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.

Finding The Sweet Spot: The Copywriter's Kitchen

Yesterday, someone asked me how I decide to write about something after I decide to write about something. My immediate thought was to shrug it off, saying it's complicated. Because, well, outside of a classroom it is complicated.

Most copywriters and creative directors say the same thing, but with different words. Many have become skilled at making the answer sound cool and mysterious instead of aloof. Since I also wear the hat of an educator, I'm always looking for ways to communicate the process (even if some of it resides in the subconscious).

The stuff that doesn't reside in the subconscious is much like frosting on a cake. Right. Commercial writing, regardless of format, often involves taking some idea and then squishing it through various icing and piping templates. You need the right ingredients, whipped to the right consistency, and then applied with the right amount of pressure through piping and various templates. If you do it right, it sticks to the surface, looks beautiful, and keeps people coming back for more.

There are many filters; too many for this post. But more often than not, the decorative appeal of great communication begins with conversations that consumers will never hear. It's called client education, because they often have a say in the ingredients used, how long it's whipped, and how much pressure will be applied. Is it any wonder consumers see ugly ad messes?

Balancing Four Spheres Makes For Great Frosting.

Before I continue, I ought to qualify this just a bit. Sometimes clients are right, even though most creatives hate to admit it. But that aside, let's take a look at the initial communication process, which can be broken into four basic conversational zones.

• What Clients Want Consumers To Know. Regardless how often clients talk about outcomes, most of them want consumers to know something regardless of the outcome. And, they believe that the more consumers know something, the better. For whatever reason, what they want consumers to know becomes a priority at some point.

• What Clients Want Consumers To Do. Secondarily, there are outcomes. Ultimately, clients want consumers to rave about the ads, buy the product, and tell all their friends to buy it too. If at all possible, when those customers tell their friends, the client wants them to include what they want them to know.

• What Consumers Want To Know. Consumers like to pretend they loathe advertising. In truth, they loathe bad communication, which unfortunately consists of most of it. The reason they say they hate it so much is that it seldom communicates whatever they want to know, which is usually how it is going to enhance their lives for a reasonable exchange rate.

• What Consumers Need To Know. In addition to what consumers want to know, there is what they need to know (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what the client wants them to know). This can be tricky to convey, but can be summed up best as communication they will never ask for, but are glad they received after the fact.

The Sweet Spot For Commercial Communication.

There is a teeny tiny place in the middle of that one logic and three emotive spheres. It only occurs when everything is in harmony. And when that occurs, consumers respond much like the clients want them to. Everybody gets what they want.

Anything less than harmony and the entire process breaks down. And some of it doesn't even have anything to do with marketers or clients. Oversimplified, most messages break down when two conflicting spheres are overemphasized.

• What The Client Wants Them To Know/Client Want Them To Do Conflict. Sure, every client says they want specific outcomes (sales) until they see a first draft. Immediately following receipt, they want it to be more aggressive, more informative, more brand-centric, more whatever, regardless of the outcome. In short, they are not content with selling chocolate frosting. They want consumers to know where beans came from, what the mixing process is, what temperature it cooks at, the nifty wrapper selection process, why the font was chosen for the name of the company, who sits on the board, etc. Whew.

• What The Client Wants Then To Know/Consumer Wants To Know Conflict. Worse than the internal client conflict, what many clients want consumers to know has nothing to do with what the customer wants to know. So, as the client prattles on about the square footage of their factory, they never hear the consumer ask if it tastes yummy.

• What The Client Wants Them To Do/Consumer Logic Conflict. Sometimes, the client might have the right message, but someone else has already won their hearts. In those cases, it doesn't matter if you have the best milk chocolate in the world. Even if they enjoy the message, they could be diehard dark chocolate fans.

• What The Consumer Wants To Know/Consumers Logic Conflict. And sometimes, well outside the marketer's control, the consumer has internal conflicts over a purchase. That is just the way it is. For example, the consumer might love milk chocolate, but also know that too much isn't all that good for your teeth or waistline. The client knows it and the consumer knows it.

