it can’t do what organizations do. Organizations get to “make up” their original brand promise out of thin air. People don’t.

Whatever came before you has already established the foundation. You’ve been working on it since the day you were born, with people reinforcing it along the way.

This can be good or bad for you. (I think it's bad, but that's another story.) But regardless of whether you think it's good or bad, it lays the ground work. And that makes changing yourself a bit more complex than buying new sunglasses.

Sure, some personal branding folks often suggest you chop all that baggage off (which isn’t impossible) and then pick one of a handful of models to reinvent yourself. Let's look at the three most common.

1. Be who you are (assuming you know who you are).
2. Be who you want to be (assuming you know what that is).
3. Be what will get you ahead in your career (a very popular premise).

On their own, none of these ideas really "work." They don't work because, generally, people are trying to build their personal brands around outcomes they want (much like companies do). That's not about who you are or what you are. That's about what you want.

Considering three common models for personal branding.

1. Transparency. That one is easy to dismiss. Just ask Tony Hayward what he thinks about it. Or Mel Gibson? Or Tom Cruise? I’m a truth nut, but let’s face facts: transparency can be stupid.

2. Vision. It sounds really good, but it doesn’t consider that most people don't work to be "who" they want to be. They work for "what" they want to be. And that means bending to the audience's will much like some organizations try to do. The real problem with number two is that "who you are" and "what you are" might not be the same thing. A little transparency, much like the aforementioned, will crash all your hard work down.

3. Act The Part. Right. Ask Howard Stern about that one. He often found himself caught between the person he plays on the radio and who he was at home. Those lines blurred, even in public. Take a look on Letterman, 1987; 1993; 2009.

4. Reputation. I didn't list it before because it's not a personal branding model. It is, however, an alternative. This concept tosses out personal branding and attempts to focus on reputation. Simply put, reputation is based on not what you project, but what you do. It has some merit, but advocates neglect that reputation is easily distorted.

People are too complex for personal branding.

The book I've been working on for some time is about this very subject so I tend not to write about it too much here. But given the confusion being created in social media (a place where some people try to reinvent themselves based on social media advice), I thought I'd toss out two ideas. The one above and the one below.

Most people are not cognitively trained to accept how complex other people are.

We tend to remember about others what we share about ourselves — tiny slivers. I was reminded of this simple fact when I shared my A7X review. One of my cousins said she would have never guessed I like metal. (I like many things, across all spectrums, from classical to hip hop.) Another friend said the same. But another, who doesn't know me as well, was not surprised.

So, only two-thirds ever got some unspoken memo. What does that mean?

It's subtle, but it means two-thirds have a slightly changed perception about me, maybe favorably because they like A7X too. For a bigger audience, an equal number of tiny positive, negative, or neutral reactions. And that's just about music.

Let's say we add any number of more personal topics (religion, politics, economics, philanthropy) or minute-by-minute details (ranging from whether I go to the gym or if I accept an invitation to speak in Asia). All the while, keep in mind that masses of people will only remember one or two details (positively or negatively) about you.

So what do you get? A crapshoot. Even if you pick what you share carefully, most people will only remember what fits with a central theme that they create for themselves. You cannot control it. It is what it is.

Political candidates know this all too well. If one of them says they like A7X, people might accept it. But if the other one says the same thing, people might reject it. But more than that, it isn't limited to public figures. It could be anyone. Imagine knowing a few more details (likes and dislikes) about an elementary school teacher. Parents might not be too comfortable learning about a hidden piercing or radical political viewpoint or some other "weirdness."

There's the rub.

If we accept personal branding or reputation is more than identity (styles, clothing, etc.), then the only choice is to find common ground between who you are and what you are and what you are doing and where you are doing it while maintaining authenticity at the same time, assuming you don’t work for a company that is fundamentally different from you.

Do you know what? That's not personal branding or reputation at all. It's something else.

It's called character. And it cannot be taught as much as it can be learned. And, if you ask me, people ought to pay much more attention to that than the labels others might thrust upon them. Branding is better left on the doorstep of organizations.

Spooking Social Media: Ad Agencies Wake Up

One creative, interactive YouTube campaign and, suddenly, everyone's concerned about advertising agencies moving into social media. Some agencies, like Interpublic's Universal McCann and Publicis Groupe's Vivaki, are already building dedicated divisions.

It could reshape social, with some people concerned about the silos and buy-ups that I mentioned what seems like 100 years ago. Except, back then, I was talking to recruiters who "got" social media well before public relations professionals and communicators. Jim Durbin was listening. He recently outlined how social media stacks up in the job market.

Are There Consequences If Agencies Dominate Social Media?

If David Teicher with AdAge is right, it could lead to more silos (subdivisions) and shortcuts (blended earned/bought media). If Dave Fleet is right, it could lead to short-term spike campaigns (viral) and sub-optimal results (popular channel focus). If Todd Defren is right, then agencies will put campaigns before relationships.

They're all good arguments, but it really depends on the agency. I've worked with enough agencies that have created public relations divisions to know. Some shops integrate communication. Other shops dismiss the division as an "also have" service.

