CrapHammer

The end of craphammer

A little over a year ago I set out to launch a project.  For months I would do everything in my power to work on anything else under the sun. The project scared me. There was no client. There was no one else to blame if things went wrong. And frankly, it was too close to my heart and my purpose.

Friends and associates stepped forward on every front. Without them I never would have been able to make this project see the light of day. Some designed logos for me. Others built the back end. Some stepped forward to help me on my first mini doc for the new site.

I wanted to document, speak with and understand the most passionate people I could find, whether they be artists, parents, circus performers or gardeners. I wanted to find and understand these people. I wanted to know what it was like to be them and share their motivations, tools and outlook with the rest of us.

Craphammer was a fun and key part of my professional life that has been dormant for far too long. So now it is time for me to let go and turn my attentions to the mostpassionate.ca.

I hope you will take a minute to stop by and check it out. I'll save a place for you there.

 

Planningness 2010 Recap: Made By Many on Making Things

I'm kicking off my recap of PlanningNess 2010 with a deck by the Made by Many folks.

I've seen a lot of talk about agile and scrum.  And frankly, it's usually just someone spouting a lot of buzz words and urging agencies need to adapt.  But its generally someone from the outside without a lot of credibility on how to improve what we do.

But I've clearly never seen Made by Many talk about it.  And there are few agencies on this planet I hold in higher esteem.  And true to form, I found their presentation deck insightful, inspiring and dead on as to where we need to get to.

So many gems in here!  How about a dozen user testing and engagement tools we could be all be using in our project development processes?  God I love these guys.  I think I want to have their baby.  Shit.

How to really make something

View more presentations from Made by Many.

A Public Debate with Jen Evans

[Update: July 13, Jen Evan's response added.]
[Update: July 17, Sean's response added.]
[Update: July 28, Jen wades back in.]

I recently had the pleasure of drinks with Jen Evans, founder and chief strategist of Sequentia Environics.  Many had spoken to me over the years of Jen, but amazingly we had never connected.  Let me just say that I now join what I believe to be a long list of people who admire her spirit, intensity and intelligence.

At one point in our laughter and exploration, Jen challenged me to a public debate.  Unlike some who might have done so in jest, Jen followed up with me on Twitter the next morning with the topic for said event.  I feel like I have been transported to an era of calling cards and pistol duels.  How totally awesome is that!?  Woot!

Jen, please feel free to email me your response and I will edit this post with your reply.  Or we can use the comments area.  Your call, my lady.  ;)

Jen Evans (via Twitter - abbreviations removed)

"I think marketing can and will evolve into something I like to call the virtuous cycle of empathetic marketing: what do people need from the products and services they buy?  How do we help them diagnose that in a way that adds real value and informs?  I believe in Drucker's vision of the function of the corporation and marketing, and I believe digital really allows that vision to happen. Discuss!"

My response

I must begin by challenging the initial question.  First, because your question affirms an unfair advantage upon you as your firm excels in converting people with a stated interest in a product or service into a sale.  But more importantly, I have to wonder if this is really the opportunity on the table both for our clients and for our respective agencies.

I would ask if the opportunity we are faced with is rather this: What is it that people value, need and want?  And what role can an organization, brand, product or service play in supporting and/or fulfilling these needs?

I get and agree that we live in a world of conspicuous consumption and that products and services (in addition to affiliation with a brand) become symbols of status (in North America at least).  And the opportunity for a luxury brand in this context is so rarely fully leveraged.

But we also live in a society where significant forces are at work that I will argue are transforming organizations and individuals.  These forces are not technological in nature (though they are enabled by such).  They are social and come from a shift in beliefs.  In its rawest form, the concepts of purpose and the role of passion has become more pronounced in our day to day lives.  The drive has always existed.  Only now there is this belief that we all have the right (or even need) to find and even define our individual purpose.

"I believe wholeheartedly that a new form of capitalism is emerging.  More stakeholders, (customers, employees, shareholders, and the larger community) want their businesses to ... have a purpose bigger than their product." 
   -  Mats Lederhausen, Investor and former McDonalds executive (source)

And because this is a debate, I will turn to Ms. Evan's named source, Mr. Drucker.  I will admit I have become quite a fan of Drucker over these past few hours as I had clearly misclassified him in my head.

Well before 1996, Peter saw a shift happening in business.  Organizations would no longer be a place that supplied meaning and value to the lives of their members by virtue of the organization's stated beliefs.