Imagine. After all this, assuming you do hit the sweet spot, the end result is frosting. On an educated guess, I surmise at least half of the frosting sucks before anyone considers how to apply it. At least half to three-quarters of the good frosting will still be spoiled during the application, whether or not the client has a decent product, service, delivery method, customer representatives, or operations plan. But those are different stories.

Changing Landscapes: Marketers Miss With Social

Last Friday, the Direct Marketing Association and Colloquy released a study that suggests most marketers are spending nearly twice as much to deepen customer loyalty as they do on other core social media marketing programs.

Specifically, the study says that marketers typically invest $88,000 on customer loyalty, $53,000 on brand awareness, and $30,000 on customer acquisition (comparatively). Interestingly enough, these customer loyalty programs do not include listening tools to track online conversations. (And, of those who do use those tools, most don't listen beyond searching for brand names.)

Marketers Who Don't Listen Waste Consumer Loyalty Investments.

If companies did listen, they might learn that something relatively amazing is happening within social networks. Also on Friday, Pew Internet Research summed it up nicely.

Social networking use among Internet users ages 50+ has nearly doubled, from 22 percent to 42 percent in the past year. Anyone following social media trends may expect it to double again. Social networking is well suited for any age.

What is especially interesting about this uptick is that half of all online adults, ages 50-64, and one quarter of all seniors, ages 65+, are members of Facebook and LinkedIn. On Twitter, their presence is changing the space too. Last year, 50+ accounted for one percent of all active Twitter members at any given time. This year, they represent six percent of the total active population.

Even more important than the shifts in demographics, marketers might be missing out on something else too. While some attempt to host a space without any interaction, there is a bigger picture to consider. Why are these people joining Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other social networks?

The Top Three Reasons People Join Social Networks.

• Join to reconnect with people from their past.
• Join to seek out support from others with an ailment.
• Bridge the generational divide between family and friends.

Sure, a certain segment of this population will eventually find more ways to use their social networks. However, I can't help but wonder. How many organizations never consider doing something that fits with one of the three reasons people join?

Adding Common Sense: Fresh Content Project

For all the emerging expertise in social media and communication, there is an increasing shortage of one skill set. It's called common sense.

It must be in short supply, especially because many of my colleagues write about common sense all the time. And, no matter how much they write about common sense, people are still dazzled by it. Me too.

This week's fresh content picks all share some sound advice on the back of popular discussions, with their solutions all ringing true with common sense. Was Steven Slates really a working class hero? Do customers always use your company's name when they talk about you? Can monitoring really improve CRM? Can content farms replace journalists? Should we care about other people's petty judgements?

Hark! Common sense, I say. Here are some frightfully smart writers who offer periods to the end of everyone else's sentences.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of August 16

• Steven Slater Is No Working Class Hero.
In the wake of Steven Slater's sliding escape from JetBlue after losing his cool with one of the airline's passengers, Andrew Weaver puts the incident into perspective. While everyone becomes overwhelmed by the bad behavior of others, Slater went further by inconveniencing everyone with his alleged display of runaway egoism. He didn't hurt the passengers as much as his employer, innocent bystanders, and anyone else who happened to be at the airport. As one of my friends point outs, he captured the essence of how many Americans feel right now, angry at everybody.

• Why TweetDeck Isn’t A Discussion Monitoring Strategy.
Everybody talks about building brand evangelists in social media circles (heck, me too, at times) and Jeremy Meyers says that it is all fine and good. However, social media experts who attempt to control the language of their new found brand evangelists are a step too far. More importantly, Meyers smartly points out that social media experts who are searching for brand names are only hearing part of the story. Most of the time, people don't include the brand name in their discussions. Common sense for us, but not common sense for most people.