The same thing happened when agencies decided it was in their best interest to buy up Web design companies (and direct mail shops before that). Some shops develop great integrated campaigns. Other shops have an abundance of strong and weak components, skewing to what they know best. Almost all of them place an emphasis on creative over strategy, which might be why Old Spice lost some shine.

What about public relations? I might teach public relations classes, but I don't always understand public relations firms' business thinking. Many jumped on social media because they were threatened by losing some of their retainers to social media specialists and because media seemed to be losing its relevance.

Sure, a few have a passion for the space. But otherwise, it was a knee jerk with the argument that they were better at "relationships." Yet, if that is so, then why all the focus on finding influencers to replace journalists? That is what many of them are trying to do, which basically means they couldn't care less about the individual customer. That is the whole premise behind why some firms use Radian6, isn't it? Find out which commenters have juice?

It's Not Who Owns Social. It's Who Owns Strategic.

Communication strategy, not social media, is what will shape the future of communication. Someone has to stand at the helm of any communication program, and that usually means the marketer (internal) will most likely dictate the team, skewing to the areas of expertise where they feel they need the most help.

And if they need help with strategic direction, you can bank on the idea that whomever is given the strategic lead will decide the rest of the marketing mix — what percentage of the budget goes to marketing, advertising, public relations, or social media.

Next year, when one of my students in public relations asks me what they need to focus on to have a successful career in a communication-related field, I won't tell them to sharpen their social media skills (although they will need to know it). I'll tell them to sharpen their strategic skills because the people outlining the strategy are the people driving everything else.

When you think about it, that really levels the playing field, doesn't it? Every public relations firm, advertising agency, and social media boutique eventually develops at least one or two strategists (and sometimes they are not who the client thinks). If you ask me, strategy dictates whether a campaign will succeed or fail, not the tactic (social media) everyone has their eye on.

Understanding Competition: Differentiate Or Die

In the midst of the last recession, I returned to Las Vegas after spending a few years in Los Angeles and Reno, Nev., rounding out my portfolio as a wide-eyed copywriter with some experience as a creative director and communication consultant. No one was hiring.

At the time, online marketing was only imagined. Public relations firms weren't taken seriously. And advertising agencies were laying off professionals with much more experience and, frankly, better books. The freelance market was extremely competitive, especially with an influx of Los Angeles creatives keen to the idea that Las Vegas was weathering the economy better.

The challenge was simple enough. If I wanted to break away from the part-time job I picked up to pay the bills, I had to find a way to compete. Book-to-book, I couldn't win.

It wasn't that their samples were better, per se, they simply had more of them. And, in many cases, their account experience was much sexier. When you place a Porsche advertisement next to a power company, most marketers would pick the Porsche, never mind any campaign results. So, I had to make a choice: differentiate myself or watch my early career wither on the vine.

Five Steps To Differentiate Your Business.

1. Listen To Prospects. As an upstart freelancer, I couldn't afford a market research firm. So, I did the next best thing. I called every agency but never pitched them. Instead, I asked for input. I asked them what they hated about freelance writers.

2. Identify The Difference. They told me precisely what bothered them. Freelancers in this market, they said, were unreliable (here today, employed tomorrow); adjusted their rates based on the client (small shops paid less, big shops more); didn't always meet deadlines (the feast-famine nature of the business); were too specialized (agencies need generalists); and attempted to nickel and dime clients on revisions (two-hour jobs became ten-hour jobs).

3. Embrace The Difference. Got it. Don't do all that stuff. More importantly, make it a proactive message. I opened one of the first generalized writing services firms (permanence) with consistent pricing (transparency); guaranteed deadlines (authenticity); and built revisions into the estimates, charging less if the job took less time (meet expectations they didn't even know they had).

There were a dozens other reinforcements, but the point is made. These differentials set the stage for one thing — the first assignment. The rest has to be earned.

4. Deliver On The Promise. Messages are not enough. You have to deliver on the promise and exceed expectations on the core competency, in this case, writing services and creative. If you could win the first assignment and then deliver award-winning, results-driven copy and creative, there would be less reason to look anyplace else until the market changed.

5. Solidify And Evolve. Branding is a function of the actions you take, which underpins the relationship between the client and product or service. But like all relationships, personal or professional, they change over time. You always have to look for ways to keep the spark in the relationship alive with innovation. Our expansion focused on strategic communication and, later, social media.

Strategic Thinking Doesn't Consider Size.

The story might be tied to a small firm, but the principles apply to any size company. AT&T has more coverage area; Verizon is more reliable in key markets. Apple owns innovation; Microsoft, the industry standard. Google mostly owns search; Facebook took social. FedEx targeted corporate; UPS captured retail. Amazon owns a platform for buying; Ebay, a platform for selling.

Differentiation is everywhere. It even came up as a topic raised by Jay Ehret, host the online radio show Power To The Small Business, during taping last week. Ehret proposed that if your company is trying to be better, it often becomes the same.

And if it becomes the same, I might add, your product or service will likely die. Sometimes it will die quickly, the result of the competition crushing it with more visibility or a broken brand promise. Or, sometimes it will die slowly, with the only differential being price until the price becomes so unprofitable that someone goes bankrupt or is bought outright.

