Thursday, May 16, 2013

out of reach and beyond dispute

While we are on the subject of the spectacular this keynote by Robert Scoble from the recent TNW Europe conference felt like sychronicity.

If ever there was an instance of the spectacle manifesting itself as an enormous positivity, out of reach and beyond dispute this is it.

Scoble, with his umpteen Android devices, ipad, lapel camera taking photos every ten seconds, Google Glass (natch) and....wait for it....techno waistcoat!, has morphed into some kind of singularity-caricature techno-celebrity cartoon, a spectacular representations of a living human being projected into life in 3D.

An image of self-commodification, alienation and of social life taken over by the accumulated products of the tech economy.

Hilarious.

As I'm re-reading Debord this week this excerpt seems appropriate'For the spectacle, as the perfect image of the economic order, ends are nothing and development is all although the only thing into which the spectacle plans to develop is itself'.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

the spectacular moments of commodity society



The Hungarian Postmodernist-Marxist philosopher György Lukács is credited as the author of the idea of reification.

For Lukács reification literally translates as the 'objectification' - of social life or social relationships and their subsequently re-expression as relationships between objects rather than people - as characterised by many aspects of what we would describe as 'consumer' culture.

'Objectification' has become a bit of a skunk word, the gobbledygook end of postmodernism have ran with it.

But, in simple terms, Lukács is describing a process by which the previously 'authentic' experience is transformed and then rendered 'inauthentic' by its incorporation into the totality (the all-pervasive supremacy of the whole over the parts) resulting in alienation.

One of the most quoted descriptions of contemporary consumer-culture alienation is in this passage from Don Delillo’s 1985 novel White Noise.

White Noise* is widely regarded as a case-in-point post-modern work, however we shall not hold that against it.

*In a detournement footnote, apparently DeLillo originally wanted to title the book Panasonic, but the Panasonic Corporation injuncted. Fact fans.

The characters, Jack and Babette Gladney return home from a trip to the supermarket:

'It seemed to me that Babette and I, in the mass and variety of our purchases, in the sheer plenitude those crowded bags suggested, the weight and size and number, the familiar designs and vivid lettering, the giant sizes, the family bargain packs with Day-Glo sale stickers, in the sense of replenishment we felt, the sense of well-being, the security and contentment these products brought to some snug home in our souls – it seemed we had achieved a fullness of being that is not known to people who need less, expect less, who plan their lives around lonely walks in the evening.'

The most striking contemporary example of this kind of reification is, of course, Facebook.
And in particular the the notion of Facebook 'friends'.

In which the idea of 'friendship' - an aspect of authentic social life and social relationships - that has, in effect, been 'objectified' and indeed commodified by Facebook.

Indeed, within Facebook we even refer of ourselves in the third person. Eaon shared person x's photo and so on.

The 'friend' product is, of course, core to Facebook's business model and monetisation strategy.

We will all be familiar by now with the point that, in the Facebook environment it is the user (or 'friend') that is the product for sale.

Facebook sells the product (and its data by-products) to advertisers, and then re-packages it up and then sells it back to us as the social experience.

The cycle is complete - and gets completely spectacular - when we understand that this idea of the Facebook friend is not only reduced to reified commodity but is also now increasingly becoming the way we understand the nature of authentic friendship, to a degree.

Where that fact might have been spectacular enough in 2011, today we can see other 'possibilities' around further objectification afforded by the next wave of mass media technologies.

In particular the likes of virtual and augmented reality technologies.

I've semi-referenced Debord's Society of The Spectacle in this note.

Among the many descriptions of the Spectacle the following is perhaps the most key to this discussion.

'The spectacle appears at once as society itself, as a part of society and as a means of unification.
As a part of society, it is that sector where all attention, all consciousness, converges.
Being isolated and precisely for that reason this sector is the locus of illusion and false consciousness; the unity it imposes is merely the official language of generalized separation'


The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.'


Obviously my novelty pseudo-academic intellectualism finds the synonym connecting The Spec-tacle and then Google Glass, the almost uber-mediator of social relationship by images, ironic and funny.

Let's read that again.

'The spectacle appears at once as society itself, as a part of society and as a means of unification'.'