"All institutions, including governments, churches, universities, and so on, will become more interdependent, more market- and customer-driven." [source]

Drucker wasn't speaking just about changes in how we market our services.  He was talking about changes within the very organization and its relationship to its employees, partners and supply chains.

"We know that knowledge people have to be managed as if they were volunteers. They have expectations, self-confidence, and, above all, a network. And that gives them mobility, which is probably the greatest change in the human condition. A very short time ago, if you were the son of a peasant, you were going to be a peasant. Even in this country, social mobility was almost unknown. Now, every one of the young people I know has his or her resume in the bottom drawer, which no blue collar worker ever did."

And I think that if Drucker were alive today he would be talking about this shift in purpose and aligning organizations with the passions and activities of its customers, employees, partners, etc.  In fact, much of what I've been able to find about him seems to say he likely saw this coming far earlier and may indeed have talked about it.  I'm just getting up to speed on Drucker, sadly.

Over to you, Jen.  If you buy my re-framing of the question, then I would be very interested in where and how you see people expressing their search for purpose, passion and meaning and what opportunities this presents for organizations, brands, products and services.

Jen Evan's Reply (July 13):

Sean, I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion as well and on our next meeting my only change in strategy will be to ply you and @interpretivist with multiple Perroni to weaken your thinking and resolve. I’m not above admitting it.

Having said that, I think your position is completely and utterly wrong. You see, I don’t believe in passion.

Passion is pre-eminent in an individualist mindset that I think has reached its apex/nadir in 21st century American politics, and is on the decline. The much bally-hooed search for personal fulfillment and passion, I think, has led to more destruction than any other single force in the West.

I think these are in many ways the most dangerous terms in modern society, and that passion is in fact killing us.

Much of consumer impulse, overacquisition and materialism, is tied up into ego, which is fed by passion and a highly developed sense of self. These destructive selfish influences create a drain on resources, create competition and envy, and cause people to always want more. This is not healthy nor sustainable. We live in cluttered homes with stuff we don’t need. We go after jobs and titles that make us a lot of money and boost our sense of self temporarily, but leave us miserable in the end. We make bad decisions about investments, resources, and much more because of ego. We start wars, we treat others poorly, all in sacrifice to this goal of personal fulfillment/passion/ego. I think we need to introduce a little nonattachment into the equation. And into the marketing equation as well.

I think the digital marketing experience, in the purest sense of marketing, in creating markets, can deliver better experiences and better decisions to people - if we focus on the outcome rather than the means to get there. We want people to have better experiences with the things they invest in and spend time with. We want people to select the right products and services and experiences – and careers, and volunteer roles, and so on. We need better information to make decisions. We want companies to have more successful technology rollouts; it’s better for everyone when things work properly, when products don’t have to be returned, when enterprise scale software implementations don’t get scuttled after hundreds of millions of dollars have been unsuccessfully spent. And the information is out there, and the explosion of digital allows us to collect, package and disseminate it in ways we never could before.

I do not believe in passion but I do believe in utility. I believe we are going to evolve – not entirely, but significantly -- away from interruptive marketing full of empty promises, toward usefulness and utility. I think this will take the form of structured information experiences delivered digitally to help people make informed objective decisions about the important things in their lives, be they work, family and friends, recreation, business or politics, along with things they own, and use every day. Imagine a pharmaceutical company surveying the families of thousands of subscribers of Alzheimers’ medication, and developing a three-year information guide to help families adjust and respond to a diagnosis, delivered as a plan in weekly information modules along with 24 hr support and monitoring. We have the collective knowledge to develop these kinds of tools. We now have the ability to efficiently capture, package and deliver it. And that is human, purposeful marketing that helps change people’s lives on a fundamental level. That is where we can get to, without having to look externally for bolt-on purpose or passion.

I am now going to take this to an entirely new level. I love the quote you selected:

"I believe wholeheartedly that a new form of capitalism is emerging.  More stakeholders, (customers, employees, shareholders, and the larger community) want their businesses to ... have a purpose bigger than their product." 
   -  Mats Lederhausen, Investor and former McDonalds executive

What I find most amazing about the entire discussion around purpose and meaning is that … we are having this dialogue as if these are things that we suddenly do externally. Businesses have a purpose bigger than their product. It’s called the quality of life of their employees, their employees’ families, and the quality of life of their customers.We have the ability to change lives and live lives of purpose every day within our sphere of influence: our workplaces, our families, the homeless guy at the corner, the new intern on her first day. Why aren’t we investing our energies in those places? Because it’s ego satisfying to find passion in big seemingly meaningful spectacular ego driving ways. We celebrate movies like The Blind Side  because that story is so exceptional (a privileged family takes a homeless boy into their home! holy cow!) that they made it into a movie, and that is just ... sad. Our purpose should be to reinvent ourselves from within, to focus on becoming kinder, less ego-driven workplaces, and kinder, less ego-driven people, kinder to each other and gentler on the resources we consume. We are individuals and we will never cease to be individuals, with strong egos and desires and passions already in place as part of our DNA.  I believe we need to try as much as we can to minimize that inner search for take our own desires out of the equation and focus on not passion, but selflessness and purpose.