• Understanding And Implementing Social CRM
Jason Falls recaps the mash up of "social CRM" and why some of these automated programs are falling short. CRM, if you don't know, stands for customer relationship management. It doesn't stand for monitoring what customers do. It's about developing a meaningful relationship with customers. It's one of several functions that step well ahead of "monitoring" services and requires an investment by people, not programs, in nurturing that relationship. While the tools might help improve your proficiency, don't expect them to replace people.

• Content Farms And The Death of Remarkable Content
Basically, Lisa Barone cites the ill-conceived document that claims content farms are stealing journalists’ jobs and lowering content standards. There is some truth to that. Some folks have even been so bold as to offer our firm content for pennies on the dollar. The trade, of course, is content farm content might not be all it is cracked up to be. Repurposed prose doesn't consider the end user. It simply provides content that is then trumped up by fancy headlines and solid SEO backlinking. It's a game of bait and switch. Of course, content farm content is not sustainable.

• Everyone Will Judge You (But No One Cares)
A few weeks ago, someone wrote an article that called for the death of "cool," saying that "cool" was always about what people liked and trying to catch up. I had to correct them. "Cool" originated from keeping one's cool in the face of judgement, whether it was spoken or not. Ergo, Steve McQueen didn't care what people thought of him. It was also a nice warmup to Julien Smith's post, which highlights various traits among great people who typically ignore the judgements of the otherwise mundane. His advice: be who you want to be (unless you'r representing someone else) and let all those other folks think what they want. Amen.

Finding Narcissists: This Post Is All About You

Is the narcissism of a Web page owner in a social networking community related to Web site activity, content, and perception by others? According to one recent study this appears to be the case. Or does it?

"We found that people who are narcissistic use Facebook in a self-promoting way that can be identified by others," Laura Buffardi, a doctoral student in psychology, was quoted by Physorg.com.

Buffardi co-authored the study with associate professor W. Keith Campbell at the University of Georgia. And at first blush, the abstract, published at the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, seems right on target. The deeper you read, however, the study outcomes deviate from prevailing views of narcissism.

How The Study Was Conducted.

1. Narcissistic personality self-reports were collected from Facebook Web page owners.
2. Their Web pages were coded for both objective and subjective content features.
3. Strangers viewed the Web pages and rated their impression of the owner on traits and narcissism.

There were several other steps, but these three present the core of the abstract. According to the abstract, it was partly motivated by the concern that "these Web sites offer a gateway for self-promotion via self-descriptions, vanity via photos, and large numbers of shallow relationships (friends are counted—sometimes reaching the thousands—and in some cases ranked), each of which is potentially linked to trait narcissism."

The general hypothesis was to find correlations between "real world" and online expression of narcissism as it relates to a higher number of social relationships (but shallower), self-promotion, self-presentation, and the perception of having a large number of Agentic (a perception that you make choices and impose those choices on the world) characteristics. Some discussion...

• Less self-absorbed people do not seem to be using the Internet for self-promotion to the degree narcissists do.
• The quantity of social interactions and number of relationships is indicative of the traits associated with narcissism.
• The choice of the main photo plays a significant role in the ability of strangers to identify narcissists.

However, the study also noted that real world narcissists are charming and generally make a good first impression whereas online communication seemed to bear out that narcissists' quotes and interactions were less entertaining. And secondly, real world narcissists are not any more attractive than non-narcissists, but strangers tended to rate attractive photos as more likely belonging to narcissists.

What's Missing From The Study?

There are several other factors that could be contributing to online behaviors associated with narcissism, many of which are promoted as social normalcy in such environments. These need to be considered alongside any psychological study.

• Popularity (number of social connections) has an overinflated value of importance.
• Photo selection, especially main photos, could correlate with social media experience.
• The quantity of interactions could also be more likely to correlate with experience.
• Social norms within subgroups often dictate some behavioral traits of individuals.
• Individuals are prone to update information and photos to benchmark personal challenges.
• There is a primary indication that social network behavior is greatly influenced by intent.