That Facebook/Spectacle analogy is developed further by journalist John Harris who also notes:

'[Debord] is talking about alienation, the commodification of almost every aspect of life and the profound social sea-change whereby any notion of the authentic becomes almost impossible'.

To end this note, perhaps the inevitability of Virtual and Augmented reality technologies as a mass media proposition (ie spectacle) - is one in which it usurps (or indeed incorporates) Facebook as 'the invasive force of the 'spectacle'.

There is the possibility that Google Glass actually takes the idea of the Spectacle as 'social relation between people mediated by images' to new levels of alienation in the guise of authentic social life.

Both Lukács and Debord would possibly note that these new social technologies that are presented and accepted as a social innovations that allow the users to better participate in the world, are just as easily described as reification mechanisms designed to reinforce the spectacle of pseudo-communication producing not connection but only further alienation.


Wednesday, May 08, 2013

you are are a unique individual. just like everybody else

Look into my eyes for 5 seconds then review the analysis below the picture.



You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself.

While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them.

You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage.

Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worried and insecure on the inside.

At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.

You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.

You also pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof.

But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others.

At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved.

Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.

Does that sound about right?

Actually the above quotation comes an experiment conducted by psychologist Bertram R. Forer in 1948.

He gave some students a personality test based on tabloid horoscope material, gave each of them the same report and explained it was their personal assessment.

On average, the subjects marked their personal analysis as about 85 percent correct.

This tendency to believe general vaguaries as specific is called the Forer effect, and part of a larger cognitive bias known as subjective validation - our tendency to be more persuaded by statements that seem to be about 'us'.

After all you are are a unique individual. Just like everybody else.

So when we advertising types are looking for insight and developing propositions we should be advised that a fruitful avenue of pursuit is not the road that seeks to find those things that make people different but finding those things that make us the same.

ht and thanks NotSoSmartBlog. Buy his book.

Thursday, May 02, 2013

the power of people



David Hepworth talking about the power of Twitter.

What he's really talking about is the power of people.

Remember kids, it's not just about the tools but about the behaviours.

People adopt the tools when the tools solve a problem.

Twitter is still around while others have failed because it still solves a problem.

Thx Brand DNA

the truth about ROI....

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase from which the logical fallacy that states 'Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one' is drawn.

The post hoc fallacy can be most simply expressed as follows:

A happened, then B happened.
Therefore, A caused B.

This fallacy occurs most frequently in the area of socialis media vendo (social media marketing).

Socialis media Vendo being an outpost of la la land in which 1200% ROI on electronics goods can be solely attributed to Facebook advertising.

Now that I mention it, nothing seems to have gone right for me since I started writing this blog.

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

'like' if you love cheese

There's been some speculation and debate among the chattering classes about the implications of the new Facebook feed set up for brands on the platform and brand pages in particular.

There's plenty of material out there from the social media experts on the how-and-what so no need for me to add a lay view here.

What I will say is that the - let's face it - impending death of edgerank is no bad thing.

I received a report the other day from the community managers who run and monitor the Facebook presence of several fmcg type brands.

Included in the report - and I kid you not - was a statement to this effect.

Our best performing post this week with x-hundred 'likes' was...

'Like if you love cheese'

Aside from how the norm is to calculate best performing content in this manner when in reality 'likes' are a pure vanity metric - feels good but offers no value in terms of anything actionable as a consequence - one can't help but ponder the following fact.

Here we have (and have had for some time) mass social media platforms - perhaps the most potentially powerful set of tools ever available to the human race in its history, with the potential to connect billions people world wide, and inspire them to do just about anything - yet for marketers we are stuck in this mediocre space - 'like if you love cheese'.

Because over time brands on Facebook gradually figured out how to ‘game’ edgerank – you may have seen the sharp rise in inane like-baiting drivel from brands clogging up your feed. Tactics such us ‘like if you prefer pies, share if you prefer sausage rolls’ are deliberately designed to game Edgerank. They get the likes, for sure.

So i applaud Facebook for now effectively killing edge rank (that's not what they say but it's my interpretation) in a play to make it harder for this kind of branded cack to appear into the users feeds in an organic way.