Cleaning Lenses: How To Wipe Away Marketing Woes

“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is — infinite.” — William Blake

Many marketing and advertising professionals learn the lesson too late. Most campaign strategies are less than optimal. Sometimes the problem is blamed on outside help when the problem might be internal. Sometimes it is the outside help. And sometimes, even when sales are setting records, dominant brands have to start all over.

Why does it happen? It happens because perception plays a powerful role in the decision making process. And perception, despite its emphasis, is usually muddled.

The lesson, not to rely on perception, recently came up in a new client meeting. When one of the agencies we work with asked where the majority of the client's marketing dollars went, the client said "the Yellow Pages" without blinking. Discussion followed.

"The Yellow Pages."

"What are the Yellow Pages? Do people still use phone books?"

"Well, we get all of our non-referred business from the Yellow Pages. It works."

"Where else do you advertise?"

"Nowhere else. The Yellow Pages works so well, we invest almost all our marketing dollars there."

"Did you ever consider that most of your non-referred business comes from the Yellow Pages because that is the only place anybody can find you?"

Exactly. Even measurement doesn't mean much unless you're willing to clean the lenses every now and again. Truth be told, I only know of one Yellow Pages success story. There is a local restaurant that published its entire menu inside the archaic directory. It was the least expensive way to get inside every hotel room in Las Vegas, where they deliver. Pretty smart.

"The new limitations are the human ones of perception." — Milton Babbitt

I know a few social media pros who are probably laughing at the very idea of the Yellow Pages. They're like me. I toss the bulky book in favor of drawer space. And all those advertising dollars right along with it.

However, some social media pros nodding in delight might stop chuckling about now because they do the same thing (you know who you are). They declare advertising dead based on the case studies of companies that succeeded on social media alone. But did they really? I can only imagine a mix might have increased sales or helped them reach those sales records faster.

Similarly, reading all those posts that suggest Facebook is better than Twitter (or Twitter is better than Facebook) and Reddit is better than Digg (or Digg is better than Reddit) seem pretty stale to me. It has nothing to with the platforms as much as it has to do with the interests of the online community, the type of information being shared, the type of business establishing a presence, and the proficiency of the person managing the account. Right. They all work. And none of them work.

I recently advised one of the clients we work with direct to include their social media hub address on all of their in-establishment collateral. He blinked.

"I thought we wanted to move away from traditional advertising."

"No, we want to engage your customers," I said. "There they are, right in front of you. Now all we have to do is engage them when they aren't here too."

"Advertising, public relations, and social media is all about perception. But perception has nothing to do with planning it." — Richard Becker.

Did you ever read "Lamb" by Christopher Moore? One of my favorite passages from the book occurs when a Buddhist monk sets two small cups on the table and then proceeds to pour tea until they begin to overflow.

"Hey, doofus!" the protagonist yells. "You're spilling the f**king tea!"

The monk smiled and set the bowl on the table.

"How can I give you tea if your cup is already full?"

Marketing, advertising, public relations, social media, and communication are much like that. It doesn't matter how good you are. If your cup or your client's cup is already full of opinions, then there is nothing I could ever do for you. And no one else either.

Case in point. If you never read Lamb and the tea story still sounds familiar, you might have seen it in the movie 2012. Maybe they robbed Moore outright. Or maybe that's only my perception. For all I know, Moore could have robbed the story too.

Writing For Public Relations: The Importance Of Planning

Planning is one of the single most important functions of public relations and/or corporate communications, and yet it remains the single most neglected function. More than half of small companies operate without it (CDW Report, 2009). Of companies that have plans, most do not update them regularly. Fewer measure performance against the plans they create.

Small companies are not alone. Medium and large companies have plans that are often outmoded or ignored. Even companies that do have plans seem to have little faith in them, given that fewer than 15 percent measure external communication (IABC Research Foundation). And only 15 percent of internal communicators say they can demonstrate a return on investment.

So, every year, I provide students with a basic communication outline. This year, I created a supplement deck using Toyota as the model. The supplement is only a sketch of a strategic communication plan, but it still manages to pinpoint communication challenges, opportunities, and failures experienced by the company in recent months.

The Importance Of Planning from Rich Becker, Copywrite, Ink.

The above deck is a supplement teaching tool for Writing For Public Relations at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The intent of this deck is to provide students with an applied case study to underscore elements contained within a handout.

Integrating Communication: Communication-Driven Social Media

Something happens when you integrate strategic communication into organizational communication. Public relations is set free to do what it does best. Advertising is set free to do what it does best. And communication becomes more fluid between the various departments.

That is not to say that a communication-driven social media program is the end all to integrating social communication. Like the public relations-driven and advertising-driven models shared earlier, models tend to be the beginning of developing an integrated communication program and not the end. This is one solution among dozens.

A Communication-Driven Social Media Model

The above illustration (larger version here) represents what a strategic communication-driven communication plan might look as it relates to social media. In this model, advertising manages advertising functions and public relations manages public relations functions. Social media is managed by a corporate communication department (or a similar department), with support from advertising and public relations. For simplicity, we've broken it down into primary functions for each. Shared functions are noted, but not broken out this time.

