Retracting Gap: What's In A Logo?

"Ok. We’ve heard loud and clear that you don’t like the new logo." — GAP Facebook

But it's hard to turn off online opinions. And GAP can expect to hear some more after its two-day escapade to introduce a logo that felt like it was served up straight out of an old clip art book.

Helvetica (because that is what everybody uses). And a tiny box behind the GAP (because someone wanted GAP to be, you know, outside the box).

“We’ve learned a lot in this process. And we are clear that we did not go about this in the right way," said Marka Hansen, president of Gap Brand North America. "We recognize that we missed the opportunity to engage with the online community. This wasn’t the right project at the right time for crowd sourcing."

But did they really? Hansen's statement alludes to the idea that they might try again. Just not today. And after the recent GAP debacle, probably not in the foreseeable future. Almost certainly not why Hansen holds the same position.

What Is It About Logos Anyway?

When a company has a readily identifiable brand, like GAP, the logo transcends art. It becomes the symbol of the brand relationship.

When that happens (and you want it to happen), you cannot change the logo any more successfully than you can surprise your spouse with a new wedding ring as the symbol of your relationship. This is especially true true if you trade it down, swapping out the gold band for a twizzler stick or tie wrap.

"Um honey, what's that wrapped around your finger?"

"Oh this? It's a garbage bag tie wrap."

"A what? ... Why?"

"I decided to evolve the symbol of our relationship to be more in line with our everyday down-to-earth domestic bliss."

See? If you think such a stunt would be well received, go ahead and try it.

Of course, that is not to say refreshing a symbol is a bad idea. There are opportunities to evolve it, from time to time, with the mutual consent of both parties. Or, in the case of a company logo, many stakeholders. In some cases, it might not be all that different from deciding when to change a tagline.

When To Change A Logo.

At the end of the relationship. Mergers, acquisitions, and buyouts are all suitable times to change the logo because they represent a change in the relationship. However, marketers must always remember that a new symbol is indicative of change. New relationships have to be proven.

At the end of an era. Some logos, much like architecture, pay too much attention to trends and not the timelessness of their own design. In the 1980s, for example, many companies infused pastels into their designs. The evolution of Nike might be an appropriate example, especially because the changes were mostly subtle.

With a shift in direction. While the Syfy name change is still a mess, the timing was somewhat right. The network wanted to change direction. Whether it really did or not is debatable. (There were some other legal reasons involved too).

Because it sucks. Some companies have logos that suck. There are thousands and thousands. What else can be said about them? Marketers need to be careful though. Mercedes is sometimes called a bad logo design. Maybe so, but the iconic symbol has transcended what doesn't work.

New Products. New companies, new products, and new services can sometimes spark the imagination. Apple used this approach when it dropped the color bars. While the change wasn't as dramatic as the launch of Infiniti by Nissan, it's still a useful illustration.

Never. When a logo works, it works. And it doesn't have to be great to work. That is the lesson GAP ought to have learned. While the company might think the mark has become tied to the past, its customers are happy enough with it. And maybe that is the most important lesson of all. When it comes to logos, once established, it's no longer about you.

Related Stories By Others.

• What Did It Take To Get The Gap To Reverse Its Logo Redesign?

• Dear Gap, I Have Your New Logo.

• Calm Down, The New Gap Logo is a PR Stunt.

Changing Communication: Front Line Workers Over Leaders

According to a study by CNBC, the communication industry (advertising, public relations, and marketing) may see some more major transitions in the near future. This time around, the changes aren't expected to be external like the advent of social media. It will be internal, driven by changes in workforce positions, which will eventually cause cross-industry changes.

In the next decade, as media continues to consolidate, public relations (those who really worked in media relations) will face increased position competition by journalists. And, given the journalists will have a leg up on demonstrating "inside knowledge," many public relations pros will be absorbed into advertising (if they are creative), marketing (if they are not), or social media (for less money). As each position's exodus occurs, others within the field will likely be forced out or regulated to increasingly task-oriented jobs.

Communication-Related Positions Expected To Decline.

1. Reporters and Correspondents. According to the report, reporters and correspondents at media outlets will decline as much as eight percent in the next decade. This could increase competition in the fields of advertising and public relations as reporters and columnists on the top of the chain compete for better paying public relations jobs while new entrants are likely to consider advertising and public relations a backup.

2. Computer Programmers. While the software segment is expected to increase by as much as 32 percent in the decade, computer programmers (the people who write the instructions for computers to run software) will drop three percent. Either computer programmers will become increasingly independent or find new ways to adapt their work. We think it may impact the communication field as more marketers add tech savvy programmers to their creative teams.