Facebook want brands to pay for their reach. And they are entitled to want this.

The good news, however, is that in all likelyhood the fact that brands will now have to pay for reach means that the quality of brand content will have to improve.

Because it is no longer 'free' then Facebook content will have to come under the same strategic and creative consideration as any other paid-for advertising, therefore reaching beyond brand fans to touch as many potential buyers as possible is the imperative.

The perceived 'value' will now be greater, simply because there is a cost connected to distribution. On the downside it’s a straight-up ad platform now. More like tv or any other web based publishing platform like Yahoo or msn.

Brand content is the now in effect pre-roll to your friends updates.

And it is a boat that appears to be leaving the harbour as the next generation of potential Facebook users appear to be - perhaps not splitting from the program - but certainly spending more time with less 'public' verticals like Whatsapp, SnapChat and Instagram (albeit a Facebook owned property)for their instant gratification and dipping in and out of Facebook for their broadcast fix.

It's a bitter-sweet situation. Better brand content (advertising), designed to get shared and grow reach, for sure, but I sense that we may now look back say that Facebook was the great missed and misunderstood opportunity for advertising as an industry.



but then a strange fear gripped me and I just couldn't ask.

'What happens with fear is that probability doesn't matter very much. That is, once I have raised the possibility that something terrible can happen....even though the possibility is remote, you may find it very difficult to think of anything else. Emotion becomes dominant.'

The above quote is Daniel Kahneman explaning how human emotional reactions routinely over-ride the rational in conditions of uncertainty.

Under most conditions to be fair.

DK also famously notes that all heuristics are equal, but 'availability' is more equal than others.

This is the simple explanation of why reach and frequency are still so important to advertisers messages.

So, reach + frequency + fear therefore is about as powerful a combination motivator as one can get.

A typical strategy to exploit this would be thus.

- Invoke a sense of fear.

- Then present a solution – invariably a path back into a known comfort zone (status quo bais) – and usually one that promotes using a particular product or service to maintain said status quo.

The famous product example is around halitosis.

Halitosis was a 'medical' condition invented by the manufacturers of Listerine mouthwash in order to create a problem for which they had already premade solution.

This is also interesting through the lens of non-behaviour change strategies, where a status quo is required.

Or a non-action.

The fear factor is naturally multiplied by at least a factor of two due to a natural human bias for loss aversion.

We feel losses (or potential losses) about twice as badly as we would feel equivalent gains.

For example.
On the way to work/school/uni this morning you find that you have lost $100 somewhere on the journey.

Imagine how bad that feels. Pretty annoying and likely to be on your mind all day.

However if you had found $100 in the street then you would feel happy for a short while but far less happy than the equivalent unhappiness you would have felt about the loss of the money.

When discussing behaviour change strategies with clients this is a key point we raise.
The new behaviour needs to be presented as significantly better, more fun and easy to adopt.

At least twice as 'good' as the status quo behaviour to even have a chance. Apples for apples doesn't cut it.

In this sense fear can be a powerful motivator for inaction because it can also paralyse.
Again, in any given situation or market there is the option to do nothing.
And most often that's the easy one to adopt.

This has been a long-winded intro to presenting this article - brought to our attention by Charles - from the blog of Craig Murray the author, broadcaster and human rights activist and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan.

In his piece Murray points out the repeated use of the words 'warning” and “Scottish independence” in the same sentence by the BBC in repoting associated with the forthcoming referendum vote on Scottish Independence.

Below are a few of the links, there are many more.

“Scottish independence: Pension shortfall warning”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22314646

“UK Treasury warning that an SNP plan for a currency union after independence”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22246176

“Scottish independence: Warning over ‘weakened military’”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21776602

“Scottish independence: ‘Havoc’ warning from pensions firm”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-20562203

My own view on Scottish independence or otherwise aside theres a few of points worth noting.

The first being around the availability heuristic.
Availability is our natural human bias towards believing things that come most easily to mind.

To that end the 'Better Together' (anti) side of the independence debate have clearly grasped that key to their ends is ensuring that the fear motivator is the frame - and the resultant in-action or status quo bias is the desired outcome.