My Reply (July 17)

Hey Jen,

I hate to break this to you.  But you are one of the most passionate people I now know.  Not only are you passionate, but you have this knack to collect the most passionate around you.  In fact, I would go so far as to blasphemy you in public.

"Jen Evans not only believes in passion, she practices it on a daily basis."
  - Sean Howard

But before I explain why I believe this to be so, let's recap where I believe we are in perfect, harmonious agreement.

I believe we are in agreement:

• On the opportunity to "help people make informed objective decisions about the important things in their lives" (I think digital will be like paper - one medium out of many)
• "Our purpose should be to reinvent ourselves from within, to focus on becoming kinder, less ego-driven workplaces, and kinder, less ego-driven people, kinder to each other and gentler on the resources we consume"
• "We go after jobs and titles that make us a lot of money and boost our sense of self temporarily, but leave us miserable in the end"
• "I believe we are going to evolve – not entirely, but significantly -- away from interruptive marketing full of empty promises, toward usefulness and utility"
• And the idea of the power of experience, content and utility when they are united to a measurable and positive outcome.

Back to your argument. 

I believe you may be confusing zeal with how I use the term passion.

Zeal being (according to Oxford) "great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective".  This doesn't sound so bad until we look at the root of the word.  It is from the Greek root Zelos.  The primary connotation of which is jealousy.  Eager desire.  And then we look at a zealot: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideal."

If I were to go through your argument and substitute zealousness in place of passion, then I would be in full agreement.  This type of emotion and encouraging it's growth have not led to good things and it could even be easily vilified as a key contributor to conspicuous consumption as well.

Passion is different to me.  And I can see where confusion comes in, as the definitions of this word are insanely broad.  Oxford has it as "an intense desire or enthusiasm for something" or "a thing arousing great enthusiasm."  Our dictionaries really suck.  It reads so similarly to Zeal.  With one caveat.  It's not about a cause that is always external.  And when I dig into the roots of the word, passio [latin] we find this idea of "suffering" and if we go all the way back to the Greek root of 'pathos', we find this sense of suffering and deep emotion.

It can be an all consuming fire.  It requires tempering.  On this, I certainly agree.  But I will argue later that it is not directly nor primarily responsible for the ills you attempt to connect to it.

I don't believe the search for passion is what has led to the inflation of ego and the drive for materialism.  I would argue that it is the inability to find real passion and purpose at a personal level that has enabled the ego to run rampant and has led to this yearning to be satisfied through rampant consumption.  I believe that the ego is actually checked by purpose and passion when these forces align.  And without alignment, the ego is easily fooled by zealots who would use and misappropriate a person's dreams, actions, etc.  Whether this zealot be a leader bent on world domination or the ex-head of GE.  :)

Let's go a bit zen for a moment.  I think we would both agree on the role purpose plays and that we both seek a world where individuals come to an understanding of their individual purpose and that this be a healthy force on the systems within which we live.  And clearly, it needs to be balanced and focused internally versus driven to achieve external signs of wealth and "greatness."

Assuming you are not running around screaming obscenities at me by this point, the potential agreement on purpose brings us to an interesting place.  Is there then a connection between passion and purpose?  I need to take a step back and turn to Jordan Peterson and his work to understand how we define and create meaning in the world.

His first tenet is that emotions do not function except in context to a goal.  As we move towards our goals, we feel good.  As we move away from our goals, we feel less good.  And each goal only exists within the context of a larger purpose.  Whether that purpose is to grow profits or help others.  And purpose only exists within the context of a social structure.  ie: our culture, a society or a company.  Which in itself lives inside a larger context.  Etc.

So Yes.  If you are a functioning member of society, passion and purpose are always connected.  But not always in a healthy way.

So what happens when we don't have internally set goals?  Let's assume we are excited to join a company that has a strong purpose.  We likely accept some of the goals that align with their purpose and this helps us feel good, have confidence and feel like a successful member of the organization.  But it doesn't stop there.  We also feel good about ourselves and our role in society.