3. Advertising, Marketing, And Public Relations Managers. While the industry is expected to grow 13 percent, communication management is expected to drop by two percent. This could impact the industry two-fold. More people but fewer managers will reduce the entry level positions to a subprofessional level and decrease opportunities for advancement. Beyond that, the industry has been trending toward tactical solutions, requiring more task work and people to fill chairs. And no, this isn't a good thing.

4. Editors. If you're tried of seeing typos in everything from media articles, company Websites, and blogs — get used to it. Editing positions will remain flat, with more of them being contracted as opposed to brought in house. Part of the decline is attributed to problems within the publishing industry, but the bigger picture is that companies want editors who are more than editors. They have to have some tech skills too. Interestingly enough, while there is less demand for the position, there is greater demand for the skill set.

While some of these changes seem insignificant, they represent sweeping changes in the industry. As media outlets continue to trim staff, public relations professionals (there is almost a reporter: public relations ratio of 1:2 already) will be expected to develop more direct-to-public campaigns. Unfortunately, they won't oversee the campaigns as — across the board — management is being diminished, leaving more communication professionals with less room for advancement in a field that was already competitive.

The net result is more tactical and less strategic work. And while this will appeal to number crunchers who believe everything is a formula based on the total number of people vs. the dollars spent, the net result will be weaker brands and a profession that increasingly feels less professional. For all the good social media has done, it is also stripping away some of the significance of the industry as entry-level communicators are much more likely to find their positions much more similar to online customer service than content creation and management.

Changing Paradigms: Fresh Content Project

Last week, I wrote about how important it is to remain teachable. And I didn't realize it at the time, but it fits in nicely enough with the five posts chosen as fresh content picks.

When you look at all of them, perhaps with Ike Pigott striking at a theme, they really speak to the idea that people are having a hard time letting go of what they think they know. The reality is that the world is constantly changing and it's changing at a faster pace. Nothing is going to be the same. So, it really becomes a balance of embracing change without being so foolhardy by thinking that every shiny solution will be the wave you want to ride.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of September 20

• 8 Blogger Outreach No-nos To Avoid At All Costs.
While most of us know the public relations industry still has trouble with blogger outreach (largely, because it's not scalable like mass news release distribution), it was still refreshing to read Arik Hanson's takeaway from a Twitter chat session. For some reason, public relations professionals think they can blast pitch bloggers and then, assuming the blogger has enough reach, attempt to make them part of the messaging team. I don't get it and neither should you. Check out all eight tips from Hanson. There isn't a lemon in the bushel.

• PageRank Explained, Without Math (Really).
Ian Lurie helps explain that for all the good some SEO specialists think they are doing, they are sometimes doing the opposite. If you want people to go to a specific place, like a Website, then linking to the site makes sense. But if you add too many links, you could unintentionally divert all the juice somewhere else. Maybe it'll come back. Maybe it won't. It's hard to say. This might also be the reason that people are linking less in general, being a bit more stingy on sharing the water (to borrow from Lurie's analogy). That's fine, except some are forgetting to attribute too. Strike a balance between the two extremes.

• Slave to the Packaging.
Any post that includes something about Rush deserves attention. Ike Pigott wrote a post about artificial boundaries created within the music industry with bands jumping off the road to produce albums and then restarting their tours all over again. Fortunately, things change. Music is still undergoing significant change. Some for the better and some for the worse. The better, depending on how you look at it, are bands that produce EPs and then finish albums on the road. That, of course, is only a sliver of Pigott's post. Take a moment to read the comparisons to networks and news releases.

• Kent State’s Online PR Master’s Is Set To Launch
While Bill Sledzik intended the post to be a little bit promotional, there is much more there than meets the eye. Kent State is moving in the direction of many universities in offering an online master's degree (many of which require some in-person class time). While the downside to an online degree is that it still has a reputation of being easy, I'm hoping universities like Kent State can help shore the image up. People like me, who missed out on a master's due to location constraints, are much more likely to pursue degrees long distance. If you can hear the teachers, read the books, ask questions, and complete the assignments ... what's the difference anyway?

• The Spinning Of A Tragedy (w/video)
When I first noticed that Bob Conrad was going to tackle this tragedy, I didn't know what to think. It was one of those subjects that could prove enlightening or disastrous (much like when I was asked to write disaster response tips after a mining tragedy). Conrad is the perfect person to tackle this one, which hits too close to home. There is an anti-police public relations campaign being lobbied against a police department for what appears to have been unavoidable. Unfortunately, given the facts, this will only prolong the pain felt by everyone. Check it out and then be sure to read the follow up post too.

Being Teachable: Better Communication

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

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

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

The Art Of Being Teachable.

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

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

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

Why Being Teachable Is Important For Communicators.

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

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

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

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

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

Whitewashing Oil Spills: Control The Crisis Not The Communication

How much did the government whitewash the Gulf Coast oil spill? It almost doesn't matter. When trust relies on reputation, even little lies take their toll during a crisis and during the post-crisis analysis.