To the power of two, the key to the success of their campaign is not simply persuading those who are against independence to take action, but also to ensure that those who have no clear preference do nothing and stick with what they know.

What is somewhat disturbing is that the BBC appear to be giving disproportionate and significant airtime to this framing of the debate.
Albeit in a somewhat covert way.

The second point is understanding another point about human behaviour.
Again in situations of uncertainty or risk we will tend to look around and see what other people feel before deciding how we feel.
So for the side of the debate that can mmanipulate the 'mass' media to the best extent. ie using these supposed independent sources to perpetuate the idea that this is indeed the popular idea this is a winning frame.

Reach and frequency (social diffusion + availability heuristic) + fear frame (loss aversion + status quo bias) looks like the equation for a no vote.

And as final psychology gag (and something of a killing joke) one has to doubt the resolve of the yes lobby when one understands that the Nationalists card up it's sleeve is a radical middle way - and their own unfortunate slip towards the do nothing option.

Apparently an independent Scotland would keep the monarchy, the currency (pounds), join NATO and the European union. In other words Scotland becomes independent but everything stays exactly the same. A pitch towards a subset of the inert and the system justification bias vote.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

lean period

'All those words that I have wasted in haste
Have left such a bitter aftertaste

The reason being I'm going through a lean period
A decidedly mean period'


Wednesday, April 17, 2013

this is the best bad idea we have

Whether or not you subscribe to the notion that movies such as Argo are a propaganda trojan horse - the irony of the line at the start of this clip will not be lost if you are among those who do (You're telling me there is a movie company in Hollywood right now that is funded by the CIA?) there are a couple of splendid bits of dialogue.

This particular scene came to mind while in an agency discussion about how to evaluate creative work.

Tony Mendez: "And we think everyone knows Hollywood people. And everybody knows they'd shoot in Stalingrad with Pol Pot directing if it would sell tickets. There are only bad options. It's about finding the best one."

Official: "You don't have a better bad idea than this?"

Jack O'Donnell: "This is the best bad idea we have, sir, by far."

Official: "The United States Government has just sanctioned your science-fiction movie."

Tony Mendez: "Thank you, sir"



Puzzling over why a particular piece of work was deeply unsatisfying, yet unable to pinpoint exactly what it was at the root, it became clear that the piece actually contained no 'idea' as such.

There was merely a fact disguised as a 'line'.

Our conclusion was that a bad idea is at least an idea and can therefore recieve criticism.

No idea is far harder to evaluate, as time is wasted trying to work out if it's an idea or not.

Let's also be mindful that no idea is very adept at appearing to be an idea.

Good idea is best. But a bad idea is still an idea and so is at all times preferrable to no idea.

To paraphrase the Dhammapada...

The bad idea that knows it's a bad idea, in this much at least is an idea.
But the no idea that thinks it's an idea - that's the real bad idea.

Argo f*ck yourself.

science plus creativity

I'm probably the last person in the world to catch on to the latest Dove activity, Real Beauty Sketches.

Real Beauty Sketches from John X. Carey on Vimeo.


Aside from being splendidly executed content as advertising and another iteration of the long running real beauty purpose idea, the difference between projects of this nature that succeed (ie signal) versus those which fail (noise) is where the idea is based on a solid human insight.

In this case, of course this is a highly creative demonstration of the worse-than-average effect.

The human cognitive bias in which we routinely underestimate one's achievements and capabilities and attractiveness in relation to others.

And may I be as bold as to suggest that this piece is a blow to those hold the belief science and creativity are opponents.

When, in fact, the application of science and creativity together will always produce the the most compelling work.

Atychiphobia

Some Wednesday inspiration from Malcolm Tucker.



"People hate me? Good!

You know what people say about you? FUCK ALL!"


Or you can have the highbrow version

“And I — my head oppressed by horror — said: "Master, what is it that I hear? Who are those people so defeated by their pain?"
And he to me: "This miserable way is taken by the sorry souls of those who lived without disgrace and without praise.
They now commingle with the coward angels, the company of those who were not rebels nor faithful to their God, but stood apart.
The heavens, that their beauty not be lessened, have cast them out, nor will deep Hell receive them — even the wicked cannot glory in them.”


