Big Seed?

I recently listened to Duncan Watts on the HBR IdeaCast (a podcast from Harvard Business Review). An online executive summary addressing the same topic can be seen here. Watts, Sociology Prof at Columbia, claims the epidemic analogy is flawed, using the simple equation to illustrate if the infection (reproduction) rate is greater than one. While the use and application of viral has been flawed, it is unfortunate that Watts brings forth a seemingly more flawed analogy to present a novel idea to promote his research. Watts does a good job of simplifying his approach and gives part of the description of an epidemic - if growth is greater than one than the spread can be exponential; if less than one, the spread will burn out. As readers of the blog know, I see “viral” misused or misunderstood by many marketers and advertisers that want the benefits of viral campaigns, but not sure how to fuel the campaign. However, I don’t need it replaced by one equally or more flawed. For me, viral is to big seed as Catholic is to Protestant in Portrait of the Artist when Cranly asks Stephen if he intends to become a Protestant:

I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?

Watts looks to introduce "Big Seed” marketing – basically, viral + augmented campaign. Not a bad idea, but a bit more illogical and incoherent than viral.

I don’t disagree with Watts – yet, Big Seed is a bit flawed as well, and perhaps as overly simplified has he’s portrayed viral. From a “viral” standpoint, big seed isn’t as descriptive or easy to share (reproduce). What Watts fails to mention, at least in the interview, is a notion of time, or lifecycle for the seed or epidemic, and what percentage of a population is infected, and what the growth rate/reproduction rate of the population as a whole. Additionally, big seed doesn’t address the concept of inoculation. Given what’s missing, I think viral is a more accurate and easy to share analogy to understand the organic, potentially infectious, nature of messages, ideas, and symbolic identities.

Communication messages and campaigns can be augmented by “viral” efforts. Viral alone is not sufficient. But then again, I "have read little and understand less.”

Dr. Z: Lose a few billion and call me in May

An interesting conclusion to the Daimler-Chrysler saga – less than ten years ago Daimler (known for premier cars and large trucks) bought Chrysler for $36 Billion. Now, Daimler sold 80% of Chrysler to a private company, Cerberus, for less than $8 Billion.

I’m not saying this is a bad move looking forward – you don’t want to throw good money after bad, but man is this humiliating for both parties. This is another real and symbolic blow to the American auto industry. One of the most prestigious automakers in the world spends nine years with you and says we’re willing to lose billions on this if you just take it off our hands. How will the brand be perceived moving forward?

Daimler will shed itself of the pension responsibilities of Chrysler and refocus on its strengths. Chrysler and Cerberus will need to get all three heads of that dog barking and heading in the same direction to help reestablish the remaining Chrysler brands (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, etc.).

So, what would be more interesting ways to spend (lose) $26 Billion over a decade? I used to think that when you’re in a position to make million-dollar mistakes you’ve really made it. This really makes me reconsider and resets that bar.

Dr. Z, please send $500 Million, if there’s no ROI in nine years, you’re only out $.5 Billion.

Culture Jamming

Culture Jamming & The Importance of Owning Your Identity

Through acts of cultural jamming we can see how one’s symbolic identity (and its acceptance by the public) are at risk if it is not authentic and grounded. Culture Jamming, according to Wikipedia, “is an act that transforms existing mass media to produce commentary about itself, using the original medium’s communication method.” I see it as guerilla marketing that usurps the dominant or intended message with an alternate message – which may be more succinctly described as negative-chaining. Cultural jamming disrupts the one-way channel of advertising. Sometimes this may be cute and clever without much damage, eliciting a laugh or a chuckle from an audience member. On the other hand it can be much more damaging actually devalue the symbolic currency of one’s identity through negative-chaining.

Culture jamming is another example of the new media age changing the game – not just the media channels and the speed at which those channels can deliver messages, but the ease of others to possess the tools and skills to hijack a message. This reinforces the need for your identity to be authentic and grounded. You need to walk the talk. If not your message is more susceptible to falling prey to cultural jammers. Mind you, the cultural jammers aren’t simple graffiti artists or vandals – while some may argue they are. They are cleverly coopting media and transferring ownership of the message. They are not doing it as a simple mark of physical territory like a gang member might do. And, they aren’t the Allen Funts or Ashton Kutchers of the world –they don’t want to take advantage of individuals. Instead, their targets are corporations and media channels. It is the corporation that is on Candid Camera and it is the less than diligent media that is Punk’d. Check out Joey Skaggs rules on who’s fair game to better understand this point.