In this case, the administration seems poised to defend itself, regardless. After the presidential commission released its largely neutral preliminary report, the rebuttal by the administration has been to criticize any criticisms. The approach was exemplified by the initial response to the report.

"The federal government response was full force and immediate, and the response focused on state and local plans and evolved when needed. As directed by the President, the response was based on science, even when that pitted us against BP or state and local officials, and the response pushed BP every step of the way," — White House Office of Management and Budget

Three Most Critical Areas Where Communication Broke Down.

1. Inconsistent definitions of the relationship between the government and BP. The government attempted to make the case it was deferring to, in charge of, and a partner with BP. Clearly, the government could not be all three simultaneously.

In most circumstances, the definitions of a relationship will only change erratically when the organization is incompetent, or, more likely, is attempting to position the itself to grab any credit but push off any criticism. In this case, more emphasis seems to have been placed on attempting to control public perception instead of the oil spill.

2. Fear of negative public perception. Perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of the report was that it revealed how the White House was directly involved in controlling information (but not the operation) from the start. According to the Associated Press, the White House budget office even denied a request from NOAA to make public the worst-case scenario estimates.

In most circumstances, the most likely reason any organization would withhold such information, which in this case was actualized, would be because they believed that the denial of these facts would delay public outrage. Specific in this crisis, it seems clear the Unified Command also had worst-case estimates, but did not release them in a timely manner. Some Coast Guard responders are on record as saying that much of the initial effort was slow and unfocused.

3. Too many messengers with conflicting information. In an effort to show more "transparency" and that the government was in control of the crisis, numerous agency heads became involved in a public decision making process rather than deferring to qualified people in the field. This dramatically politicized the crisis.

In most circumstances, organizations that continually shift spokespeople or cater to dozens of spokespeople to make a show of involvement while minimizing accountability for the entire organization. Ergo, if any singular spokesperson misspeaks or if a statement is later proven false, the other spokespeople can refute or denounce what was said.

Crisis Communication Must Be Clear, Accurate, And Human.

Communication is the single most powerful tool in effective governance. However, it can also be the greatest liability unless communication it is clear, accurate, and human.

For this administration, there seems to have been too much emphasis on public perception damage and not enough on environmental damage. Specifically, the administration idealized what public perception it wanted to actualize: The administration was fully vested in minimizing the crisis despite everyone working against them for personal gain.

The reality was very different, enough so that no amount of spin could be believed. Imagine how differently this crisis might have played out if the focus remained on the crisis as opposed to the crisis communication.

Then, the administration would have invested full resources in the initial response and had one spokesperson deliver a consistently honest and accurate accounting of what was being done. Other agency heads could then reinforce the message and their confidence in the spokesperson as well as the decisions being made. In the best case scenario, the administration would have overcommitted and contained the spill. In the worst case scenario, the public would have accepted the damage.

There are only two possible explanations for the way the administration handled the crisis response. Either the administration was overconfident and therefore negligent and incompetent in its handling of the crisis on the front end. Or, it purposely attempted to manipulate public perception to downplay the severity of the crisis or their inability to deal with it.

If you are interested, we've chronicled a great deal of the communication as part of a living case study. Perhaps the most likely explanation can be found there. Or perhaps the better lesson is that effective communication follows action and not our preferred fantasies. Case study closed. Maybe.

Losing Contacts: The Open Network

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertising Laughs: Kraft Lightens Up

Years ago, before video had become a mainstream component for social media, we considered advertainment would eventually become a key ingredient for online campaigns. There have been several attempts, including the failed Bud TV concept.

But the one who might have the right just under-the-radar mix is Kraft. It recently tapped stay-at-home mom turned comedian Anita Renfroe to weave Kraft products into her routine for a series called You Gotta LOL. And although this brand of product insertion is blatant, the comedy remains authentic, relatable, embedable, and shareable.

It's also on target with the brand. When Renfroe talks about the dreamy, creamy center of an Oreo cookie, she calls it "sweet, dependable, like the perfect boyfriend." But at the same time, Kraft allows her to have fun with the creamy center as she admits to having no idea what the "stuff is."


Oreo isn't the only product. Each segment ties into a different offering from Kraft, but most aren't overt. For example, the Kraft 100 calorie packs segment never mentions the product. Renfroe just talks about her battle with weight, offering that if you are what you eat, she might eat a super model.

Why Does The Kraft Concept Work So Well?

Kraft finds the perfect balance giving people a reason to visit its Web site, but allows people to share segments anywhere they want. There is no need to control the distribution or keep people on the site longer than they want.

