Charlene Li, formerly of Forrester Research and co-author of Groundswell, does with Open Leadership what so few authors would find possible: making a convincing argument regarding a real and very powerful movement in the zeitgeist, despite it being inherently fuzzy to understand and difficult to prove.

But just because it is difficult to determine ROI, does not mean the elements of open leadership are not effective. From Li:

“In actuality, the activities taking place on [social sites] are inherently highly measurable, but we have not yet established a body of accepted knowledge and experience about the value of these activities versus the costs and risks of achieving those benefits.” (page 77)

The Value of Ethics

And not only is this leadership style actionable and (somewhat) measurable, but it also serves as a venue for your personal values. My favorite aspect of this book is the relation of an open leadership style to the leader’s own ethics.

Li writes in great detail about trust building, personal values and humility. Social technologies and open leadership simply allows broader activation of the leader’s (your) personal values.

When she speaks of humility, Li notes that open leaders accept “that their views…may need to shift because of what their curious explorations expose.” (page 169) She quotes Ron Ricci, Cisco’s VP of corporate positioning, as saying “Shared goals require trust. Trust requires behavior. And guess what technology does? It exposes behavior.” (page 198)

You begin to understand that Li isn’t railing against command-and-control operations nor does she dive off into kumbaya territory. But she does convince the reader that a world of ubiquitous social technologies, business transparency, and digital communication will require a different kind of leadership.

Open Leadership Isn’t Trying To Be The New Groundswell

As a huge fan of Li’s previous book, Groundswell, I couldn’t wait for Open Leadership. But they really are two different animals.

I found myself wishing there was more about the inevitability of openness. That – along with KPIs and a few other fundamentals – are given short shrift. Maybe there’s not a lot to say. Maybe not many studies have been done.

But unlike Groundswell, which was data-driven and highly intuitive, Open Leadership doesn’t provide enough ammo for younger leaders to march these ideas into the C-suite.

In order for these ideas to be enacted, one likely must already be in some position of leadership. While Groundswell provided the facts and figures for anyone to persuade doubters, Open Leadership does not. It’s an idea book, not a text book. That’s OK – just something to know before you begin reading.

Buy The Book

Overall, I wholeheartedly recommend Open Leadership. It’s innovative, smart, and unlike any book you’ve read before. All that and it’s highly convincing as well. Do yourself (and your employees) a favor and read this book.

[I received a free advance reading copy of this book from Jossey-Bass publishers, but that did not influence my review of the book. I profoundly apologize to Ms. Li for a stunningly late review of the book she kindly sent me. Better late than never, I hope.]

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing. Also, please share this post on your favorite social media site.

(Photo courtesy of Fast Company)

This is a positive blog and I don’t take cheap shots. But when I find a book so disjointed and frankly unusable, I have to mention it.

A lot of people love Brian Solis and I’m sure he’s a good guy (this isn’t personal). But that makes his recent book, Engage: The Complete Guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultive, and Measure Success in the New Web (whew!), all the more disappointing.

Engage reads like a few reheated blog posts tied together with twine and gum. Here are a few reasons I don’t recommend it:

• We’ve heard it all before: I could insulate a house with each book that’s been written as a social media primer. Solis offers only rote, near-impossibly-simplistic suggestions in the intro, manifesto, social media 101, 201, 202, 203, 203… Well, there’s a lot you’ve heard before.
• We’ve heard it all again. And again: Repetition is useful if ideas build on each other. Solis has few (if any) ideas that build on each other. (Just skip part 3 altogether.)
• Shotgun, not sniper rifle: This is the most untargeted book I have read on marketing. There’s no real audience. This book includes reams of information to the n00b and expert alike, but in such close proximity as to be confusing to both groups. Solis doesn’t identify a target and hit it; he loads up with buckshot and prays to hit something.
• Doesn’t add value: There’s just very, very little here that is useful to you in any way. For instance, chapter 20 – the “Human Network” chapter – merely collects lists of marketing frameworks without Solis explaining their relevance or reason for inclusion. We hear about McCarthy and Kotler’s 4 Ps. Lauterborn’s 4 Cs. Shimizu’s 7Cs. Heuer’s 4Cs of a social operating system. Armano’s 4Cs of community. Mishra’s 4 Cs of social media. Not to be outdone, Solis ends the chapter with his own 12 Cs of community cultivation. Why? What’s the connection? We’ll never know.
• Unusable: Solis provides prisms and compasses and all sorts of visuals. These visuals have tiny elements that make them look well-researched. And while he sometimes gives an outline (chapter 21), there is little explanation of how the heck you can use these poorly-copied visuals. Unlike other books, Engage doesn’t appear concerned with being usable.