While doing more research on Ji Lee’s Bubble Project, I came upon more interesting pranks and cultural jamming examples… flash mobs, Joey Skaggs, billboard liberation front etc (last year I had a post about flash mobs fizzling when advertisers tried to coopt them). You can see the absent-minded media running with a story like it’s a ham sandwich – wait ham sandwiches don’t run, but this story had legs.

In my opinion, a great example of cultural jamming comes form the Yes Men and their Dow Ethics incident - see the Bhopal and HUD sections of fake news created a real event. News outlets thought the Yes Men were Dow representatives and that Dow was going to make reparations for it’s chemical disaster in Bhopal. This in turn caused the real Dow spokes people to restate their rather unsavory position regarding the Bhopal disaster refreshed collective image of the tragedy and reminded the public image of a cold corporation.

There is an artistic/creative/novel element at play here. With all forms of communication and entertainment, artistry is needed to engage the audience. Sometimes the culture jamming artistry breathes new life into seemingly dormant dramas or it creates negative-chaining, as the seeds for a symbolic vision’s destruction are sown in it’s genesis. Once a particular story violates the here-and-now or is seen to be inauthentic, a vision is on the express path to implosion.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a guerilla nature to this kind of media expression. I see it as a flip to when advertisers try to grab onto a new media or segment only to have it backfire because the audience knows it is not authentic. Some recent examples are flogs (fake blogs) or the corporate sponsored flash mobs that failed to ignite interest. Successful culture jammers are able to disrupt the flow of information (in the least) and if done correctly can make once propagandic, one-way message awake our critical thinking and re-evaluate a product or service.

The risk for being a victim of jamming, much like the risk of running failed guerilla marketing campaigns, increases in relation to your inauthenticity and inability to ground your identity.
Now those that worship at the shrine of advertising will still argue that any buzz is good buzz. I think that ‘s only true in the gossip/tabloid/celebrity hype machine. It surely isn’t the case in politics, products, or services. Ask the Dow PR team about the buzz generated by the Yes Men.

The speed of today’s media reinforces the need to have an authentic, grounded identity.

Interview with MNODN

I was recently interviewed for Voices, the monthly newsletter of the Minnesota Organization Development Network (MNODN). As part of their Thought Leader section, I was asked about SCT and how it can be applied in an organizational setting.

Thanks to Chris for the interview and doing a great job of distilling my ramblings.

Novelty & Redundancy in Messaging

As readers of the blog have noticed, this is primarily an apolitical blog. I’m linking to an article in the Utne Reader by Joseph Hart. I realize linking to an Utne article may give you some insight into my political preference. The article provides interesting insight into the problems of modern protest. From a communication or messaging perspective, there are two points of interest here:

1. Novelty vs. Redundancy, and
2. Grounding a message in the “here and now phenomenon”

Novelty vs. Redundancy
Effective, engaging communication balances novelty (something new or creative) with redundancy (something known or familiar). Communication has the power to engage, organize and reduce entropy and chaos. Novelty keeps a message, idea, symbol system fresh, vibrant and relevant. However, if it is too novel it will go over the heads of the desired audience segment and not chain-out. If it is too redundant, it is stale, old, and boring.

Not everyone has the same baseline or tastes, so the balance is not a simple recipe, but we know that you need to keep both in mind and in balance. In the case of protest movements, the creative/novel forms of civil disobedience from Henry David Thoreau, to Gahndi, to the anti-War movement in the 1960s, there was a level of novelty, rooted in the redundant (civil disobedience). It seems that most protests, that of the signs and badly rhyming counting chants (one, two, three, four, we can’t remember what we’re here for…five, six, seven, eight, no one really wants to participate) variety have been in arrested development for over forty years.

Hart points to new, creative/novel, ways in which protest messages may be shared in hopes of not being turned off or tuned out. One example is Ji Lee’s Bubble Project. According to Hart:

One example of a successful anticorporate campaign is the Bubble Project launched in 2002 when Ji Lee, a thirtysomething New York ad man fed up with his trade, printed thousands of stickers shaped like blank cartoon bubbles and then slapped them on posters and billboards around the city -- an open invitation for passers-by to fill in the blank.

The results, documented in Lee's book Talk Back (Mark Batty, 2006), were hilarious, subversive, and encouraged participation. Now there are bubble commentaries around the world, ranging from the political (a grinning model on
an insurance company billboard asks, "Why doesn't the government insure our health?") to the absurd (the Starbucks mermaid asks, "Have you seen my nipples?"). Although he has been fined a few times for vandalism, Lee isn't a revolutionary -- he's simply trying to "transform the corporate monologue into a public dialogue," he says.