They succeed in framing the segments with just enough about Renfroe, product ads, and useful information, including Kraft Mobile, Kraft recipes by email, and ample connection points for a variety of products on Facebook (including one built exclusively for the comedy series). And unlike Old Spice, the campaign concept might need to be refreshed, but it is sustainable without the gimmick of interaction. We relate to the content, not the flash in the pan.

The sustainability works well because some of the bits could be played 20 years from now and still make sense (assuming the specific product is around). But more importantly, all of it sticks well within the Kraft brand, perhaps best described as iconic products that celebrate the inner child in most people.

According to Brandweek, Kraft worked with Meredith Corp.’s integrated marketing department to create 18 videos. The company has been launching one mini-episode a week with dozens of distribution points, allowing people to connect any way they want.

On that last point, Kraft also shows a level of maturity that most companies experimenting with social media do not. The embedded video above won't help its total views on YouTube, where they are also airing. Instead, Kraft chose the best video applications based on what will work with each platform.

While this strips away some social media experts' ability to claim a success story based on a singular view alone (ho hum), Kraft's measurement is better weighed by looking at the total composite of the campaign rather than a single slice like some people try to measure. And that, well, it's just smart. About the only thing that Kraft missed was tying everything together in traditional media too (but I won't count that out yet).

Looking For Quality: Consumers Shed Frugality

A new study from the latest from The Futures Company notes a new shift in consumer attitudes. The priority placed on price during the global recession is weakening.

"While these changes are small, they are nevertheless notable, for they signal the start of a long awaited reversal in attitudes," says J. Walker Smith, executive chairman of The Futures Company. "It's easy to lose sight of the fact that just because consumers are still tightening their belts doesn't mean they don't want name brand quality."

The drop is slight, with 53 percent saying that "price is more important to me than brand names," which is down from 57 percent in 2009. According to the futures company, consumers look to well-known brand names because they represent a mark of tried and tested quality. Almost 40 percent of consumers believe that famous brands can be relied on for quality.

The challenge price-slashing companies may face is finding ways to justify returning prices to their old normal. Once prices are set, it is often difficult to demonstrate a higher product price-to-value ratio prior to the price cut, unless the company can find a new way to add value.

Price increases are also especially difficult to accept when customers are just beginning to feel economic pressures ease. Their response to price increases tends to be more volatile, especially on fixed monthly costs. For example, a consumer finally feeling confident enough to plan a vacation might balk at higher than anticipated room rates, especially if it kills their travel plans.

Smith is right in noting that consumers are practicing prioritization over frugality, which reinforces other research that seemed to suggest that consumers were splurging. They weren't. Any lavish purchases were self-rewards, tending to gravitate toward toward one-time purchases with heftier price tags but higher perceived quality.

"Frugality is a coping mechanism not an aspiration," added Smith. We tend to agree. In fact, even in B2B settings, price breaks tend to devalue services more than they create an allure for that service. The net result is price breaks increase demand and expectation as customers feel that they might have lost something after receiving the discount.

Knowing Zip: Fresh Content Project

There is an old saying that the more you know, the more you realize you really know nothing at all. If you want a great communicator or marketer or social media expert, pay careful attention to those who ascend beyond that point. They tend to be more modest, but not for lack of confidence. They know that they don't know.

Because communication tends to overlap psychology and sociology, and we know very little about those fields, most marketers know nothing at all. They base their understanding of the world on experiences that may or may not exist in any new situation or circumstance. However, the truth of communication suggests the opposite is true and these five posts share some insights that illustrate this fact.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of September 20

• 10 Simple Steps To Increase Your Digital Influence.
While I'm not big on worrying about digital influence, there is no denying that the right person can get a little lift from following the ten tactical points presented by Jeff Bullas. Hang out with people in your audience, develop a niche so people can identify with you, and invest in strategy that integrates all communication (and not just online communication) round out the first three. It makes sense because these tactics are just like real life. The more you treat online behavior as your offline behavior, the more likely you are to succeed (assuming you excel offline too).

• Social Media Experts, Marketers Quake at #NewTwitter.
In a post with a title that originally played on the word "egoists," Louis Gray writes up some of the hangups on the new Twitter. The harshest criticism he pulls from the stack reads succinctly enough: "And yet it's common behavior, @stop. Twitter embraced the @ symbol, hashtags, and RT from its users. Why do you suddenly know best." Sometimes this is the problem with social networks. Once they become popular, they forget that the public made them so. However, no matter how you feel about the changes, it also serves up a great reminder that tactics used today won't work tomorrow.

• Some Truths About Crowdsourcing.
Geoff Livingston presents four solid truths to crowdsourcing online: crowds have to care, they need structure, rules need to be understood, and managers need to invest a significant amount of time. You can read the explanations on his post, but I'd like to add an additional caveat to the crowdsourcing conversation. Never forget the quiet majority. Most people don't say anything when they leave a brand behind. They just leave. So do be careful listening to the loudest folks all the time. Sometimes they are a niche unto themselves.