But many corporations still live and die to drive materialism (or as they would put it - shareholder value).  Or they see purpose as the stability they bring their workers.  Stay focused on beating Pepsi.  What more do you need?

If we want to see a world where people have inner strength, then I would suggest we will want to find ways to connect individuals from the bottom up to passion and purpose and then align these individuals to organizations where the purpose and goals of the organization are not at extreme conflict with their personal beliefs.  Coke can still be focused on beating Pepsi.  Only now, the workers are allies in something bigger that is not about just driving consumption.

What's really neat is this is not just a philosophical debate.  Businesses are changing.  For Benefit (with profits) is emerging as a significant force.  For profit businesses are changing how they define their vision, purpose and objectives.  Often, they are doing so from the bottom up.  Allowing their employees to find and share in the passion, purpose and benefits.  Some of the most significant changes in business afoot today are around enabling mastery, autonomy and passion within the workforce at a positive, individual level.

Tom's Shoes.
Interface.
Google.

"The science shows that the secret to high performance isn’t our biological drive or our reward-and-punishment drive, but our third drive – our deep-seated desire to direct our own lives, to extend and expand our abilities, and to live a life of purpose."  (Daniel Pink, Drive)

I wanted to make sure I got back to the idea of zeal.  And how a zealot is someone "who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideal."  I spent some time with this statement because I think that we are in a time of significant social change and this uncompromising attitude may be the single largest threat you and I both face in our quite similar missions to create a world that is not driven by materialism or blind external faith.

If there is anything that has led to war, it is sacred beliefs.  By sacred beliefs I do not necessarily mean religious, but rather any belief that is not subject to challenge.  These beliefs are at the core of all conflicts.  There is a great bit of work being done on sacred beliefs that I was reading about in the latest Scientific American Mind, July/August 2010.  Beliefs not subject to negotiation are what drive the political landscape, negotiations and conflicts of our present day.

At the end of your article you bring things back to something you are driven to accomplish which I believe is tied in with the empathic marketing you mention in the original challenge.  I am very interested in this idea and hope you will have a chance to elaborate further on it.

But I also promised you Rumi.  So I end with my dearest Coleman Barks translation.  It is about this search for selflessness and purpose you speak of, but from a vantage point of inner passion (at least to me).

The Center of the Fire

No more wine for me!
I'm past delighting in the thick red
and the clear white.

I'm thirsty for my own blood
as it moves into a field of action.

Draw the keenest blade you have
and strike, until the head circles
about the body.

Make a mountain of skulls like that.
Split me apart.

Don't stop at the mouth!
Don't listen to anything I say.
I must enter the center of the fire.

Fire is my child
but I must be consumed
and become fire.

Why is there crackling and smoke?
Because the firewood and the flames
are still talking:

"You are too dense. Go away!"
"You are too wavering. I have solid form."

In the blackness those two friends keep arguing.
Like a wanderer with no face.
Like the most powerful bird in existence
sitting on its perch, refusing to move.

What can I say to someone so curled up with wanting,
so constricted in his love?

Break your pitcher against a rock.
We don't need any longer
to haul pieces of the ocean around.

We must drown, away from heroism,
and descriptions of heroism.

Like a pure spirit lying down, pulling
its body over it, like a bride her husband
for a cover to keep her warm.

(Mevlâna Jalâluddîn Rumi translated by Coleman Barks.  Source)

Jen's Response (July 28)

So Sean, first of all, I love that Rumi. Reminded me of reading Ondaatje's the cinnamon peeler for the first time. Gorgeous. The kind of passage that transforms you as you read it. But I'm starting to wax poetic and we're here to talk about marketing. Er, passion. And the intersection of the two.

Yes, I have the passion. Whatever you call it: zeal, enthusiasm, passion, I have it. I am passionate about a lot of things. And as a business owner, I also have a passion for profitable growth. Really, I want my business to be not only successful, but game changing! Epic! World dominating! Paradigm shifting!

And therein lies the problem. I am very passionate. I start to become attached to the outcome of my passion, the end result. And that is where passion becomes dangerous: when we are compelled to defend it. The *instant* we become attached to some outcome of that passion, it starts controlling us. I love to paint becomes attachment to the idea of being a great painter (for all but the least ego-involved.) Or producing a masterpiece. The teachings of christ are amazing! becomes: we must follow them down to the last literal letter, and anyone who disagrees with us clearly has the wrong kind of passion, so let's get rid of 'em. And so on. Bringing it back to digital: how many ridiculously defensive blog posts and comments have you read where people will tear a strip off each other - off people they don't even know - just to win a point? Not that I'm judging, but ... Ego. Dumb, hungry, endlessly unsatisfied, defensive, selfish ego.

