Below the Fold

Digital is a Platform

Digital is not a “publication.” Digital is a “platform.”

Publications are static, one-way, monotone. They live in comfort. Publishing is an act of control, and in that sense, it is little more than anachronism.

You can publish via digital, but digital is not a publication.

Digital is a platform.

Digital is a relationship reset, an invitation for community involvement. It is a place, an environment, a vessel for people to share knowledge and perspective. Digital is a process, and in that sense, it forces brands, journalists and others to add value rather than merely “create content.”

Publications don’t need journalists, don’t need artists, they don’t need anyone except autonomic content creators. Platforms, however, can’t exist without people to both contribute and curate, to share data and analyze data, to educate and be educated. Digital needs storytellers.

With digital, the platform comes first, not the publication.

From Search Engine to Super App: Getting Stuck in Google’s Web

Google’s mission is simple, bold, and in the annals of silicon culture, tantamount to sacred gospel: “Organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

Today, however, there is a New Testament being written: “Organize Google’s information about the world and make it selectively accessible and mostly useful.”

Okay, not as sexy. But in light of Google’s new focus on social results born from its own Google Plus product, this New Testament is arguably more accurate.

No longer Google Search, but Google’s Search. Not Google results, but Google’s Results. No longer the Web, but Google’s Web.

Google used to be a Web search site. Now it’s becoming an App. And not just any App, but a Super App that pulls you into Google’s Web with an insistent gravity.

Google calls its New Testament “Search Plus Your World,” delivering results from Google Plus pages and profiles more prominently than other Web properties like Wikipedia. This is supposed to make search more personal and relevant – who you know and what your friends like, or share, or do, will have a greater influence on what you see in your search results.

Personalization is hardly new (neither are the inevitable privacy concerns, which go hand in hand.) A personal Web is generally good, faster and easier to use. The “Semantic Web” envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee is today ever more possible, that dream of search delivered according to each person’s interests and desires, by computers that “learn” from us, understand us and make choices on our behalf.

But Google the App -- far more so that Google the Web site -- also runs the risk of making Search more exclusive and incomplete. One person’s customization is another’s exclusivity. Choices made for us, however well intentioned, are not always the best choices for us.

Google’s search gambit is much broader than Google of course – “aggregation” or “curation” or whatever the ridiculous made-up-name it’s called these days is all over the place, most notably on social platforms like Twitter and Facebook.

The difference is, when I’m using Twitter, I’m making the choice to curate content. I know that searching on Twitter gives me results from and favored by Twitter.

But for now at least, I can’t get results from Facebook or Twitter via Google (although the latter has been true for months.) And as mentioned earlier, results from the rest of the open Web are favored less than results from Google properties.

This is Google’s right. It’s a for-profit company and can do whatever the hell it wants, and what it wants is to secure more ad revenue and expand its own social network and services.

The rub is that Google changed the game first and then told everyone the new rules. Google went from giving us information about the world to giving us information about “our” world, provided our world includes a Google Plus account.

It’s too early to say whether this is bad, but it’s certainly different and should not be automatically assumed to be better. Search is done best with your eyes wide open, and the commercial aspects of Google’s New Web Order should be taken into account when deciding what to click.

For companies like Google, data is a conceit; but humans are far more complex than the data they create. This is why a Semantic Web is the Internet’s Holy Grail – we want and believe it to exist, despite the fact that we may never find it.

Whether Google’s Web is another step toward that discovery remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: The Web of Apps is here.

Social Media, Super Bowl Edition: Be a Community Quarterback

Now is the time of year when thoughts turn to matters of the heart – and no, I’m not talking about Valentine’s Day.

I’m talking about the Super Bowl, where we see the heart of a champion. And Super Bowl parties, where we see lots of heartburn from eating foods even Paula Dean would consider out of bounds.

So in the spirit of good sport – and to distract me from the fact that I’ll never win the office betting pool – I’d like to rethink the phrase “social media community manager.”

Although intent and execution are up to the individual and can transcend a word’s definition, words still matter. And the word “manager” in a social context is flawed.

“Manager” refers to someone who “controls” or “manipulates.” It conjures feelings of authority and distance. You can “manage” something without being truly involved or invested in what you are managing.

We don’t need Community Managers. We need Quarterbacks.