• No-Attention Branding.
Roger Dooley notes that if perception is the marketer's playground, then the goal of the marketer must always be to get in front of the people and engage them, right? Maybe not. At least that might be the lesson learned from the impossible reality of blindsight. No matter how many people will tell you otherwise, people process brand information without being consciously aware of it. What this means is that it is sometimes important to be there without asking for attention or engaging people. Exactly right.

• 10 Things To Put In Your SEO Proposal.
Ian Lurie provides a simple, but effective list of everything you might need to include in an effective SEO sales pitch. One of my favorite points, however, had nothing to do with what to include. It tells you what not to include. He says there is no need to promise to put clients at the top of the heap because anyone with half a brain will know you are full of crap. Unfortunately, there are plenty of both — people with less than half a brain and people who are full of crap. That is why they are made for each other.

Drinking Kool-Aid: Palms Resort Guzzles Klout

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

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

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

The Palms' Kool-Aid Is Klout.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Klout Doesn't Count.

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

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

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

You cannot cheat and hope to find influencers.

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

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

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

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

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

Banning Books: Words Want To Be Free

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

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

Three Examples Of Censorship.

Twisted by Laurie Halse Anderson.

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

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

Hills Like White Elephants by Ernest Hemingway.

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

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

I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou.

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

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

The Interpretation Of Words Is Twice As Dangerous Than Words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating Social Networks: Colonies Before Communities

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

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

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

Colonies Before Communities.

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

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

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

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

The Risk Of Colonization.

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

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

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

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

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

The Reward Of A Loyalist Community.

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

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

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

Faking Fans: The Flawed Netflix Apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confusing People: When Creative Is Too Much

A brand new advertising poll conducted for Adweek Media by Harris Interactive puts some agencies on notice. For all the cleverness that some agencies try to jam pack into television, three-quarters of Americans find them confusing.

Highlights From The Harris Interactive Poll.

• 75 percent say that they have found at least one commercial confusing.
• 21 percent say that they often find television commercials confusing.
• 14 percent say they never find television commercials confusing.
• 11 percent say they never watch television commercials anyway (they lie).

The answer seems to correlate with the age. Participants who were over the age of 55 tended to be more confused by commercials than their younger counterparts.

This is indicative of two possibilities. First, the television commercials could be targeting younger and younger viewers. Second, younger viewers have learned not to expect much from television commercials. Either way, the confusion factor is a challenge.

Given that the survey also revealed that the confusion increases with level of education, I'm leaning toward the latter explanation. Educated people are anticipating there is a point. Less educated people are assuming commercials entertain.

Overly Creative Commercials Have No Point.

I touched on this last week in an expose on how companies undermine their own brands. And, I cannot resist picking on the most creative and painfully pointless ad out there.



I've shown the advertisement to countless people. Most of them laugh out loud. What always isn't apparent is whether they are laughing because it's funny or because it's a travesty (on the entertainment side, I think it's funny). What is apparent is they don't get it.

Diesel wants to make the case that it makes street shoes, cool. But having your foot up someone's rump isn't necessarily a point of affection. The real problem here is Diesel, for all its cleverness, doesn't make a brand promise other than these shoes aren't meant for running. They aren't meant for dishwashing either, which could have made an equally funny spot.

Coming up with attention-grabbing creative is the easiest thing in the world. Coming up with attention-grabbing creative that delivers a promise a company can keep, on the other hand, is why some copywriters make a living.

It's also why consumers, despite being excited by an advertisement now and again, have gravitated to social media. It's not that they don't like clever, it's that they prefer clever that celebrates the product (with which they have a relationship) as opposed to those that celebrate the creative director or copywriter. That doesn't mean you can't have fun in the field. It's just means you have to think harder than the first thought that comes into your mind.

Showing Stories: Fresh Content Project

When I pull together stories for the fresh content project, I never have a theme in mind. However, week after week, it seems to me that they share a common theme more often than not. This week happens to hold one of my favorite themes.

In every writing class I teach, I am constantly banging my hand on the table, attempting to teach would-be writers and public relations professionals the merit of "showing" and not "telling." All of these posts have this important ingredient going for them, even though they rely heavily on images over storytelling. Still, the lesson rings true enough. Most could have told these stories without pictures too.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of September 13

• The Stories Pictures Will Tell (If You Just Listen).
Ike Pigott shares an experimental post with one of the leading rules for great writing: show me, don't tell me. Except, in this case, he uses pictures to share a tribute to a remarkable teen who isn't with us now. It's a compelling treatment of a life that had a precious impact on others. The treatment, which spans series with several pages that reveal small details of the subject one at a time, tells a story. The lesson, is less than the greater sum of its parts, is that sometimes people can see the truth on their own.