The Good Stuff

That’s not to say there is nothing good about this book. The hidden gems are certainly hidden, but they are there.

If you do read Engage, here are the pieces not to miss: socially-based business (pg. 106), importance of syndication (pg. 114), targeted landing pages (pg. 123), listening (pg. 209), and conversation audits (pg. 222-223). Sure, you have to dig for them, but they are good.

For Reals

Let’s be straight: Solis makes way more money than me, people seem to love his advice, and he travels around the world to promote his books. Check out his Amazon and Barnes & Noble reviews – barely a critical word amongst them.

Maybe I’m the only one. Does my cheese stand alone? Or has no one had the balls to mention that the emperor has no clothes?

I’m not trying to start a fight or make this personal – but I truly do not understand the appeal. Engage is a dense, disappointing, unenjoyable slog through the new media landscape. Just avoid it.

Feel free to explain it to me or just tell me how wrong I am in the comments section below.

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing. Also, please share this post on your favorite social media site.

(Photo courtesy of thekenyeung via Flickr)

Earlier this year, I wrote about the fundamental flaws of crowdsourcing as a business model. Since then, the backlash against a Wal-Martization of marketing (especially design) through crowdsourcing has grown to a fever pitch.

That’s why it is refreshing to find an organization bucking the negative business practices I wrote about in March.

Napkin Labs is a start-up crowdsourcing shop, but one quite unlike 99designs and even less reputable crowdsourcing agencies. I chatted with them when I was in Boulder last week and am elated at their wise, ethical approach to crowdsourcing.

Here are 5 reasons that agencies like Napkin Labs will bring better work to their clients while strengthening bonds with creatives and experts.

(This isn’t a post mindlessly lauding Napkin Labs. I have no affiliation with them. This post is simply giving a smart organization some well-deserved props and providing guidance to others in the space who don’t want to screw over their clients and the experts who develop their solutions.)

1. Empowering Creatives: The worst part of crowdsourcing is how much they screw over the people who develop solutions for clients. Napkin Labs has set up a payment system that rewards creatives and experts based on how much their input factors into the delivered solution. If your involvement and smart ideas get incorporated a lot, you get paid more. If you contribute a few nuggets of insight, you get paid less (but you still get paid). Compare this to other crowdsourcing agencies that pay one winner (and not much, at that) while everyone else gets bupkis.
2. Crowdsourcing as a Means, Not an End: The main point of my earlier post was that crowdsourcing is a means, not an ends. It’s a good way to get ideas, but will never replace an agency (or shouldn’t). Napkin Labs hits the sweet-spot of solving a client’s specific problem through discovery, ideation, and refinement. And unlike other crowdsourcing agencies, they focus solely on products and services. They don’t try to be everything to everyone.
3. Speed Up Innovation: Many crowdsourcing agencies collect ideas, designs, insights, etc. Then they spend a lot of time culling down this list – an exhausting task. However, Napkin Labs has set up a forum for their hand-picked community (you have to apply to participate and approved individuals are frequently hand-picked for particular projects). In a forum setting, experts can discuss ideas with one another – thus good ideas are discussed and bad ideas are ignored organically.
4. Perspective: Because Napkin Labs solves discreet problems and isn’t attempting to take the place of an agency, they can offer the distance or perspective that an agency sometimes can’t. It’s valuable, from their perspective, even if they discover that the client is asking the wrong question, there is an unmet need being ignored, or the community of experts finds an existing product or service that exceeds the client’s plan.
5. Equal representation: Many agencies create working groups with similar employees (i.e. a design meeting will be populated with designers). But Napkin Labs’ forums allows for everyone to be represented at the same time. For instance, what good is the perfectly designed product if it won’t pack neatly into a delivery truck? Forums allow designers, writers, suppliers, etc to all play a part.

I think Napkin Labs has a good business model and smart businesses are beginning to take note. But what do you think?

Do you know another crowdsourcing agency who is employing these tactics or others that reward the creatives while delivering better work to the client? What else are they doing correctly?

I’m thankful that Napkin Labs let me stop by and gave me the access they did. But this post isn’t pandering due to that appreciation – I really believe they’re fixing a lot of the inherent problems I saw in a crowdsourcing business model. And I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing. Also, please share this post on your favorite social media site.

What’s the difference between planners and content strategists? How is content strategy a different discipline and what type of people should lead it? Why are we making a distinction between the roles now?