Communication.

• Maintain, manage, and promote the organization's blog or two-way communication assets on a Web site. This would also include market intelligence (which is shared with the advertising and public relations team), but primarily consists of content development and content distribution that adds value for customers. While blogs are presentation oriented, they do provide for two-way communication.

• Maintain, manage, and develop the organization's social networks. This includes online programs and information sharing that nurtures true engagement and two-way communication in real time. Where advertising plays a role is that most social networks provide vehicles for advertising. If someone doesn't think online ads work, they are either delusional or have bad ads.

• Blogger outreach occurs directly and indirectly as bloggers may source content from the organization's blog or develop relationships with the social media team via any number of social networks. Advertising supports this effort with media buys based on recommendations form the social media team. Public relations supports this effort as part of its media relations component.

• There are some additional responsibilities, including: managing internal communication (with support from human resources), working with executive team members and marketing in development of a core message system or strategic communication plan, assisting executives who choose to be part of the external communication equation, and listening.

Public Relations.

• Managing media relations, which includes press releases, interview pitches, and demonstrations. The function is designed to generate increased exposure. It's mostly one-way communication with journalists vetting information, tailoring content to meet the needs of their readers, and arranging for opinion-editorial pieces.

• Public outreach, which includes programs and communication materials for special publics (e.g., associations, special interest groups, unions, etc.) as well as direct-to-public communication and/or publicity. It's mostly one-way communication, with group leaders providing some two-way communication to specific members.

• Blogger outreach, which includes adding popular bloggers within the media relations mix. Or, it could include bloggers who have been referred by the corporate communication team because they have special needs that are similar to journalists (such as requesting specific interviews, etc.). Public relations can also track cross-over professionals: journalists who blog and bloggers who accept freelance assignments.

• Bringing public relations back to one of its core functions would certainly be an asset. Since public relations is not strapped with the daily operations of real-time communication, it could invest more time strengthening relationships between the organization and various publics by researching trends in the environments where the company operates. There is simply not enough of this work being done at some firms.

Advertising.

• While Web sites are sometimes lumped into online mass media categories, the online environment has changed. One-dimensional, one-way static communication can only exist as an option for the most passive visitors. Social media can help make them consumer functional, but some elements clearly fall within the expertise of advertising as mentioned before.

• Likewise, social networks do not exist in a vacuum. They work better with mass media support, targeted advertising, and communication supplements that span audio, video, and other components. Such support can mean the difference between staffing a "voice" on a Twitter (like Southwest Air seemed to have done given its Silent Bob crisis) and communicating with the public and the organization in such a way that a bad policy can change.

• Managing traditional mass communication, which includes collateral, print, and broadcast. As long as there is mass media, even if it continues to serves smaller niches, the functions remain the same. What is different is that all of this communication has the additional role of helping consumers find two-way communication portals. There are also new distribution points online.

• Promotions, which include direct response campaigns, guerilla marketing, and special events (sometimes managed by public relations), post-purchase communication is managed by the team. Sure, some is interruption based. But, as noted before, interruption-based communication is likely to continue as long as people respond to it.

Model Summation.

In summation, this model represents an approach to communication that delivers maximum impact with minimal means. It is designed to bring the organization and (optionally) its leadership closer to the public. It considers all publics, including internal stakeholders and draws on support from human resources.

The end result of an integrated strategy allows corporate communication to directly communicate with internal and external publics within the context of an organization's mission, vision, and values. At the same time, it creates a two-way communication loop that expedites solutions when the communication is not aligned with delivery of the product or service.

As with all of the integrated models we've shared, it helps establish consistent communication, multiple distribution points, multiple points of verification and validation, and more two-way communication outlets with the public. It also empowers employees (without obligation) to feel informed enough about the company that they can answer questions within their individual personal networks.

Do keep in mind that social media fits differently for different companies. In this model, social media could maintain autonomous distinction and report to corporate communication just as easily as being performed by it, provided it doesn't create an unnecessary layer or continue to nurture silos (departments that operate with little interaction).

Retiring A Deck: Social Media For Strategic Communication

Since my first presentation on social media in 2005, it didn't take long to appreciate that the entire communication field is a moving target. So I've made it a point to periodically retire the decks I've used at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in order to avoid having to teach the same class twice.

Integrating Social Media

View more presentations from Richard Becker.

This version of Social Media For Strategic Communication evolved into 100 slides as the backdrop of a 3-hour open conversation. It was followed with a 3-hour live session, which allowed more flexibility in pinpointing specific applications.

Highlights From A Near Dead Deck

• Slides 1-10: Social Media. Every social media class begins with a working definition of social media, even if the participants are familiar with the term. I prefer the simplest definitions, which makes it easier to understand the complexities of what happens within this environment.

• Slides 11-14: Demographics. This year, more than any other, it seemed important to dispel the myth that Gen Y owns the Internet. The fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population consists of people over the age of 50. Another conversation point that has evolved this year is understanding that while everyone is on the net, not every demographic participates in every network.