• Quickstart Guide to Social Media for Business
In an illustration of another kind, we see a different kind of truth from Marta Majewska. While the formula is oversimplified, her infographic on how to start a social media program is the stuff that provides a mountain of information in about the size of a molehill hole. The infographic paints 14 critical steps for social media, from establishing your goals (even better if you establish a strategy) to measuring effectiveness. The infographic, by the way, is from B2Bento.

• The New And Improved Twitter.
Brian Solis offers up a little more of what he does best, painting a picture of the "new and improved" Twitter after being asked to take a test drive. Plenty of screenshots make it work. The biggest change borrows embedded video and photo elements much like the upstart Fried Eggs, except Twitter is going with a two fat column approach. There is already some fallout over the anticipated changes, which will be fodder for a fresh pick we'll pull out next week. Personally, I haven't made up my mind. Sometimes more is less than less.

• The ROI of Rotary.
In his first guest post on the Social Media Explorer, Ike Pigott tackles the history of social media ROI by using a Rotary analogy and reminding professionals that not every measurement needs to be marked off with a click, like, follow, or even sale. Social media tends to be more fluid, with an understanding that not all measurements are quantifiable. Often, it's the benefits we don't measure that have the most value.

• Social Media And The Multiplier Effect.
Ian Lurie has been on a roll lately, including this post which shows how the value of an individual actually falls as an individual network (or platform) grows. And he asks: "why is it that someone tweeting to 50,000 people gets me 3 clicks, and someone tweeting to 5,000 gets me 10,000 clicks?" He then places an emphasis on what he calls the multiplier effect, whereas more really is better because the quality of each relationship (and the content) becomes even more important. In his model, the network begins to take the likeness of a community.

• How To Use A Writing Frame.
This post by Chris Brogan almost got me in "trouble." In terms of showing his story, Brogan tossed up a basic blog post outline that will inevitably help some people. Personally, I think it might help people visualize how some posts will go. It will help many novice and medium-level writers because the outline is ready mix. However, as anybody who cooks Italian knows, homemade noodles just taste better. And that is why I almost got into trouble with a homemade noodle crowd or, in this case, some of best writers out there. So, while I still think the Brogan post holds value, temper the rules with my qualifier.

Keeping Promises: How Companies Disrupt Branding Efforts

In many quarters, branding has almost become synonymous with advertising, marketing, and/or public relations. But as presented a few days ago, branding is a cross-departmental or disciplinary communication and operational function.

Specifically, it relies on the ability to effectively communicate a promise, deliver on that promise, and prove the promise was delivered. This is how companies develop relationships with customers and consumers.

Communicating A Promise.

A brand promise can be easily summed up as a unique position or unique product statement (or contrast point), with advertising usually charged with making sure that promise earns attention, especially when it is placed in front of the intended audience (or a maximum amount of people, which seems to be the general focus nowadays).

The challenge for advertising agencies is to make that promise as clear as possible, as interesting as possible to intended audience, and as confined as possible without overreaching on the company's ability to deliver. When there is no strategic thought behind a campaign, these three points aren't always in alignment.

• Some agencies produce ads that promise nothing. Diesel Shoes.
• Some agencies produce ads that bore us. Infotapes.
• Some agencies produce ads that promise too much. United.

Delivering On A Promise.

Not all companies mean to break their promises. Some of them do. A few even lie so often that we accept lies but do not elevate our expectations (e.g., fast food product shots, airline on-time arrival boasts, up front car salesmen). But for these purposes, it makes more sense to focus on those that are more clear cut.

Simply put, companies destroy their own brands when they don't measure up to the brand promise. Nobody gets upset when their phone camera doesn't measure up to a dedicated camera. But most people get upset when they are asked how they would like a burger cooked, and it comes out rare instead of medium (they don't say as much if they are never asked). And then, of course, there are other ways to undermine a brand promise.

• Promises that are lies. BP.
• Promises that overreach. Sprint.
• Promises that change. American.
• Promises that aren't scalable. Toyota.

As a side note, it might be interesting to consider that with every "improvement" a social network makes, it is changing its original promises. Is it any wonder why every change gets questioned? Or that there have been consequences since Digg launched its makeover? Or that most discounts are bribes, because people who receive them tend to complain less? Or that sometimes people become upset when they find out there are hidden costs (such as damage to the environment)?

Proving That The Promise Is Delivered.

For some companies, delivering proof can be the hardest task of all. Some companies struggle because they attempt to hide or stomp out any evidence of broken promises. They can accomplish this any number of ways.

• They can attempt to appease distractors.
• They can attempt to discredit distractors.
• They can attempt to drown out distractors.