A Quarterback’s job is to get the ball to his teammates and let them get into the end zone. You can call your own number sometimes too -- just don’t be a ball hog. Get everyone involved, and as you understand your players better, the whole team will succeed.

A Quarterback’s relationship with the team is rooted in and built on trust. The team trusts that the Quarterback will call the right plays, and in return for that trust, the team will protect the Quarterback from getting sacked.

Social media is a team sport. You can’t bark orders or call plays from the booth, you need to be on the field with your teammates – listening to them, working with them, going to battle and supporting each other in a common purpose.

Don’t be a manager, be a leader. Be a Quarterback.

2012 Prediction: Stop the Bullshit and Do Marketing That Matters

It’s just about time for all of the 2012 marketing and social media trend predictions, that annual rite of passage for seasoned and budding gurus, ninjas or whatever the hell the latest term is for people who tend to say more than they know.

But next year is different. Next year, after all, may be our last year on Earth.

I’m not saying the Mayans were right, I’m just saying that if the world does end in December 2012, what do we want to do for our final act? What will “marketing” mean in the final days? How would you approach your campaigns and community if you knew that the next quarter was your last?

And here’s the rub – you have to keep working. You can’t just curl up with your family and watch the last sunsets. You won’t know it’s the end until it’s upon you, so in the meantime, life (and commerce) must go on.

I know what I would do. I would focus my efforts on creating real connections, evoking real emotion, making a real difference for people who don’t want to leave this life feeling empty. I would use marketing to give people access to products and ideas that will make their lives easier, better and richer for whatever time is left.

So here’s a thought for 2012: Let’s do this anyway.

What you would do at the End of the World should be no different than what you should do every day.

If the past decade of social media has taught us anything, it’s that marketing doesn’t matter. It never did. It’s all bullshit – sometimes elegant, sometimes funny, sometimes evocative, but nevertheless bullshit.

Let’s accept this and move on. Marketing is a path, but it’s not the goal. It’s not success.

Next year may be the last. Maybe not. Either way, maybe it’s time to start using all of this great social technology for something greater than getting more people to click a button that somehow signifies their undying devotion to your brand.

Mean something instead.

Letting the Audience Lead

An anxious mother walked closely behind her son at the Seattle airport. The child, who was barely a toddler, wanted to explorer. The mom wanted to catch him before he “explored” down the escalator.

This delicate dance – son dashing for adventure, mom trying to catch him – went on for minutes. Son goes one way, mom follows – son quickly changes course, forcing mom to turn and run faster. She eventually contains him, but for how long. As soon as he gets a chance you know he’ll be off again.

And I laughed. Not at the mother and child, but at the metaphor.

The mom was the marketer; the toddler was the audience. And the marketer is always trying to catch up to the audience.

Oh sure, we think we know where the audience is going. We have deep analytics and mounds of research. We “engage,” we listen, we react in “real time.”

But the audience is always ahead. And when they do catch up it’s only for a moment, and then the audience is off once more to another web site, another social media platform or another community.

Perfect. This is as it should be -- the audience always ahead, the marketer always a step behind.

Or perhaps we are looking at the relationship the wrong way. Maybe the audience isn’t trying to elude, but rather trying to lead.

Google+ and The Entropy of Social Media

First there was order, then chaos.

The universe was born in near-perfect order: small, organized and perhaps even serene. Over time, the universe expanded and became messy, diverse and beyond comprehension. Chaos reigned.

This effect is called entropy, the process by which order decreases in a system over time. This is admittedly a simple description, as a single system can still produce order provided there is a balance of disorder somewhere else in that system.

But since I’m just a writer and marketing guy, I’ll stick with the main concept: Order begets chaos.

The same thing has happened with social media – but this time it’s different. This time we are trying to reverse the Entropy Effect.

Our brains are linked to when the universe began, when order was the norm. Our lives – learning about the world, going to school, following rules and laws – are a constant battle against entropy, a fight for order against chaos.

The Web grows out of control, barely manageable. So we create tools like browsers, RSS and folksonomies to give it order, because our brains are wired for order.

Then the Web becomes social, a platform built for people – not machines – to connect with each other. It quickly grows out of control, so we create better search engines and hash tags, data mining and tools to “curate” content and determine influence.

Google+ is the latest weapon in our war against entropy, against chaos. Better information streams, closer and more relevant circles of relationships, stronger real-time connections to people we care about and actually know (notice I didn’t say brands – they will be a part of this too, but how or even if they should remains to be seen.)