Dante Alighieri Inferno

Friday, April 12, 2013

knife fighting for the ego-friendly

Dan Ariely has famously commented on why people don't care about climate change, and how harnessing the power of the ego could be one way to move our behaviours to be more environmentally responsible.

Ego-friendly as opposed to eco-friendly.

Dan argues that if we were to invent something no-one would care about it would be climate change.

Because its real impact will be at some point far in the future, it's effects will be felt mostly by other people other than us and even if I did do something it would be a drop in the ocean such is the scale of the issue.

All of these are recipes for not caring.

Plus we only start acting when we feel something emotionally about the problem, logic isn't in it.

So Dan points to observing Prius drivers as a possible answer.

Driving a Prius promotes one's self image as a good person who is doing their bit, and is a signal to others that they are someone who cares about the environment.

The joke goes that you can spot a Prius driver by their permanent smug expression.

Anyway, the clip is from ABC's The Elegant Gentleman's Guide to Knife Fightingand is a splendid bit of insight, a smart as anything from any ad planning department and an extremis riff on Ariely's hypothesis.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

rated for constipated peak viewing time

While the news filtering in that 'Ding Dong the Witch is Dead' is set to top the various music charts by the end of this week is fairly amusing, I can't help getting somewhat misty eyed for the old days of the Radio 1 Top 40 and Top of the Pops.

Although being principally Facebook driven, an event such as this just felt a tad more salient in a mass media context.

At the time of writing 'Ding Dong' is sitting at number one on amazon and number two on the UK itunes chart.

As a cultural 'event' however the top 40 has long ago lost any significance with the broader public, what was formerly a social object of sorts is now a minor data point.

The problem is the lack of availability of those charts to the casual viewer and therefore the sense that 'something is happening'.

It requires a proper dig around to find them.

I guess the proof of the pudding will be on Sunday when the 'official' UK top forty is announced on BBC radio.

We wait with interest to see if the BBC will decide to give Ding Dong it's due chart placing.

If your old enough to have experienced the Thatcher years then you are equally likely to remember the conspiracy between the BBC and the mainstream high street retailers who participated in the chart-return process to provide the nations top 40 back in the day.

Between themselves they acted to keep the Sex Pistols 'God Save The Queen' off the number one spot in Jubilee year 1977. The BBC engineered things to ensure insipid-period Rod Stewart topped the charts despite being out-sold 2-1 by the Pistols.

WH Smith found it too much to even acknowledge the existence of the record, leaving the number two slot blank in their chart.



A nice one-two-three would be Ding Dong at number one followed by Elvis Costello's 'Tramp the Dirt Down' (which has also seen a spike in sales this week and is apparently bothering the top 40) followed by the mighty Pete's 'The Day That Margaret Thatcher Dies' or maybe the less poetic but direct 'How Does It Feel to Be The Mother of a Thousand Dead' by those naughty public school anarchists (in effect Thatcher's badly behaved disruptive children) Crass.

Friday, April 05, 2013

blessed are the cheesemakers

Not meant to be taken literally. It, of course, refers to any manufacturer of dairy products.

Except perhaps not all cheesemakers are equal.

I've read and re-read this recent article from the New York Times regarding the artisan cheese boutiques of New York.

The writer observes that 'some of the most amusing and captivating writing in the city is being produced in the service of cheese.'

For instance see the labels below scribed by Martin Johnson, manager of Gastronomie 491, a market and cafe on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.



His rock'n'roll description of Calcagno, an Italian sheep cheese is particularly fetching.

“Big and floral in the very best way possible, this firm Sardinian sheep has the cool unaffected strut of Mick in his prime, Lou in middle age or Polly Jean today.”

From the marketers point of view we should note that in a commoditised market with many similar choices then a simple way to differentiate is to simply have a better story.

Particularly if the story allows the buyer to tell themselves they have made a better choice, and gives them a reason to tell other people how smart/cool/in-the-know they are.

So the cheese buying journey is certainly another one whereby standard economic theory of the c*nsumer, armed with full information, doing cost-benefit analysis and making rational decisions in their own self-interest goes right out the window.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, a professor of social theory and social action at Swarthmore College and author of (essential reading) 'The Paradox of Choice', calls this outsourcing connoisseurship.