There is a great rudyard kipling quote: if you can meet with triumph and disaster/and treat those two impostors just the same. Think about that. Success and failure are the same. Passion-fed ego makes that perception almost impossible. We read too much of our perceived selves into it. Our industry is the same. We celebrate great cool clever campaigns and mock 'failures' (all descriptors subjective). We don't celebrate effectiveness and utility. We don't push for innovation. Why? Because we are attached, through reputation, or compensation, or yes, passion, to the status quo.  

So yes, I am passionate. And I now work very consciously, and with great difficulty and continual failure, to not be attached to that passion, to observe those passionate feelings, recognize them, but not be driven by them. You have to work really hard to not be attached to the idea of being better, smarter, or the smartest. Or the best. Because the ego will do just about anything, rationalize all kinds of behaviours and delusions, to make sure it gets satisfied. And when you start to really get into the idea of non-attachment ... Well, it's the thin end of the wedge that makes you start to question the validity of cartesian thinking and being. What if my thinking has nothing to do with my being and is in fact a false symptom? Chew on that one for a minute. But I digress. Once we get through marketing and poetry we can move on to philosophy .... But first let's tie this back to the task at hand.

Marketing comms and advertising have traditionally been blunt force bait and switch. I will appeal to your emotion/ego in order to get you to buy thing x. Does it actually do or make you feel that thing? By and large, no. In other words, we sell false promises based on perceived need: an agenda that is set by marketers. It's a hideous, clumsy way of matching consumer need to object. We've also made it very sophisticated, expensive and industrialized, an unrefined blunt object that manipulates emotion to achieve its goal. The promise is rarely delivered upon, if ever. We can do better. Then, it's about utility. It's about: how do we change. How do we use the collective knowledge we now have at our fingertips to make things better and deliver more meaningful experiences.  How do we use this incredible set of tools to learn more about each other, and communicate, and make improvements on a societal level as well? That takes non-attachment. That takes moving past advertising and selling a product and into true societal utility.


I don't think we are far off. I think it is a natural evolution given these amazing digital toolsets and datasets we can now pull together. Do I have a clue what it is going to look like? I have my ideas, yes, and they revolve around the impending realization companies are going to have soon: that they actually can do a really good job of talking to their customers and prospects, directly, themselves. Now, I have a lot invested in that reality happening, so I don't pretend to be objective or have all the answers, but I will say this: it looks nothing like it does right now. Old spice was a funny example of this. You saw a lot of advertisers saying, see? SEE? There's life in the old dog yet. And yes, the old spice campaign was fun. Fleeting. Ephemera. And we need that in the world. But is it anything new? Is it a really great example of the power of connection to change how we decide what we want and why? Not really. Funny though! And there will always be room for funny and shocking and engaging based on the mores of the time. But what we have here, the thing that is different and new,  is an opportunity to change what marketing is and what it accomplishes. From meaningless, to something that reflects and helps us better understand what it really, really means to be human.

And on that grandiose note, I await your rejoinder.

A response to Ara Tremblay

Ara Tremblay asks "Social Media: Are We Talking About it Because There’s Nothing Else to Talk About?"

A friend in the insurance space sent this to me and asked for my opinion.  I share my response here.

...

I hear the argument a lot.  And I can relate.  I cringe every time the topic of defining social media comes up, for example.

And this is the crux of it. We are not talking about a programming language.  Or a change in infrastructure.

We are speaking of a significant societal shift - from organizations leveraging technology to accomplish their goals TO individuals leveraging technology to accomplish THEIR goals.

And their goals are MUNDANE.  They are ABSURD.  And they are anything BUT rational.

And nothing matters more than what consumers say about us as a brand.  Nothing.

The outcome of this shift will require significant investments in technologies, infrastructure and new ways to operate for businesses.  Those that see it coming will be the most successful because they will be positioning their firm to take advantage vs. those that question whether anything is changing out there.  

Look at companies that are embracing this and driving unheard of profits and growth?  Zappos offers its successful minimum wage trainees $2,000 to NOT take the job.  Dell empowers its employees to fix problems and does not care where they sit - call center or escalation path.

...

I can certainly relate to Ara's line of questioning.

There is no end to people just filling time with the latest buzz words.