In the case of protests and civil disobedience, the form of sign and chant, usually by hippies is not novel, it is not grounded in the here-and-now. Dirty hippies are not nearly as attractive in post free-love, electric Kool-Aid acid test kind of world. We can tune out many protests simply based on their form and medium. Changing the medium to a more modern venue is one way to help keep a message grounded. I would say it is necessary, but not sufficient.

In essence, protests need to embrace the core, genesis ideas (such as change through civil disobedience), while at the same time keeping the messages fresh and relevant in today’s society. These concepts of novelty, redundancy, and grounding are law-like principles in communication. It would serve a communication strategist or branding professional well to understand these concepts.

Thanks to Jason for the article.

Wait, Macs get sick too!

Apple broke one of their brand promises with me this week. Everything doesn’t always work with a Mac. In this case, a hard drive failure on my iMac. Thankfully, this happened within the first year of the warranty, so the replacement will be free. Data recovery, well that’s another story.

After multiple calls to Apple support and hours of verifying, reparing, and repeating, my hard drive finally gave up. I was living a definition of insanity, trapped in the closed-loop system of Apple Tech Support. Apple level-one phone techs refused to believe that it could be a hardware issue – telling me that we want to try this again, just one more time. After the fourth attempt at verifying, it was clear the hard drive wasn’t getting better, nor was the tech support. One stop at our trusted, local, Apple authorized, service center and it’s clear it’s a hardware issue.

Then, this week in the midst of the problems, I see the cart of sick PCs on a recent “Get a Mac” add. It was like a punch to the gut.

Hopefully, after the new hard drive and some other upgrades and restores, everything will just work on my Mac.

Me, I'm a thinker

Thanks to Snarky Squab. She has tagged me as a thinker... or at least a thinking blogger. See the shiny, new image at the top of this post. Ah, very nice. Yes, I know. Pehaps Ben & Jerry will ask me to star in a new ice cream flavor. Dare to dream, my friend. Dare to dream.

Thanks to Squab for the shout out. In kind, she has made me think. Other blogs and bloggers may consider themselves tagged if they choose to. Some of the ones that make me think are:

• 37 Signals - I love their blog, their insight, and their software.
• Seth Godin
• Craig at LOHAD

I know you're saying, "Hey wait, these are all on his blogroll." And I respond, "but wait, there's more."

• Bloggermann
• The World's Finest News Source
• Dr. John Cragan - no blog, you have go old skool and read books, or have a beer with him -- and it's worth it.

Halos, strategy, and uncertainty

In a recent edition of McKinsey Quarterly (registration required), Phil Rosenzweig discusses the “Halo Effect” and other business delusions. The article is adapted from his book the Halo Effect: . . . and the Eight Other Business Delusions That Deceive Managers. Rosenzweig, a professor of strategy and international management, adjustis the halo effect from psychology to business. The basic argument, one trait or perception influences the rest. In this case if business or industry is going well, many believe that a company or leader has a sound strategy. Conversely when trends or companies are performing poorly, one may say it is poor strategy, etc. Case in point, Enron. When they were redefining business they were genius -- the media and Tom Peters couldn’t praise them enough. Now, they are seen as villains and are the subject of “business ethics” case studies.

Dr. Phil (I had to, c’mon), says that business managers are often deceived by business books that propose simple solutions. The problem is that we live in a complex and chaotic world. So the halo is "hey look at how good this is, we should implement here." Rosenzweig seems irritated by the lack of critical thinking skills by business managers (can I get an Amen?)

Getting past the irony of one business book saying that other business books are wrong and I have the right answer, I enjoyed Rosenzweig’s Zen-like insight on uncertainty. Like the first rule of Zen -- all life is sorrowful (but sorrow can be transcended) -- in business, we are continually faced with uncertainty and it is the role of the strategist to make the best decisions for the organization in the face of that uncertainty. While people want and need the world to make sense an move in an orderly fashion, it doesn’t. All systems tend towards chaos.

Chaos inducing uncertainty arises from many sources in the business-world including (1) the business world itself, (2) customer choice and adoption of new goods or services, and (3) technological change -- new technologies disrupt business all the time.

Given all of this, Rosenzweig concludes:

The task of strategic leadership is therefore not to follow a given formula or set of steps. Instead it is to gather appropriate information, evaluate it thoughtfully, and make choices that provide the best chance for the company to succeed, all the while recognizing the fundamental nature of business uncertainty. Paradoxically, a sober understanding of this risk—along with an appreciation of the relative nature of performance and the general tendency for performance to regress—may offer the best basis for guiding effective decisions. These complex decisions, made without any guarantee of success, are ultimately the main contribution of business strategists. If a set of steps that could guarantee success did exist, and if greatness were indeed simply a matter of will, then the value of clear thinking in business would be lower, not greater.