• Slides 15-41: Media History. While many participants are surprised how much time I spend on the historic context of media, I've always considered it important to dispel the myth that such a change in communication in new. It's not. The only thing new is the medium and the accelerating speed of adoption.

• Slides 42-47: Declining Media. Some people might consider it stating the obvious, but the rapid uptake of communication on the Internet and decline of traditional distribution models remains a relevant part of the conversation. The additional communication point that has surfaced this year is how increased amounts of information will likely lead to a resurgence of objective content sources.

• Slides 48-64: Applying Tactics. Since almost every class includes people with varied exposure, I do dedicate some time to sharing practical knowledge beyond the conceptual models. This section also included four very different accounts, which allowed me to illustrate how social media is largely situational to each organization.

• Slides 65-73: Social Networks. With the addition of the live session, I didn't include new content within this section, which was originally created in spring. It's important to note that the numbers have changed considerably. BlogCatalog has added 40,000 members since the original slide was created.

• Slides 74-81: Content And Discovery Again, with the ability to offer live session examples, I spent less time on this section, preferring to underscore that the social media environment allows tremendous flexibility in sharing content from the ability to condense our portfolio into a Flickr presentation (and iPhone presentation) to the success story of Does It Blend.

• Slides 82-100: Changing The World While the slides were essentially lifted from our Shaping Public Opinion presentation earlier in the year, walking participants through a Bloggers Unite campaign proves extremely useful in illustrating that communication is fluid and how to better integrate crowd-sourcing (participation input) while providing guidelines that still allow for some sense of a managed communication plan.

What Might The Next Deck Look Like?

Since every deck I develop is tailored to meet the objectives of specific audiences, there might be any number of solutions for 2010. However, it seems increasingly obvious that presentations with case studies and panels, while still important, will be breaking away toward conceptual modeling that spans multiple disciplines and multiple destinations.

I'll be sharing one of those conceptual models tomorrow as an extension of last week's Rushing The Net: Public Relations post. The model illustrates why so many companies are developing limited connections that revolve almost exclusively around their products while the online environment is much more valuable as a means to eliminate degrees of separation.

Other topics I'm especially interested in pursuing in the near future include the loss of content objectiveness in the media, the advent of portable content experiences as they apply to radio, the application of our measurement model on a specific campaign (we're waiting on numbers), and next year's pendulum swing that will place a greater emphasis on expertise over popularity.

The latter will include a comprehensive research study we commissioned with a deliverable on or around SXSW, pending my increased travel schedule that is shaping up to include London, San Francisco, and Washington D.C., among others.

Changing Behavior: Consumer Confidence

In coming out of what it defines as the Great Recession of 2008/2009, The Futures Company is setting its sights on a dramatic shift in consumer conscience and confidence beginning to take hold in 2010.

Specifically, The Futures Company sees consumers moving beyond the heightened sense of anxiety and economizing frugality that convinced them (and their employers) to operate from a sense of self-preservation and scarcity. However, in the new post-recession world, The Futures Company does not see consumers returning to an era of accumulation and indulgence. Instead, they make the case for an evolutionary step forward in thinking.

A Darwinian Gale Has Reshaped Consumer Thinking

In its recently published white paper, The Futures Company articulates attempts to identify the crucial characteristics of the marketplace to come, one that will be shaped by a new consumer confidence that would have a direct impact on how marketers, advertisers, public relations practitioners, and social media professionals might proceed. These characteristics include...

• Responsibility. Consumers will be much more responsible when making purchasing decisions, giving more consideration for what they purchase before they purchase it.

• Vigilance. Consumers will be much more watchful about their exposure and position, with every aspect of their spending being questioned and placing increased pressure on communicators to ally with their concerns.

• Resourceful. Consumers will be more resourceful, with an emphasis on the management and conservation of resources that they consider most important to them.

• Prioritization. Consumers will be much more likely to prioritize their purchasing decisions in the marketplace. While this won't change their aspirations, they will think of purchasing decisions as trade offs.

• Network Oriented. With increasing regularity, consumers will forge personal networks of support that they consider essential in a world of uncertainty. The net result will shift the pre-gale presumption of global convergence toward a post-gale world of local "exceptionalism."

Preliminary Conclusions About A Darwinian Gale

There is certainly some basis for the conclusions drawn by The Futures Company. In particular, they are right that marketers have grown too comfortable in an era of indulgence, where they knew what consumers wanted and delivered it to them with an excitement and intensity that compelled people to buy, even if it meant overextending their credit to do so.

They are right that the marketplace is in transition, but some of their glimpses into the future might be slightly offset by other trends that seemed to be dismissed. While there is no doubt consumers will invest considerably more time in defining value, there is an equally likely chance that this definition of value will be based on perception as opposed to reality.

While the current trend certainly suggests a shift toward populist behavior, due largely to an increased reliance on the Internet, we anticipate a pendulum swing back toward the center in regard to popularity defining value over objective thinkers defining value. It almost has to occur as communication continues to increase exponentially and public relations sets its sights on social media, leading to an increased infusion of biased communication in an effort to gain a perception of being valuable.