Google began as a way to organize the world’s information. Now it wants to organize the world. It’s taking the Entropy Effect head on and of course it wants to win.

Facebook isn’t Google’s competition, nor is Microsoft (client) or Twitter or Yahoo! or any other company or social media service. In this case, they are all on the same team.

Google’s enemy is entropy. Its nemesis is the underlying force of the universe itself, of order vs. chaos.

It’s hard to believe that companies like Google will succeed where millennia of nature has failed. But like us silly humans, with our dreams of something better just beyond the horizon, Google is going to try.

What a Social Media World Leaves Behind

There is a man – I don’t know his name – that comes to our local Starbucks every morning, pushing his walker with the tennis ball feet and flashing a gorgeous toothless smile.

He orders coffee. He finds a table and settles gingerly into his seat. And then he pulls out a newspaper and starts to read.

And he reads. And he reads. And he reads and reads until the paper finally surrenders, having nothing more to give, it’s pages creased and ink smudged.

The man smiles again, because he knows he has won. He has mastered this piece of technology, his daily ritual as much one of pride as it is of knowledge.

This should matter to those of us in the digital world for one simple reason: Because there are those of us who do not live in the digital world.

These people are not ignorant, not stubborn, not Luddites or purists. They are not old or insignificant.

Not everyone can afford the latest technology, nor should that ability be a prerequisite for access to news and information. Not everyone wants to be online or connected 24/7, nor should that behavior grant passage to broader understanding.

So the question is this – when the last newspaper comes off the press, and all the world’s news and ideas and hopes and dreams are atomized into lines of code, what do I tell the man in the coffee shop?

Brands Should Be Social, But That Doesn’t Make Them Your “Friends”

I have a friend who sells insurance. The problem is I never know when he is my friend or when he is an insurance salesman – he says he wants to be both, but I know deep down that what he really wants is a sale.

We were friends in high school and didn’t reconnect until he started his business. He reached out under the pretext of renewed friendship, but that was a ruse. He wanted a client, not a friend. I bought the insurance but I rarely talk to him anymore, because when I do it always comes back to business.

You are either my friend or you want to sell me something. Either is fine as long as the motive is genuine.

Brands should be social, but I don’t want brands to be my Facebook “friends.” I want to talk to them when I have a question and give me information when I’m in the mood to buy. We’re not buddies, we're not going to drinks, I’m not inviting them to my daughter’s Bat Mitzvah.

This doesn’t mean we can’t share some laughs and have a little fun (especially if I can win something.) Brands can and should express their personalities, but they should be sincere and not engage in some fake cocktail small talk meant to sucker you into buying a timeshare in Palm Springs.

Yes, markets are conversations, but they are conversations related to marketing. This is good and necessary – but friendship? Not even close.

Introducing “PEARL” – A Tool for Determining What People Will Pay for Online News

The easy answer to how much consumers will pay for online news – if there is such a thing as an easy answer – is “they’ll pay what it’s worth.” Of course that’s’ the problem: In a world where free access to news is a presumed birthright and stories have been reduced to commoditized pieces of “content,” getting people to understand the value of news is an unenviable if virtually impossible task.

That’s okay – innovation doesn’t happen in boardrooms or by crunching financials. The only way to score is to take a shot.

Nevertheless, it would be nice to have some way to evaluate the key drivers for news in a digital world -- the elements that, when applied just right, will convince people that the news is worth paying for.

Introducing “PEARL”
I’m developing a process to help determine digital news value. I call it “PEARL” – an acronym that stands for the following:

P = Personal. The news has some personal meaning, e.g., tailored to individual preferences and behaviors (technographics.) This also includes relevance, both in terms of time and place as well as geo-location (mobile.)

E = Experiential. The “packaging” of the news allows for trans-media exploration, a multi-level experience or deeper engagement with the stories.

A = Actionable. Consumers can share stories, take an immediate action (submit a poll or sign a petition), comment or contribute.

R = Remarkable. The news is unique or otherwise special, meaning you couldn’t get the same story told the same way anywhere else.

L = Local. The news has community focus or “hyper-local” coverage of neighborhood events.

I’ve also added an “S” as “extra credit” – this is for “simple,” or in other words, when the news is easy to access and experience without needing a computer science degree.