“Many people want the patina of connoisseurship on the cheap, so they contract out the decision-making process. [this way] you get the benefits of discernment without paying the psychological price of having to make difficult choices and distinctions. You’re happy because you’ve been told what to get and don’t know any better.”

Indeed Steve Jenkins, the cheese 'expert' at Fairway Market remarks...

'The customer has no idea what he or she wants, the customer is dying to be told what they want.”.

Perhaps that's a slightly skewed view - as with social media 'experts', cheese experts display symptoms of a somewhat subjective validation - but there can no doubt that in this instance the cheese buying process is a highly social one, and one which falls into both the copying of 'experts' bucket and also the peer-copying category.

Those who are prone to outsourcing their connoisseurship of cheese will without doubt outsource their connoisseurship in many other categories.

Schwartz also notes that '...people become paragons of taste simply by taking someone else’s advice'.

Indeed, in my record shop days we routinely employed a similar tactic, and wrote detailed descriptions of the latest US or Italian imports on stickers attached to the sleeves.

('116bpm funk guitar led balearic chunky chugger peppered with JB horns, Chas'n'Dave keys and Doobie Brothers riffs - massive Pelican Club tune! - there will be a prize for the reader who can identify that one)

As the title of the post is from Life of Brian it's seems apt to finish with another much quoted excerpt.

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!

Crowd: [in unison] Yes! We're all individuals!

Brian: You're all different!

Crowd: [in unison] Yes, we are all different!

Man in crowd: I'm not...

Crowd: Shhh!

Thursday, March 28, 2013

rat trap

This week Bob Geldof appeared in Sydney to help promote One Young World, a nfp organisation founded by David Jones (Havas/Euro RSCG CEO).

OYW basically seeks to connect and support tomorrow's business leaders with a view to helping them hone their chops through various pro-social business initiatives which they can lead.

In theory the outcome will be a generation of more socially responsible CEOs that operate on the basis of 'doing well by doing good'.

(If Jones is seeking to offset for the fact that he led the campaign that helped deliver Cameron and Clegg into Downing Street is another matter, a significant pro-social effort might allow for regression to the mean in karma terms.)

And Geldof is always good for a soundbite or two.

'Disruptive technologies...shut down my business, the record industry, the book industry and increasingly the newspaper industries which are increasingly redundant.

If it destroyed outdated businesses it also destroyed outmoded logics.

We have to find a different way for this century.'


To be fair they are making all the right noises so yep, it's all good.

The point of this piece is to draw the distinction between social (or 'open') business and pro-social business, and perhaps point to the places at the intersection.

The OYW initiative has gone into the market under the banner of social business but i fear this label muddies the water.

While these initiatives can be described as pro-social, they are not social business by its understood definition.

Pro-social
Pro-social business activities, ie sustainable business practices that benefit other people or society as a whole as well as delivering profit for the business and providing meaning at work are to be applauded and are absolutely necessary.

In effect ideas of this nature are another example of a back to the future effect, and testament to the blip nature of industrial age. The key component being 'meaning'.

If OYW is looking for a manifesto it could look to Schumacher's 'Buddhist Economics' from 1973 which is still the blueprint of pro-social purpose-driven business.

'To organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve‐racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul‐destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of this worldly existence.
Equally, to strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure'
.

Social business
Social/Open business is a notion that has been around for some time and is still perhaps looking for the definitive description however the forthcoming book by David Cushman and Jamie Burke - 'The 10 Principles of Open Business' - may be bringing that day closer.

They describe an Open business as “… one which uses its available resources to discover people who care about the same Purpose it does, brings those people together and joins with them to achieve that Purpose.”

The ten principles are self explanatory
Purpose
The ‘Why’ of the organisation.

Open Capital
The degree to which the business is crowd-funded vs 'big capital' funded.

Networked Organisation
The degree to which the company ecosystem is employees and also outside partners.

Sharability
The degree to which IP/knowledge and thought leadership is openly shared

Connectedness
The degree to which employess/partners are using social media technologies to create opportunities etc.