Much like yellow journalism ushered in objective journalism before many media outlets gave up on the concept in order to cater to stories that affirmed the beliefs of their readers and viewers, someone — either media or other parties — will have to become trusted advisers without individual or organizational agendas.

The other weakness in the white paper is the concept of moving away from globalization without considering the new geography of the Web. While local markets are an increasingly important part of the marketing equation, the white paper seems to de-emphasize the importance of the Internet's ability to create entirely new environments. People aren't only from their geographical locations but also from new destinations like online communities and certain social networks that do not recognize geography as a defining trait among members.

We also found a significant challenge in this world view. Given that consumers have learned that the work is riskier than they once believed, the construct still shows consumer thinking to be based largely on a fear mindset, which in itself has negative consequences, especially as the blame for an air of indulgence is being placed on the mantle of a free market system.

If you can get past some of these challenges, there are glimmers of realities to be optimistic about. The best of which stems from the concept that there is indeed an increased opportunity for companies, and communicators, to turn resourcefulness and innovation into tangible benefits that add real value to the world, which enhances optimism and consumer confidence (much like Steve Jobs did despite the 2001 recession). It is the most accurate assessment in the entire paper.

And from that perspective alone, A Darwin Gale might be worth checking out. Just keep in mind, as the authors freely admit, the future is not fixed.

Integrating Strategy: Social Media

During BlogWorld & New Media Expo, Scott Monty, head of social media at Ford Motor Company, mentioned how social media has helped Ford better integrate communication across advertising, marketing, and public relations. In fact, Ford will invest as much as 25 percent of its marketing budget on digital and social media this year.

The budget isn't assigned to one department. It is the cumulation of several communication department investments, a concept that exemplifies why we saw 2009 would mark the year of communication.

Integration Remains Elusive, Even Within Social Media

While some companies like Ford are moving forward, others seem to be moving backwards. In developing social media programs, they tend to develop what they call "strategies" for specific blogs, social networks (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.), aggregators (Digg, StumbleUpon, etc.), and distribution services (YouTube, BlogTalkRadio, etc.). The two most common outcomes are: content duplication, where every account carries duplicated content, diminishing content value; or content fragmentation, where every account seems to exist in its own isolated bubble, competing for attention.

Developing a social media program requires a big picture view, with specific tactics and interactions assigned to account as it pertains to an overall communication strategy (note that I did say "social media strategy"). While there might be some overlap in the execution (e.g., Twitter updating Facebook), integrated social media provides a more robust experience for visitors with more choices. It also helps the communicator or communicators prioritize and manage the accounts.

Earlier this year, I developed a quick tip deck on how to select social media tools for organizations based on their audience, available content, and objectives. While it wasn't part of the 10-minute speed presentation, choosing the right tools greatly aids in time management.

The three studies ranged from managing a single blog without any social network outreach to an integrated social media program with YouTube and a blog, highly engaged Facebook and Twitter accounts, and outreach across several fan forums and groups. The latter, illustrated above, somewhat mirrored Jason Falls' Prioritizing Your Networks, except we tend to break out "customers" into participants, advocates, evangelists, and fanatics because each public tends to engage and promote in different ways. Time management would have been challenging without a plan.

Oversimplified, the social media program required frequent checks in order to answer fan questions on social networks. However, content sharing was planned, with the blog updated approximately three times per week with Fridays dedicated to new cast interviews on YouTube with additional insights provided on the blog. New content tended to drive the conversation on social networks, with each having a different function (e.g., Facebook tended to guide fans toward showings in select cities and encourage topical engagement; Twitter tended to cater to evangelists while introducing the film to the fans of specific cast members).

In contrast, I manage my own social media efforts differently. This blog is primarily used as an education tool. I tend to use Twitter as a conversational medium with bloggers and colleagues (and am currently developing a communication professional "300" list* to augment a near future experimental project). I tend to retain Facebook for closer friends and colleagues. And then, of course, there are a variety of other networks I keep up with regularly.

My point here is that social media is situational, which is why many "experts" have a hard time pinning it down. While social media programs may share similarities, no two are really alike. Yet, by developing a big picture view of the program (beyond joining every network on the planet because they seem popular), it becomes significantly easier to manage it.

Three More Sources for Social Media Time Management

• Social Media Time Management by Amber Naslund

• Three Steps To Better Time Management of Your Social Media Marketing by Rich Brooks

• My Social Media System by John Jantsch

*Valeria Maltoni's recent 100 Twitter list greatly influenced our initial picks.

Teaching Conversations: Richard Becker

Ten years ago, when I asked my longtime friend and mentor Keith Sheldon, ABC, APR, if he had any advice before I taught my first class at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, he chuckled and suggested I might offer him advice instead. Very funny, I had said, before refusing to accept his non-answer and asking him to reflect a bit more on the open-ended question.

"Never teach the same class twice."

I knew what he meant. After considerable years as a student, most people begin to develop a sense about various teachers, instructors, and speakers. And whereas some present material that is tried, true, and tired, the most engaging education is not all that different than social media. It's situational, adaptive, and conversational.