These are all valid questions. Neither practice is going away, so this is the time to determine the appropriate roles and responsibilities.

But I’ve sensed some agency angst since these roles share basic principles (likely more so than even CSers and copywriters). However, I only feel qualified to speak for the content strategists, so…

Planners: What do you think about my description of content strategists below? Are we encroaching on your turf? Is there room for everyone? And content strategists: how do we make the most of our relationship with planners?

Whither content strategists?

First, we must understand that the ecosystem has changed. Content proliferation has been exponential, especially in recent years. Everyone is a publisher (evidence: blogs, UGC, smart phones, etc.). And all of this content needs assessed, ranked, and compared; hence, the rise of aggregator sites, search engines, dynamically displayed content, and product reviews.

Maybe a planner used to be enough to handle the volume of content. And for a small site or organization, they still might be. But with over 15 years of content and double or triple that amount ready to be thrown onto the pile, it is time to admit that:

1. Content is a different animal
2. Planners have enough on their plates, and
3. We should each be specialists in our areas.

How are content strategists different from planners?

While similar, planners and content strategists possess different skill sets. For instance, a content strategists needs to possess:

• A history with words and writing in order to educate and thus inspire the creative process. While planners assess a brand, its competitors, or the industry, content strategists must prepare for text on the page – a different exercise completely.
• A background in messaging. Content strategists plan for the creation of content that conveys trust, for instance, while still selling. This is only possible thanks to a planner’s insights, but is a separate skill set.
• Subject matter expertise, be it legal, regulatory, etc. It’s more than research or the insights garnered therein – it’s tangible to creation, guiding creativity through particular hurdles, much like IAs guide designers.
• Turning philosophy into action. While never diving into the depths of data planners reach, content strategists must be able to seize planners’ insights, but convey exactly how that translates to each page, no matter how (seemingly) insignificant.

The good news is that there is more than enough room for planners and content strategists. The challenge will be to allow each specialist to embrace their role in the planning process.

But what do you think? Is this accurate?

I’d love to hear from content strategists and planners (especially you planners). How are our roles similar and how are they different? What are the ideal skill sets and background of a digital planner?

I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks!

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing. Also, please share this post on your favorite social media site.

(Photo courtesy of tanjila via Flickr)

Research indicates that the more impervious your audience feels they are to your product, the more likely they are to succumb to it. But does this really work? And how can this be ethical marketing?

I took my nieces to the Ferris Wheel at Navy Pier the other day and was shocked by the sign above the ticket window: [something to the effect of] “Go ahead and indulge.”

Bleh! This just feels slimy doesn’t it? Is it even the optimal message?

Good Marketing Or A Big Mistake?

Probably a mistake, according to recent research.  Sure, it sounds good (“Doesn’t everyone want to induuuuuulge?”) but it doesn’t hold up under the microscope.

Nordgren, Harreveld, and Pligt completed a study in 2009 about the Restraint Bias (PDF). This bias states that the more you believe yourself impervious to temptation (there’s the bias), the less you’re able to restrain yourself. The more self-assured that a former smoker can visit his old smoking haunts, the less likely he will be able to resist the temptation to light up.

In a very real sense, people set this trap themselves. By deciding, especially in a vulnerable mood, how they will behave, they increase the chances that they will go against their logical impulses. In fact, this study seem to suggest that the more emphatic you are, the less likely you will complete your goal.

However, show a little humility (“Maybe I can’t resist and thus shouldn’t expose myself”) and you might meet that goal.

Ethical Implications

The study dealt solely with tempting “bad behaviors” (snacking, smoking, skimping on studying). This is misguided.

Read the study, but then consider: how could you use these finding to persuade your audience to enact a better reaction? Marketing is no longer devoid of ethics (damn well better not be for readers of this blog), so it’s up to us to figure out how to use these findings for the general good.

So you tell me – how effective is the “Go ahead and indulge” message? Might it be more effective as “You’re strong enough to resist, right?” (But assuming the product is decent, natch.)

My only concerns with studies like these or more advanced neuromarketing is their being used for bad ends. Before you harness these studies, remember that ethics are a pretty powerful “smell test” for most of the public. You would be stupid to try to sneak something on an ever-more-savvy public.

How would you use this information for good? And then, how would you use this information to totally kick ass?

P.S.: Ug, willpower get more complex thanks to Johnnie Moore and Scientific American. (Seriously, a good read though.)

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider signing up for updates via email or RSS. Also, please share this post on your favorite social media site.

(Photo courtesy of theycallmetelly via Flickr)