The Digital Customer exposes the need for value in all interactions

We already have digital versions of ourselves populating our increasingly digital world: Your Linkedin, Facebook and Twitter profiles, your Amazon and Google footprints are all examples.
For the most part they are not yet autonomous. But it cannot be long before the 'MeBot' - an autonomous and intelligent you - becomes a ubiquitous part of our daily interaction with people, things and data.
All of which strongly suggests that brands and organisations must start developing strategies that place the digital customer at their heart.
Let me be clear, that digital version of you will always be informed by and learning from the real you. But increasingly it will be the digital rather than analogue version of you who will be making the transactions (tilting, as these thing are, to online more heavily by the day).
And if Digital You has got the spends - Digital You is going to be the target.
So what does advertising/targeting/relationship-building/comms/PR/you-name-it look like when it is aimed at our MeBot?
Well - I suspect MeBot's will rapidly learn which lies to ignore, which content sources to trust, which deals are for-real. They may even be less swayed by the Herd mentality humans find it so hard to resist (think of the impact on the Stock Markets...).
This is likely to starkly expose some of the realities and truths of relationships of trust - such as...

1. Customers are not inhabitants of your omnichannels waiting to be managed from one to the next. They live in a 4D world with limitless touchpoints. The analogue digital combination will evidence that by the truck-load. Map that!
2. Customers are not waiting to be engaged, made your friend, or have anything else 'done' to them. They need a reason to interact with you... which leads us to point 3.
3. Customers are not loyal. Forget loyalty - focus on proof of value. Unless you are offering a good enough value proposition your wheels will just keep on spinning.

What makes you share?

I’ve been wondering about the etymology of ‘Conversation’. The ‘con’ bit has been worrying me.

It’s been nagging at me ever since some social media auditing I was involved with (many moons ago) revealed that an online news article with positive sentiment attached (the Holy Grail for many a PR) more often than not triggered a deluge of negative sentiment in the comment stream.

This came up for me again recently when speaking with journalists at The Guardian about influence (which, for the record, I argue must always be thought of in-context and as emerging from relevance.)

It’s almost as if to generate the greatest volume of positive sentiment you should duplicitously create content which argues the contrary position to that which you want people to take (and more fundamentally, express that they take). (Image courtesy Toban Black)

Turns out the ‘Con’ part of conversation isn’t the part I should be concerned about (ahem) more the ‘versa’ bit – which is from the Latin versus and does hint at the argumentative nature of much of our dialogue.

The flip of this is that much conversation is much more of the social grooming part of our behaviour. We agree on the niceness of the weather, that policemen are looking younger and other such trivialities. By agreeing, we reveal how alike we are, bring loose ties a little closer, prepare the ground for doing stuff together should the need arise.

By taking contrary positions we are also sharing our identity – expressing where we are in conflict and through this discovering others who are in accord with us.

Now, whether or not taking a contrary position or agreeing with fellow humans is the most effective way of generating positive or negative sentiment is of marginal interest to me. Learn too much about this and seek to gain from it and I doubt you’ll end up feeling particularly clean.

What encourages others to express what they think – one way or the other? Now that does matter.

It matters because the only way we can find others who care about the same things we do is through one or other party expressing that concern. Until you share your thoughts they have no value to you or your network. They contribute nothing to making your life better or the world a better place.

But the simple act of sharing what you care about can make change. When you share you allow others to access your thoughts and to discover you. And bringing people together around things that matter to them is what changes our world.

So what drives you to share? What would make you share more?

We don't pass on messages - we share ideas

I've often discussed why traditional advertising can't succeed in social environments.

It comes down to transmission: In social spaces the only way something gets distributed at all is because it is passed from one person who finds it useful/cool to someone else they think will think it useful/cool, too. (image courtesy furiousgeorge81)

So you have to provide messages that can be adapted. Jokes that can be retold in the form people wish to retell them. Unfinished articles. Messy kitchens.

The message you send out isn't how it'll be passed on. It never was anyway. There is more on that in this deck:

Why Traditional Ad Models will not work in social networks (and what will...)

View more presentations from david cushman.

But of course what people pass on isn't a message.

"Hey Joe! Come on over here. I've got this great message to tell you!"

That is advertising. That is broadcast. It lacks the human touch.

No, what we actually do is pass on ideas, not messages.

So, what's the idea you want to share, that others can adapt, embrace, contribute to, share?

"Hey Joe! Come on over here. I've got a great idea I want to share!"

That is human. And being human is a bit of a bonus when you want to communicate with other humans.

No 1 in the UK; No 11 in the world

I came across this recently. A list of blogs in which FasterFuture emerges as No1 in the UK (No 11) globally.
|It always interests me; the lists this blog ends up on. What is pleasing is that there is never one type.

On this occasion it's a list of the '100 Top PR Blogs' derived from those in the Adage Power 150 ranking (which lists advertising/marketing/pr/marcomms types of blogs). As an aside, looks to me like Neville Hobson's blog is missing from the list - and that certainly sits higher than FasterFuture in the Adage rankings.

FasterFuture has also been ranked among the top 10 'publishing' blogs globally.