For all the speaking engagements that include G2E (World Gaming Expo), U.S. Small Business SCORE, Leadership Las Vegas (Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce), International Association of Business Communicators, and Regis University, I recall presenting a few common truisms with the remaining 98 percent of the class dedicated to new and adaptive content. It seems to make a difference for the audience whether they are students, working professionals, or executives, which is particularly more useful for me because I teach with the pretense that I will likely be taught something too.

"The only constant is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be." — Isaac Asimov

While the quote's conceptual construct can be attributed to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, Asimov was right. While most businesses employ people who seem to be experts on the now with 'strategies" based on Facebook, Twitter, and other popular social networks, they ought to be considering people who are prepared to guide them into the world that will be. Thinking in terms of what might be changes the entire dynamic of the questions to ask.

One of the better examples of this came from my service on the IABC Research Foundation Think Tank when some of my colleagues had proposed researching policies and procedures related to instant messages via Blackberry. I thought the idea of investing one or two years of research into Blackberry communication was pretty funny stuff (even more funny today, as social networks have since changed the entire dynamic). I suggested researching the increasing immediacy of situational communication ought to produce a more beneficial study, instead.

At the same time, the conversation taught me something. Most communicators were not prepared, and I do not believe they are prepared, for where communication will be five years from now, two years from now, or perhaps even six months from now.

Think I'm wrong? If so, don't hesitate to teach me something here or during several upcoming sessions scheduled this fall. Because the way I see it, in addition to Sheldon's truism about great teachers never teaching the same class twice, I believe another to be that good teachers always remain good students.

Nonprofit Engagement — Richard Becker

Nevada Association of Nonprofit Organizations — 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Sept. 15

This session will be unique in that, rather than providing a presentation, NANO has asked for it to be developed much more like social media — as a conversation inside the Cafe by Wolfgang Puck at the Springs Preserve. The format will provide an opportunity to demonstrate a long-standing theory at Copywrite, Ink.: social media mirrors real life in how people travel, connect, and interact with each other.

The Nevada Association of Nonprofit Organizations (NANO), which is part of the National Council of Nonprofits, is dedicated to supporting area executive directors and their executive board leadership by providing education, networking, and resources.

UNLV Class Schedule — Richard Becker

Editing and Proofreading Your Work — 9 a.m. to noon, Oct. 17

The half-day session presents a revised presentation that focuses on improving clarity, consistency, and correct usage in personal and business correspondence. It includes essentials such as language, mechanics of style, spelling, and punctuation. It also includes an in-class exercise and several take-home exercises to help students refresh their writing and editing skills.

The revised session provides basics, including definitions that help distinguish proofreading from editing.

Social Media For Communication Strategy — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Nov. 6

The full-day class presents a new format and extended session with the latest case studies and applications to create a new understanding of social media as it fits within an organization's communication strategy. While the session begins with a presentation on increasing the use of online technologies to share content, opinion, insight, and experience, the full-day format allows for extended discussion and live demonstration, as it applies to public relations and human resources.

Collectively, social media shapes more opinion than all other media and has changed the communication landscape. (CEUs: .6)

Understanding Emotion: Branding Beats Banners

There are several studies related to neuroscience (not marketing) being conducted that marketing professionals and other communicators might consider following anyway. Both of these studies touch on long-standing advertising rules; Rule 3 and Rule 7, specifically.

Study 1: How Emotions Connect To Memory.

The first study is being conducted by researchers at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. The intent is to develop treatments to prevent and treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, but the findings may also be important to understanding communication, emotions, and memories.

Specifically, the study is finding that Protein Kinase C (PKC) is activated through the release of norepinephrine. When norepinephrine and glutamate arrive together, PKC gives them permission to create stronger memories.

As Ashok Hegde, Ph.D., an associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy and the lead investigator on the study, explains: when memory is stored in the brain, the connections between nerve cells, called synapses, change. Strong memories are formed when synapses become stronger through structural changes that occur at the synapse.

Where this may connect with communication is it helps demonstrate why some messages connect and others do not. A large amount of advertising, especially push marketing, never penetrates our natural filters because those messages never touch our emotional triggers (e.g., well-developed synapses), which represent some of our strongest memories.

Simply put, we tend to react to messages that are capable of piggybacking on established memories that help shape our emotions OR messages from a source (via a brand connection) that we already have an emotional attachment to. The latter exemplifies why social media works because our interaction with select people and companies creates emotional experiences (good, bad, or indifferent) and reinforces these synapses.

In the case of a banner ad, which generally doesn't have any emotional connection, for example, we mostly ignore it unless the person or company already has established a brand connection. Who knows? It might pinpoint why a company like McDonald's has such a powerful brand as it establishes and strengthens synapses throughout childhood.

Study 2: Why Interruption Advertising Is Losing Its Luster.

Meanwhile, neuroscientists at New York University are conducting some interesting studies on a group of monks and secular meditators to understand how our brains work. While the study is being conducted to better understand brain disorders such as stress, depression, Alzheimer’s, and autism, it may also unlock some practical applications for marketers and communicators.