How PEARL Works
Each letter of PEARL (and S) has a numeric value between 0 and 4:

0 = Non-existent
1 = Nice try, but no
2 = Pretty good
3 = Very good
4 = Outstanding

After giving each letter a numerical value, simply do the math to get your PEARL(s) Score:

0-5: No Value (I’ll stick with Google and Yahoo!)
6-10: Some Value (but keep your money in your e-wallet)
11-15: Good/Very Good Value (okay, how much?)
16-20: Outstanding Value (sign me up – and get me some company stock)

The highest score possible is 20, assuming you awarded a 4 to all six letters (PEARL plus S.) As an example, I used PEARL(s) to evaluate The Daily, an iPad only publication that currently charges 99 cents per week:

Example: The Daily
• P = 1
• E = 3
• A = 2
• R = 2
• L = 1
• (S) = 2
PEARL Score: 11

Most news organizations should aim for scores well above 10; anything below should be cause to reassess your model. At least that’s what I’m going with for now – this is very much a work in progress, and as I do more PEARL(s) scores for other media properties, I anticipate some patterns and insights will emerge.

No system is perfect – and the question of how much people are willing to pay for online news ultimately will be determined by the market, shifts in the advertising industry, media consolidation and countless other factors both known and as yet to be realized.

Let me know what you think, either about the PEARL system in particular or the value of online news in general. And I’ll be sure to report back on how the system is evolving and provide some deeper analysis.

Social Distortion: Why PRSA and other Legacy Organizations Have Lost Their Relevance

Every once in a while a communications industry organization invites me to speak about social media. There are typically two reasons for this: 1) Steve Rubel wasn’t available (this happened all the time when I was at Edelman), or 2) the organizers didn’t realize until too late that the only “A-list” I’m on is the one run by Southwest Airlines.

These events make me extremely uncomfortable – not because I’m afraid, in fact just the opposite. I do speaking gigs and seminars all the time; often for CEOs and executives of some the world’s leading brands.

No, I’m uncomfortable because every time – I mean every damn time – the questions devolve into a turf battle over whom should “own” social media (as if any one discipline can or should “own” a public conversation.) If it’s the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), it’s PR people beating the drum. If it’s a group of marketers, well take a guess what they think.

This exact scenario played out last week during an Orange County PRSA speaking engagement. A PR Purist argued with a more open-minded colleague that “marketers” had no business being involved with social media. It was all about PR, end of story. What began as intelligent dialogue devolved into a personal, defensive, almost angry stand.

Keep in mind, we were taking about Facebook, not something that actually matters like curing cancer, Middle East peace or whether the Angels’ bullpen can hold a lead this year.

This needs to stop. Not only is the whole argument stupid, but the people who really matter – the public – could absolutely care less. The only ones who see a difference between marketing and PR are, well, the ones who consider themselves either marketing or PR professionals.

So here’s how we end the madness: Disband the professional associations.

That’s right, no more PRSA or AMA (American Marketing Association), no more 4A’s (American Association of Advertising Agencies), no more anything that’s defined by a legacy discipline that no longer has relevance.

These groups were established to mark their territories, not to collaborate with others and open new frontiers. As such, they force people to defend their turf and close their minds.

If you see yourself as a “PR person,” then of course you are going to do whatever it takes to preserve that designation. And while there are many in PR who break this mold and are able to adapt to change, the hardheaded of the lot just become more resolute in their vehement ignorance. The world sees a naked emperor and they see beautiful robes.

I asked the aforementioned PR Purist at the Orange County meeting whether my former agency, Edelman, is a PR firm. She raised her hand signifying “yes.” Just one problem, I said -- My former boss, Richard Edelman, doesn’t agree.

That’s right: The largest PR agency on the planet doesn’t consider itself a PR firm, yet we still have organizations like the PRSA “representing” agencies like Edelman.

Richard prefers the term “public engagement,” because connecting with customers can be achieved in many effective and complementary ways. The public doesn’t care how it’s done as long as it’s honest, real, relevant and valuable. “Public Engagement” is discipline agnostic, as it should be.

It’s time for the rest of the industry to catch up. Stop trying to “own” social media and focus on what social customers expect. Do the real work necessary to improve how we communicate, tell stories and, yes, sell products and ideas.

You don’t really need an association to tell you how to do that, do you?