This function used to rest squarely on the shoulders of public relations. The original idea was that public relations could be company cheerleaders who targeted influential people within certain publics (including the media). But now, of course, part of this tactic has fallen over into social media with some companies trying to leverage the number of followers as validation that they can deliver on a promise (even if they cannot).

What concerns me about social media sometimes is that the entire intent becomes to build an army of minions who talk louder, more frequently, and to more people than any number of other distractors. This isn't much different than the model employed in the 1980s. Except, instead of topical boundaries, there used to be geographical ones. It seems more worthwhile to keep promises.

The point here is twofold. For good companies, it's not enough to make good on the right promises. Other people have to find out. And second, the post-sale communication can be just as important as the presale communication, especially when you consider that a happy customer relationship can quickly turn bad if another consumer shows them something of better value.

A Quick Summation.

Every piece of the communication counts. And when companies begin to understand that social media is an online environment, they'll begin to understand that every communication component belongs online, not just one or two of three.

Broadcasting Promises: The Pursuit Of Viral Exposure

Many companies adopting social media have at least one or two executives and managers who dream of one thing: super exposure from social media. They couldn't care less if you like them, their company, or their products.

They might not even care if you make a purchase, because many of them are playing a numbers game. The numbers game was largely born out of direct marketing and, sadly, adopted by many advertising agencies in order to remain competitive. (They thought they had to, in order to prove ROI.)

The general theory is that if a marketer makes 1,000 solicitations, and 100 respond, then the marketer can say with confidence that the campaign led to a 10 percent direct response rate. If you are customer 101, it doesn't matter. If you do buy, then you're a bonus because the marketer can continue to repeat this process over and over again with new lists. The point is: it's anti-social.

Direct Response Advertising/Social Media Is Addictive.

Some people are still pretty excited by the Old Spice Guy campaign, enough to add it into their presentations. After initial reports showed some products dropped off, P&G claimed victory with record sales. Many social media experts that I know looked at this as proof that social media works, neglecting the huge direct response and magazine ad coupon campaign that accompanied the viral video. (The Old Spice Guy didn't play so well in print, by the way.)

"Who cares," some say. "Overall sales for Old Spice body wash rose 105 percent for that period!"

That's what makes the Old Spice Guy viral video campaign concept compelling and addictive. But let's be honest. It was especially clever, but it wasn't social. It might not even be sustainable.

After the newest installment on Facebook featuring Ray Lewis, fans aren't clamoring for Old Spice. They want more Isaiah Mustafa commercials, whether or not they buy the product. So who did that direct response campaign brand? Old Spice or Mustafa?

And, did it successfully change the lingering perception that Old Spice is for old people? I asked my son. He said some of his friends made fun of Old Spice just yesterday. But that's nothing compared to what some companies do. At least P&G is trying (and in come cases innovating) social media. Some companies just piss people off.

Delivering A Brand Promise Is Not Enough.

When companies adopt social media as a mere communication channel, the people behind the program fool themselves into thinking that numbers are everything. Ergo, the more people who hear the brand promise will mean more people will buy the product. But there is an inherent problem with this thinking.

Social media, on the whole, is an environment. And just like any environment, all three topics — promise, delivery, and proof — are fair game for discussion. Generally, after brand promise buzz dies down, customers and consumers stop talking about the brand promise and start talking about product delivery (and the consequence of delivery) and proof of delivery.

So, if the company delivers on the promise and provides proof it delivered, broadcast might be enough. But most companies don't deliver on the promise.* So instead, they play a different numbers game even if they don't know it.

Compounding Can Work Against Marketers Too.

If a marketer makes 1,000 solicitations, 100 are put off, and 100 respond (and 50 feel cheated), the marketer is contributing to a problem that won't materialize for months. But eventually, it will materialize. As the 100 who are put off and 50 who feel cheated (with every cycle) begin to share their stories, they will eventually outpace the company's broadcast efforts.

What does that mean? Sooner or later, the marketer will make 1,000 solicitations only to find 900 of those are wasted because those 900 already received an anti-brand promise message from 100 people put off and 50 who feel cheated (times the number of cycles). Of course, some companies are so arrogant that they will blame the messaging and not their own operations. So, it will go on and on until they eventually die or are bought up.

Delta is providing a great example of this right now. After a big splash to sell offsite and driving people to its Facebook page, it is painfully clear that Delta has adopted a broadcast-only tactic.

The Delta wall is riddled with unanswered complaints. The pace is eclipsing Delta broadcasts by more than 100-to-1. Delta obviously has a delivery challenge, which is compounded by a lack of social proof (they don't deliver and don't make good when they don't). As the numbers grow in the opposite direction, Delta will eventually find that no one will believe their brand promises anymore, except a few wing nuts who are heavily invested with millions of frequent flyer miles.