Specifically, they are finding that average people are either conscious of the external world or their personal world (self-awareness), and alternate between the two. Scienceline describes the phenomenon by asking we "Imagine how concentrating on a situation in the present, like listening to a friend’s story or solving a math problem, can make you less self-aware — that is the pull of the external world. But then a lapse of focus creeps in, and you begin to wonder if you missed your doctor’s appointment this morning, or what you want to do on vacation next week — and you have felt the push into your inner world."

For marketers and communicators, the lesson to be learned is that if the goal is to reach the inner world then attempting to compete with an increasingly loud external world is much less effective. Using Scienceline's analogy, imagine several external world experiences competing for your attention. Some advertisers have come to believe that the only means to reach people is to create advertising that demands attention and some public relations professionals think that hyped news releases sell.

However, we know those tactics are not sustainable over the long term and, in general, do not reinforce a brand relationship. They cannot because they generally never reach people on an emotional level or break into the inner world. Specifically, the messages are being pushed at them.

This might also explain why social media tends to work well as a communication tool. People often search and find content because they begin with an inner world problem — they want to learn something, need to know something, etc. When they find the content, it tends to be more reflective and has a greater chance to establish an emotional bond. In a sense, that is the pull.

What do you think? Does communication that connects via the inner world have a much greater chance of creating an emotional experience that, in turn, stays in our memories much longer than interruption that commands our attention for a few moments of time? It seems to be.

Owning Social: Digital Readiness Report

According to the the 2009 Digital Readiness Report, public relations leads marketing in the management of social media communications channels whereas marketing leads in managing e-mail marketing and SEO. While the sampling size is relatively thin, it does track a greater trend in communication. People are wondering who owns social media.

According to the report, it says that public relations has taken the lead in 51 percent of all organizations compared to 40.5 percent where marketing leads. The balance belongs to a mix of executive management, IT, and other departments.

Other Highlights Related To 'Owning' Social.

• Public relations is responsible for blogging at 49 percent of all organizations; marketing is responsible for blogging at
22% of all organizations.

• Public relations is responsible for social networking at 48 percent of all organizations; marketing is responsible for social networking at 27 percent of all organizations.

• Public relations is responsible for micro-blogging (which can be best defined as message services) at 52 percent of all organizations; marketing is responsible for microblogging at 22 percent of all organizations.

Why Would Public Relations Want To Own Social?

As traditional media continues to die or shift toward digital convergence, what has become a priority function of public relations professionals — securing editorial space — is slipping away. Never mind that public relations ought to be something else, the impression measures have changed as editorial space and circulation have shrunk.

While it's almost odd to think that communication professionals who would sometimes snub bloggers seeking content just a few years ago would suddenly make a play for the space out of necessity, the profession is seeking new revenue streams. For some, it's not just about online space; it's about everything they consider "below the line," which includes marketing functions that also garner media attention.

If there is any truth to this trend, public relations professionals are trending toward communication generalists: professionals who always had to look at the big picture. Since there is some evidence to support that it is happening, the real question to start asking is whether or not most public relations professionals are ready. Jason Falls at Social Media Explorer says no.

If There Is Confusion, It's Because Nobody Owns Social.

Although every spring and a few other times a year at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, I make the case that public relations professionals need to learn social media skill sets with increasing frequency and veracity to such a degree that class has evolved well beyond any textbook available, the truth is that nobody owns social media. Simply put, if there was ever a communication channel that required integration, this is it.

Tomorrow's communication professional needs skill sets that are not being taught as part of the curriculum because communication has largely become as departmentalized at universities as it has within many major corporations. Marketing emphasizes the classic strategies that businesses understand; advertising focuses on the creative properties of communication; public relations teaches how to reach the media (and hopefully other publics beyond that).

Meanwhile, most major companies then begin to split it up further, delegating some to IT, human resources, corporate communication, government affairs, investor relations, community relations, social media, front line sales, customer service, and so on and so forth. (Never mind that content development requires some strong editorial skills too.) And, often times, all of these departments work in specialized silos where the objective sometimes becomes dominating other departments instead of, you know, working to meet the objectives of the company.

So is there any wonder why companies are confused about social media?

Social media touches, crosses into, influences, and impacts all of these areas. And the percentage of professionals who understand this represent about a fraction of one percent (written for effect, and not a currently proven statistical truism). Worse, some relations professionals, at least in this market, are taking their social media training from some "social media experts" who have managed to make a splash online for themselves despite having no experience in communication.

There are, generally, people who say things like never mind conversations, jump in anyway. The result? We all have a better chance of reaching other communication-related professionals on Twitter than we ever have of reaching everyday consumers because the conversation is dominated by people in the field. (Don't get me wrong. I like Twitter, but it is not representative of an entire population of people who might care about every product.) That works for why I use Twitter. It does not nor will it work for some of our clients.

More importantly, platform training does not equal social media skill sets. Social media or social marketing or social networking or any of it is much more situational in setting objectives, developing content, and implementing strategies.

Until companies, and perhaps public relations professionals or whomever operates within the space understand this, executives will continue to be surprised to watch their stock fall away because the intern charged with making friends on the Internet entered a forum discussion about how many cell phones were being returned because they failed to meet expectations.

That's right. It doesn't matter how big your public relations firm is when that happens. Just saying. It happens. And it will continue to happen until communication becomes integrated.