Specifically, on the last point, content creators have a tendency to share, interact, and attract more friends or followers, which could produce narcissistic quantifiers. Likewise, people working in communication that act as spokespeople may increase their visibility online regardless of personal "real world" leanings (e.g., I know several shy people who seem extroverted online). Conversely, some individuals may have no interest in personal self-promotion, but have been asked to supply such information by family and friends. The point being, it is extremely difficult to guess at intent.

Can narcissistic qualities be spotted online? Maybe, but the qualifiers to determine narcissism are likely to require observations beyond the owner's Facebook page. For example, someone who has an increasingly high rate of interaction may have a high level of interaction on other people's pages where they are more communal in nature.

Likewise, there seems to be too much emphasis placed on main photos. It makes me wonder whether the strangers rating these pages, after being instructed to look for narcissistic traits, skewed their reporting toward attractive and/or posed photos, assuming it was vanity. Photo selection could equally be any number of reasons, even self-consciousness.

Still, the overall construct of this research is fascinating. Social networking is very well suited for narcissists. Just keep in mind that narcissistic traits are more likely in line with those who believe they are "influencers," frequently promote the number of friends or followers, and force position themselves as an authority within groups.

These are just my initial impressions of this very interesting subject. I'm very interested in hearing different ideas.

Lingering Aftershocks: Hewlett-Packard

Hewlett-Packard (HP) is still learning the hard way. In the immediate aftermath of a crisis, every decision made is weighed against the crisis. Every decision, including the acquisition of 3PAR.

Three weeks of being unwilling to match Dell’s $18 per share offer for 3PAR, HP re-entered with a $24 per share bid. The switch has some people wondering whether the change of heart is tied to HP's apparent need to prove that it is "business as usual."

Without Closure, Every Decision Becomes A Comparative.

You can hear the rumbling in the background. Even if the acquisition of 3PAR is lucrative for HP, the unwritten questions remain. What would Hurd do? And, more telling, are the board of directors pushing for the acquisition for public relations?

These questions might not be asked as often had HP been more aggressive in closing out the crisis as opposed to attempting to operation it out of the picture. Worse, they've spun up several new allegations and stories, some of which don't add up (hat tip: Ben Tremblay) while leaving plenty of questions unanswered.

No one can blame HP for insisting that they want to "look forward and not back," which basically means they intend to shrug off transparency. It also reinforces the idea that the universe doesn't understand negatives. Every time those words are uttered, it means the opposite for everyone else.

The evidence is all over the 3PAR discussions. HP has put itself in a position where winning or losing looks equally questionable. (Note, I'm not saying the acquisition is vital for HP or not.) If they don't see it through to the end, people will wonder if the acquisition about-face was public relations driven. And if they do win, they might ask the same thing.

The primary question people ought to be asking is how much is too much to pay for 3PAR. But, with the scandal still lingering in the background, the merger (win or lose) won't clear HP from the crisis it picked. What will it take? A new CEO who delivers gains for two quarters ought to do it. Their crisis communication should have this benchmark built in.

Finding The End Of A Crisis Is Harder Than Managing A Crisis.

Most crisis communication plans never consider the situational challenges that occur long after the immediate crisis has ended. One might even say that this is the caveat missing from the Toyota concept that all is forgotten after 70 days. While there is some truth to that, crisis communication planners need to have a realistic view of when to start that 70-day ticker.

In this case, closure didn't occur with the resignation of Hurd. (You can see it in the stock valuation.) Had he not resigned, the company could have started the ticker on the date of the harassment settlement. More importantly, companies have to be careful in how they make bold movements while still suffering from crisis aftershocks.

As long as the motivation is only to deliver shareholder value, it's easy to back bold moves. But if decisions are being made because there is something else to prove, then they've done more than lose the HP way. They've lost any semblance of purpose.