Open Innovation
Developing product and service innovations in public

Open Data
Data generated the organisation is made publicly available where there is a possibility that this data can create additional public good

Transparency
Decision making is done openly, the organisation can be held to account.

Member-Led
Key decisions are made by and with those charged with implementing them.

Trust
Walking the talk, skin in the game.

David and Jamie argue that for a business to be inherently Open/Social it must address all ten principles to at least some degree. For a summary of the ten points I'll refer you to David's blog where he is serialising a preview.

How many of those principle are being adopted by the OYW program is not clear. There appears to be an emphasis on purpose and transparency, which is a fair start.

We should also be mindful that neither of these concepts are anything to do with CSR.

And particularly mindful in the case of evaluating 'pro-social' initiatives.

CSR in many organisations is viewed as a 'cost' to placate 'tree-huggers' or suchlike.

Pro-social is driven by the organisational purpose. The 'Why' of the business. see 'never trust an organisation that puts customers first'.

So my point is; pro-social business is not social business.
They are different concepts which have certain intersection points.
If it seems nit-picky it's because it is.

Plus it was an opportunity to mention David and Jamies's book, which I should have done before this point.

And also the chance to remember Bob Geldof's finest moment, as the assembled Rats tear up pictures of John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John on Top Of The Pops on the week they displaced the hideous duo's insipid 'Grease' offering at number one in the UK charts with 'Rat Trap'.



Monday, March 25, 2013

you don't know how to assess your competition because you haven't competed



In the movie Limitless, a struggling writer Eddie Morra is introduced to NZT, a cognitive overdrive pill that gives him super powered system two control and ability to turbo charge his memory and other mental processes in a manner akin to a superhuman AI.

After turning round his novel in a matter of days, Eddie's attentions shift to matters of global finance and, such is his meteoric success in that field, he quickly draws attention from business mogul Carl Van Loon (played by Robert DeNiro), who ropes him in as a key advisor etc.

Very soon Morra starts to believe his own hype, au naturellement, but the hard-nosed Van Loon cuts him down.

'Your deductive powers are a gift from God or chance or a straight shot of sperm or whatever or whoever wrote your life-script.

A gift, not earned.

You do not know what I know because you have not earned those powers.

You're careless with those powers, you flaunt them and you throw them around like a brat with his trust-fund.

You haven't had to climb up all the greasy little rungs. You haven't been bored blind at the fundraisers.

You haven't done the time and that first marriage to the girl with the right father.

You think you can leap over all in a single bound.

You haven't had to bribe or charm or threat your way to a seat at that table.

You don't know how to assess your competition because you haven't competed.'


Talent, experience and paying your dues? What a concept.

It's a cop out for the Gen Y audience. Morra outsmarts Van Loon at the end and ultimately runs for President.

There you go kids, it's true. You DON'T have to pay your dues.

There's always a shortcut.

Except when there's not.

You don't know how to assess your competition if you haven't competed.

At least in part, the Zuckerberg's of this world have risen to the top without having to compete.
But paying your dues from the top is a better vantage point.

One day, when the shit hits the fan and they come out the other side, Zuck et al will have learned about competing - just like Van Hoon - then they will have earned their powers. Then the real game starts.


Friday, March 22, 2013

i love the internet



It's always interesting what you find when you have a good rummage around the internet.

I came across this in an unrelated YouTube search.

The above is a tune I recorded with Barry Simpson which we released back in the early 90's as the Turnbull AC's.

The Turnbulls were the skinhead gang in the movie 'The Warriors', fact fans.

We nicked the name over ten years before the American grunge band of the same moniker.

It was the fourth release on our fledgeling Hook imprint.

Only about 500 copies were pressed. Even less sold.

The first 50 were the pre-release white label, the uploader of this to YouTube is one of the lucky owners.

I can tell it's original because it's my own handwriting on the label.

The deep bass was Barry's and the horn stabs that pepper throughout were sampled off a George Clinton thing.

File under post-balearic ambient disco.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

man bites dog


I've never been comfortable with any brief that includes any notion of 'we need to educate c*nsumers about [product x] so they learn about the benefits as part of an [x] lifestyle' kinda thing.