And my company, like any other agency, has to own up to our role in fueling this type of behavior and conversation.

But this is not a new technology.

This is a shift in who is using technology.

Technology has been democratized.

Just as businesses that fell asleep at the wheel were disintermediated by technology in the 1990's, now businesses face being left behind by the very consumers they "serve."

Design for Participation

Mike Arauz's slideshare presentation on "Design for Networks" is brilliant.

Design for Networks

His thinking in the above is only surpassed by his very own post on the same topic.

I'm honored to know Mr. Arauz and pray one day we have real drinks as he keeps tantalizing me with his drink mixing tweets.

Mike's framework brought me back to some earlier blog conversations he had initiated around systems of rewards. ¹

He was exploring game design and behavioral psychology to understand how to create rewards that incent ongoing engagement and even addictive behaviors.  Why we love to play some games for hours on end.

The answer was a very academic approach to "combine unexpected rewards together with reward mechanics that are clear and predictable" to best achieve sustained and steady engagement with our audiences.

What I love about what Mike has done in his latest presentation is he's managed to make a cohesive and powerful argument for relegating "engagement" to it's proper place in the digital landscape - the closet of less important measures. All hail the belittling of engagement!

So in a world where the real game is driving participation, what reward mechanics should we be putting in place?

In "Drive," Daniel Pink outlines the dilemma of external rewards in what he calls motivation 1.0/2.0. ²

"CARROTS AND STICKS: The Seven Deadly Flaws
1. They can extinguish intrinsic motivation.
2. They can diminish performance.
3. They can crush creativity.
4. They can crowd out good behavior.
5. They can encourage cheating, shortcuts, and unethical behavior.
6. They can become addictive.
7. They can foster short-term thinking."

Pink talks about the need to "instead emphasize the elements of deeper motivation - autonomy, mastery, and purpose."  He explores the disconnect between our rewards systems of old which were built around repetitive tasks and the present where people are being challenged to accomplish creative tasks.

Pink cites a study where two Swedish economists tested the effect of incenting people with a monetary reward to donate blood.  The book is full of study and examples galore that show how external rewards often backfire.  In the case above, it led to 20% less people donating than those who were offered no incentive other than doing their social duty. "It tainted an altruistic act and 'crowded out' the intrinsic desire to do something good."

How many contests are plagued by contest hounds who care nothing about the contest, brand or issues at hand?

Interestingly, when a reward is money for a charity, the negative impact to motivation can be avoided (if done properly.)

All of this made me once again question whether the campaigns we build truly reflect the proper motivational or reward structures.  And if we are building systems that drive participation, fueling the intrinsic motivators will be critical to creating systems that have higher levels of participation and more importantly that will self sustaining.

All of this caused me to pencil this slide together.  It's rough and likely anything but complete but it captured some of my thoughts.

   

I thought I would close with my favorite quote from Pink's Drive as it points to the opportunity at hand.

"Human beings have an innate inner drive to be autonomous, self-determined, and connected to one another.  And when that drive is liberated, people achieve more and live richer lives."

Footnotes:

1. Dummies Guide to Behavioral Psychology and Engagement, Craphammer.ca
2. Daniel Pink, "Drive", Riverhead Books, 2009

Leaving the Path

I was going to talk about "fans" of brands today.  The theme of my comments was going to be that fans have their place, but a "fan economy" misses the mark when it comes to the opportunities presented by the most passionate.  Fans are about the brand in the centre.  It is about people attaching themselves to a brand. 

The opportunity is in the reverse:  brands supporting peoples' pursuit of the things they are most passionate about.

Mike Arauz saves us all by presenting a beautifully reasoned argument for the person at the centre.  He calls this method "Desire Paths".  I think he is on the right path, indeed.

Enjoy.

Desire Paths: Branding for Digital Lives

View more presentations from Mike Arauz. (tags: internet marketing)

The Future of Publics

I don't come from this space, so speaking of "publics" in the plural freaks me out a little.  That said, this presentation rocks.  It's much closer to engagement in this new socially leveraged world of technology we live in today.

Public Media 09 Presentation | Public Media 2.0: Dynamic, Engaged Publics, by Jessica Clark and Pat Aufderheide of the Center for Social Media

View more presentations from Jessica Clark. (tags: for center)

The Passion Economy eBook

It all started when I first read Saul Kaplan's article on "Creating a Passion Economy". I was so enamored with this concept that I asked eleven people I respect to weigh in on their views regarding "The Passion Economy" and it's role or impact on business, brands and each of us.