And it's currently listed in the top 5000 of all blogs (there are some 300m globally) by the up-and-down-o-meter that is Technorati. Interestingly I saw FasterFuture appear in Technorati's top 100 small business blogs at one point, not so long ago, too.

Marketing? Advertising? PR? Publishing? Business?

Yep, FasterFuture is about all of that.

In a converging world where (as David Bausola so nicely puts it) Mess is Lore, I'm happy not to fit comfortably in any centrally contrived niche :-)

Related articles by Zemanta

• AdAge Power 150 European top 100 blog ranking - July 2009 (nickburcher.com)
• the Uk's Top Marketing Weblogs (t4w.blogs.com)
• Rising above (beingpeterkim.com)

Worrying

"...the majority of Twitter is PRs, journos and indos... not playing any more, sorry." - LittleBoots

It does sometimes feel like that.

Pity littleboots didn't hang around a little longer and follow a few more back - she might have found a little more value in the connections.

I can't believe the 63,000+ people following @stephenfry are all PRs and journos, for example.

Lord I hope not...

Clay Shirky on humanising brands

Today I'm pleased to share part III of my interview with Here Comes Everybody author Clay Shirky (recorded in London on September 30 at the offices of Incisive Media).
It is part of a 35min interview.

Parts one: 'How algorithms caused the credit crunch'
and two: 'Why email trumps facebook et al'
can already be found on this blog (dated Oct 1 and 2, 2008).

In part three Clay discusses the different qualities of interaction required to humanise brands - and how creatives can welcome collaboration rather than seal it out.
As Clay puts it: "Brands aren't people. They don't interact. People do."
And he warns creatives who seek perfection in their campaigns: "Something cleaned up right to the edges has no room for me. Perfection says, you don't belong here."
Clay's contention is messiness is human and acts as a welcome matt for interaction.

Watch the video below:
See him in person here. Buy his book, here.

P2PR : The real online public relations

Had a brief chat with an interesting chap in online PR yesterday. He reckons the industry needs some good PR of its own - and that could be aided by the right language.
How do you distinguish between people doing traditional PR using digital means (ie sucking up to bloggers rather than print or digital journalists) and those who get the disruptive fundamentals of the power of network and understand how messages spread now.

Why Traditional Ad Models will not work in social networks (and what will...)

view presentation (tags: advertising networks social marketing)

I have a thought: Instead of sitting in the Online PR silo, perhaps the new kids need to distinguish themselves with the descriptor P2PR.
I can't be the first to put those letters and numbers in that order, surely?

Whatever the case...

What does P2PR stand for? What would the group you are reaching out to like it to mean?
Peer-to-Peer Relations(hips),
Person-to-Person Relations(hips),
Publisher-to-Publisher Relations(hips). (We are all publishers now!)

The Online bit is way less important than the P2P bit of PR anyway. It's all about the people and what they do to each other.
Marketing (of whatever form) is not a process of doing things to people. It is what they do to each other.

So, for me, P2PR is the right approach for the networked world.

We are the connections. We are also how the connections are made.


Don't bother trying to register the url. It's already rather tediously taken... but I have squatted on the blogspot address!

How we are made great - part II

 

The graph above is from Louis Gray, via Stowe Boyd.

In part I of How We Are Made Great I argue it is other people that make us or an idea great - other people and their mass behaviour.
Louis argues that bloggers' interactions with their communities and their reaching out to other communities reduces as they become more established.

He's on the money, for me, of course. I discussed similar themes in It's Not How Famous You Are, It's How Relevant
And detailed more risks for those with an abundance of attention, here.

Here's Louis' list of interaction types (together with my use of them).

• Allowing blog comments (yep)
  
• Responding to blog comments (oh yes)
  
• Commenting on FriendFeed about your blog (er sorry,... more laziness than attitude)
  
• Tweeting links to your blog posts (yes)
  
• Digging your blog (again, I'm a little lazy when it comes to self promotion)
  
• Stumbling your blog (see above)
  
• Pimping your blog on others' blogs (yes, in as much as I comment on other blogs and invite bloggers to come by mine to join in conversations here).

In general I try to focus on the ones that are less directly promotional in the traditional sense (digg, stumbleupon) and more on a meeting of minds - where I believe the real promotion happens anyway - comments, responding, reaching out to individuals.

Those who roll back on this are actually putting their fame and status at risk, in my view. They're certainly putting the brakes on its growth.

And when they do this they reduce both their value to their community and the communities value to themselves (I am made greater by my connections, so are my connections, Stowe Boyd)

There's no idea that doesn't get better from sharing.

So I think there's one key interaction missing from Louis' list:

• Tracking who is writing about what you've blogged and commenting on their take on it, on their blogs.

Which is kind of why this is How We Are Made Great Part II and not just a comment on Louis' blog. Hope he'll discover us and join in?

So, to summarize parts I and II:

We are made great by other people. And in order to be selected for greatness we must interact with other people.

Type 4 bloggers would do well to remember how and why they got to be raised upon our shoulders.

As I concluded on /Message in Part I:

"Go careful when you claim responsibility. Remember all those times you tried to turn the flock and nothing happened - or it turned in the opposite direction?

"You were just as responsible then.We make us great."