What Is The Solution?

The best solution is to adopt a social media program that can communicate the promise truthfully (advertising), engage with customer service (marketing), and provide proof (public relations) that something is being done. And, if the company is still unable to deliver, it could lower the expectation or improve the delivery.

Customers are very adaptable to lower expectations. People who buy a Yugo don't expect Porsche performance.

Airlines, for whatever reason, are prone to overpromise. They promise to get you to your destination safely and roughly on time, with your bags, after a reasonably comfortable flight, for the best possible price (sometimes lowest). And if they don't, they have passenger service agents who can help. The reality is that the only promise they can keep is price and lately (with all the add-on fees), they can't even do that.

There is another solution, of course. The broadcast-only model works if you stay away from the numbers game and target the right people. Inevitably, some people will like a specific product no matter what. In the 1970s, people bought pet rocks.

Some people think that the pet rock product was a numbers game. It wasn't. The initial campaign was targeted to people who would find it so stupid that it was a novelty. Its popularity among a certain segment pushed it toward mainstream popularity for about six months. Of course, this product wasn't sustainable. Most companies want to be sustainable.

*I don't believe most companies intentionally break promises or try to cheat people. There are dozens of reasons they break brand promises, but that will have to wait for another day. It's a complex subject, especially among bigger companies.

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.

Moving The Cheese: How Post Frames Fail Over Time

When we chose Chris Brogan's post — How To Use A Writing Frame — as a daily fresh content pick (an experiment of sorts), I anticipated having to qualify it in a future weekly recap. Before having the chance, Ike Pigott had already questioned the framing concept.

"I understand WHY Brogan has a recipe for blogging. But it's not really for me. (My purpose is different.) — Pigott

Indeed. Writing frames are not for advanced writers, meaning roughly the top two percent of all writers. Pigott is an advanced writer. He doesn't adhere well to rules. A few of us don't.

Case in point, Valeria Maltoni, also an advanced writer, added a quip after I filled her in on my brief exchange with Pigott.

"PPT has templates... ;)" — Maltoni

Her quip made me chuckle. So I offered to pen a post about a Tweet template. And then, in rethinking it, decided that a Tweet template might work better in 140 characters. So, I offered the following..

"The best tweets have a beginning, middle, end, call to action, link, and plea for RTs."

Some people liked it, even though it was really meant to be a parody of the Brogan post (and advice I read about all the time). Hmmm ... maybe we need to start over.

Why Writing Frames Work.

When we chose the Brogan post, there was a specific intent on a light content day (not many people published, and the value was thin.) The Brogan post stood out because while he was really a conversational reframing of the ADIA (or ADICA) structure, but it is still helpful for novice writers, causal writers, lazy writers, and business writers (people who have to write posts, but don't necessarily have a love for writing).

Basically, a post framework is nothing more than a template. It's your story's outline, pure and simple. And I use similar models in classes because it helps people who will have to write establish a context of what it is they will write. As they get better, we focus on the exact opposite — breaking the rules.

Why Writing Frames Don't Work.

Coincidently, Sean Williams wrote a post yesterday that brushes up against why frameworks don't really work. For people who originally set out to break the rules of communication, social media pros are notorious for creating them. So many posts burn with the promise of ten things that will do this and five things that will do that, it sometimes makes my head hurt (I've added to the madness myself).

But all of us do it sometimes because people are hungry for frameworks. Or, like Williams points out, they want someone to tell them the easiest way to get the cheese. And once someone does get the cheese, they fall into a routine. That's all fine and good, until someone moves the cheese. Then, all those step-by-step experts start to panic. Google Instant is a good example. It sent shock waves through the SEO community, people who have been trying to perfect their routines for years.

And that is why frameworks don't work. When everybody is doing it, it gets boring. And for writers, when every post follows a framework, it becomes monotonous. It could also be the reason, I suppose, few Brogan posts are fresh picks. And Seth Godin has yet to offer up anything better than everybody else.

The Post I Could Have Written.

There is no formula to great writing other than time and sacrifice. By sacrifice, I mean that three-quarters of the way through this post, I thought of a different approach. It could have been a great post, using a Lego analogy. Summed in one sentence, Brogan offered up instructions on how to build what is on the box whereas Pigott and Maltoni are too busy erecting original works that are on display at Legoland.

Of course, in order to write that post, I would have had to sacrifice everything written and start over. But then again, I like this post in that it shares how social media is supposed to work. Brogan presented something, we thought it was valid, Pigott and Maltoni questioned it, I offered clarification, and brought Williams' thoughts into the mix.

Best of all, it also serves up how disagreement nurtures better ideas (for all those who shy away from it) without any drama. Huh. You can't make a framework for that. At least not one that will you get the cheese for any length of time.