The idea that anyone is sitting around waiting to be educated by any brand is borderline delusional.

If we want education we can go back to college, read a book, go to a conference or watch a documentary.

We almost certainly don't go to a supermarket.

Often the most effective brand communications are about confirmation not information.

Psychologists talk about the principle of commitment and consistency.

By requesting an initial commitment that confirms an existing worldview people are often more willing to agree to subsequent requests that appear consistent with their original commitment.

'Are you one of those people who want's to live a healthier lifestyle but life seems to get in the way?'

For further confirmation consider this, from Lord Vetinari - the benevolent dictator of the Terry Pratchett novels.

'Be careful. People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things. New things… well, new things aren’t what they expect.
They like to know that, say, a dog will bite a man. That is what dogs do. They don’t want to know that man bites a dog, because the world is not supposed to happen like that.
In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave is olds… Not news but olds, telling people that what they think they already know is true.'


Monday, March 18, 2013

bark at the moon

The other day someone mentioned to me 'have you seen the Old Spice Wolf thing?'

I hadn't so I went out and found it.

'Sometimes you gotta eat people. America - that’s how business works.’

Genius.

I recall walking out of Euston Square tube station (I think it was there) sometime in the late 90's and seeing the huge French Connection billboard.

It seemed like the biggest billboard in London, plain black with two words on it.

fcuk advertising.

That poignant message seemed to somehow be a final statement on big advertising of that nature.

In 1998 or whatever, the internet was fast taking over and it really felt like the last days of the old advertising paradigm.

At the time that self-aware French Connection campaign felt almost like a last hurrah. And it was a pretty good last hurrah.

(That legacy is somewhat lessened by the fact that it's a last, tired hurrah that's still running today... ho hum.)

But somehow this Old Spice Wolf campaign has a similar end-of-times feeling.

Perhaps it's the last final triumphant hurrah of this period of multi-channel/transmedia, social media-fuelled advertising.

The old adage goes that a candle burns most brightly just before its flame goes out.

Social commentary, arch irony and a general ridicule for the industry of which this is a part means it's hard to visualise where we go from here, such is the completeness and scale of this work.

Of course - as with the final word on anything - it's never the final word.

Doom mongering aside - and lest we forget - in a world where we have a plethora of tools, channels and networks that help us avoid advertising and marketing, where we can easily filter out the noise that's trying to interrupt us from what we are doing and move our attention to something else; those very same tools and processes make it super easy for us to find advertising and marketing that we'd like to watch or get involved with.

If it looks interesting enough.

Grand Prix.

Friday, March 15, 2013

antifragility is a new york state of mind

'Guy's got chops' says Billy Joel at the end of this clip that's been doing the rounds this week.

Billy Joel accepts the request of a young student Michael Pollack to jump on stage and accompany Bill on the piano during his college Q&A tour in Nashville.

Micheal proceeds to give a deft turn of hand to 'New York State Of Mind' while Billy dons the shades and is enjoying it so much even does a little Sinatra improv.



The key moment in the clip though is not the performance itself - though it's a belter.

It's the moment that Michael pitches Billy.

There's just a pause of a few seconds while Billy takes in what's happening.

Then he responds. 'Ok'.

In AntiFragile Taleb describes '..anything that has more upside than downside from random events is antifragile'.

In that pause something of this nature ran through Billy's mind.

For the kid to have the balls to raise his hand this random event could only result in upside.

'When you are fragile, you depend on things following the exact planned course, with as little deviation as possible—for deviations are more harmful than helpful. This is why the fragile needs to be very predictive in its approach, and, conversely, predictive systems cause fragility'.

'When you want deviations, and you don’t care about the possible dispersion of outcomes that the future can bring, since most will be helpful, you are antifragile...If every trial provides you with information about what does not work, you start zooming in on a solution—so every attempt becomes more valuable, more like an expense than an error. And of course you make discoveries along the way.'

This is what artists do. Spot the moments when random events have more upside than down and go with it.

Michaels got chops so even Billy had to up his game.

Once the shades go on this is stadium territory not just a college lecture hall.

And with close to a million views at the time of writing, it's all upside for Bill.