 

 

 
Downloadable Link:
The Passion Economy: opportunity for brands or jut a fad? (PDF, 2.3 megs)

First, a big thanks to:
Saul Kaplan for the article that kicked this all off (catalyst!)
Valeria Maltoni for the idea I stole (eBook)
Peter Flaschner for his design vision, ideas and wine
Eli McIlveen for urging me on and his amazing editorial reviews

And now, a round of applause for the contributors:

Scott Suthren
Ellen Di Resta
Gavin Heaton
Charles Frith
Mike Wagner
Mack Collier
Mike Arauz
Katie Chatfield
Alan Wolk
Peter Flaschner
Matthew Milan

Please share this document freely and join in the conversation!

 

Crowd Enabling, the Obama way

I am continually asked to present on "What is Social Media", "Web 2.0" or even "Crowd sourcing."  Quite often I am met with some level of incredulous skepticism.  Surely, this doesn't apply to insurance, manufacturing, publishing or any other industry you can name. 

I can't help but recall the early days of the web.  My firm was called in to many a boardroom and it was always the same question, "So, this web thing, is it just a fad?"  And sure enough, every example we showed was questioned.  I was a geek caught up in my techno-futuristic dreams and this web thing would surely not apply nor impact the company in question or their industry.

And here we are full circle.  Sure, blogs might become something else.  Wiki's will evolve into new toolsets and even YouTube will transform and be usurped by something else.

But personal expression will not disappear.  The desire of people to have a voice and to participate will only increase in the days to come.  This is what technology is enabling on a scale never before seen on this planet.

The organizations that embrace this shift will accomplish things never before thought possible.  They will learn things that will amaze both them and their competitors.  If this isn't worth the risk of "letting go of control" then I don't know what is.

Barack Obama is just one such example.  I want to be very clear here.   Even if Obama fails to achieve his goal of becoming President of the United States, I predict he will have a deeper and more powerful understanding of the American people than anyone in the history of politics.  He will have engaged at a level yet to be fully grasped or understood.

A Historical Campaign

The Washington Post reported on 02-29-2008 that Ms. Hillary Clinton had raised $35 million in February of this year.  Obama is expected to announce a number that is "considerably more" than that number.  What makes this exceptional is that, unlike Hillary, Obama's donations have come entirely from a source untapped by other politicians: the average citizen.

According to the Los Angeles Times on 02-07-2008, "Clinton has relied heavily on large donors, at least half of whom have already given the maximum allowed by law.  By contrast, Obama has built an extensive network of small givers who are free to keep donating until they hit the $2,300 federal contribution ceiling."

I remember the first time I donated $50 to the Obama campaign.  Within minutes, I received a message from a previous donor who had agreed to match a donation from a first time donor.  The email was written by a gentleman from down south who wanted to share with me his reasons for supporting the campaign, in his words.

Social Media

Obama has been leading on the use of digital technologies since early in his campaign.  Information Week reported on 07-23-2007 that no Republicans are reaching out with mobile technology" and spoke of Barack's use of a special short SMS code as well as downloadable ringtones and more.

At the beginning of his campaign, as members of the movement, we were invited to log in to my.barackobama.com and help to organize block parties in our neighborhoods, start a blog or participate in conversations.  The site has grown to provide opportunities to match first time donors, watch videos and actively participate in the campaign by a variety of means.

Obama has continued to use every channel to spread his message.  If you haven't watched or read the "Yes we can" speech, then I recommend you do so.

And the YouTube videos of his speech put to music are emotional beyond words.  The fact that Obama has engaged and allowed for others to carry and manipulate his voice and message points to this being more than a "channel" approach.  Unlike his rivals, his campaign is about enabling voices to unite together under a cause of hope.  Something not seen in quite some time (at this scale) in the American political system.

Enabling Our Participation

Yesterday I was surprised.  The weekly Obama emails pleading with me to donate or match the donation of a first time donor had suddenly been replaced by a call to action much like at the beginning of Obama's campaign.  I was being asked to participate in an online drive to reach out to Texans for the upcoming primary.  Over a million calls had already been placed by people just like me. 

This morning I could only sit in amazement as they had already achieved over a million and a half calls.

I clicked on the link in the email and was brought to my personal area of the Obama network.  What greeted me?  A personal message and a list of the top callers in a battle for the top slot.  I may not know Ms. Gold, but I admire her.  I admire any citizen that motivated to making a change.  And my body tingles in the knowledge she is anything but alone.

Mr. Obama and his crew didn't start with this knowledge of how to embrace technology.  Nor did they begin with such a clear understanding on how to motivate members of their growing "community" of engaged citizens.  But they certainly understand it now.  And the passion of artists, mothers, activists and citizens is palpable.

There is an embracing of "voice". The campaign as much enables the voice of its supporters as it does the voice of Barack Obama.  It is co-creation in one of its finest forms.

Here is Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer David Turnley's documentation of a recent rally in Houston. Shared as an embeddable flickr stream.

Crowd Sourcing Versus Crowd Enabling

"Crowd sourcing" as a term drives me insane.  I picture rows of people herded like cattle and prodded into providing input by a system that views them as fodder for its machinations. 

"Crowd enabling", by comparison, is both the potential and the benefit of any engagement strategy.  It speaks of value provided by the experience, brand, organization, or what have you.  It embraces and leverages the concept of co-creation which I believe Alan Moore would stand behind (one of the founders of engagement marketing.)

Barack Obama is an amazing case study of how engagement can enable citizens on a scale and breadth never before dreamed possible.  It's important that we see this campaign as a concerted effort across mediums, channels and communities.  And it's critical we see the lifting up of the individual, their actions and their individual voices as a cornerstone of the campaign's efforts.

Organizations and brands that are paying attention will not ask "does this apply", but rather "how this applies."

Johnnie takes the Craphammer to the airwaves

Johnnie Moore interviews  Piers Fawkes and yours truly.  Piers, who started PSFK, took on the trend industry in a wonderfully written rant and I had gone to town on stakeholder research.  We all narrow in on how to engage with customers to create innovation in our respective industries.

You can check out the podcast here.

I must say, I really enjoyed the experience and very much hope to meet Piers and Johnny in person one day.  My mind has been spinning on the connection from inspiration to innovation since the call.

Johnnie breaks down the topics very nicely.

"0.00 Introductions

0 25 Piers summarises his recent post on the failings of the trendspotting industry. We're in an era of data-is-free and much of the industry ignores that, packaging up ancient information and selling it for large amounts of money. A lot of trends information is just opinion, and there is a lack of transparency in the business. There's an arrogance, a sense of "we know the secrets and you know nothing. We know who the cool kids are and you're in trouble." We shouldn't be scaring our clients.

4 25 Sean talks about his post about what's wrong with the way companies use stakeholder research to support change. Are we just optimising or are we innovating? Too many 400 page reports sitting on shelves. We can point the finger at clients too for their part in this.

5 10 Johnnie picks up on the theme of engagement. The old ways lay claim to secret insight from a black box. But there's a sense that it's fake and lacks real spirit. What might be better is a willingness to step into the unknown.

6 05 Sean and Piers talk about innovation: how do you get organisations to actually change in response to insight? Clients want to know: what do we actually do with all this information?

8 05 Sean talks about whether work is just to provide insight or can it inspire and can the way it's done support greater engagement within the organisation. Can we make the process of discovery more participatory?

8 45 Johnnie has another go at the notion of intermediaries and experts in favour of things like social networks with real world human conversation.

9 30 Piers: We need to move to more participation just because of the speed of change. There's not enough time for the study to be produced and then react. Need a system to keep organisation more in touch with the marketplace day-by-day. Maybe there's no more big ideas, but lots of good ideas.

10 10 Sean describes an experiment he's running for an organisation where people within an organisation use social networks to contribute their intelligence and ideas. They don't just input, they comment on other people's input. Allow the organisation to analyse itself.

11 20 Piers likes the sound of that. Johnnie digs for more information. Sean elaborates on the use of video gizmos to let people capture and share experience. Getting beyond text-based. Johnnie asks if this could this be Seesmic-like? I wish, says Sean... but even with 5 or 10% participation, we're getting triple the engagement we'd get from traditional stakeholder interviews.

13 40 Piers: we have some elements of participation in our work but maybe we can do more to use social networks in delivering ideas/inspiration to clients. Johnnie thinks that's a good idea, a way of providing more in-the-moment sensing of what's happening.

15 00 Sean on the gap between inspiration and innovation. Piers: the market still relies too much on the control of data, need to get beyond that.

15 50 We would think this, being bloggers, says Johnnie but data wants to be free; efforts to own/control it are going to suck the life and spirit out of a system.

16 15 Sean likes the bit in Piers' post about ad agencies being in the game of making ads. Do ad agencies really have their heart in a different approach?

17 00 Sean: ad agencies need to watch out for the design companies like IDEO who really get participatory design.

17 50 Parting thoughts from Piers, Sean and Johnnie."