According to Adage our latest recruit has one of the hottest jobs in marketing.

Deana Burke has joined us to provide full time community management for one of our major clients.

As the Adage article states, there is a growing interest in the community management function from clients in diverse industry sectors. This isn’t too surprising given the increased emphasis on all things social. If an active presence on platforms such as Facebook is part of your digital communication strategy then community management skills, if not the recruitment of a community manager, will be a hot topic of conversation.

Wordle tag cloud of Deana's CV

Deana has moved to Scotland from New York and brings with her a strong track record of overseeing social campaigns and programmes of various shapes and sizes. This includes managing a community of influencers for TNT (US cable TV channel), plus community management for animal welfare organisation The Humane Society, the US Forest Service, Pepsi brands including Mountain Dew, and GE Appliances. She also managed a private brand ambassador community for Snapple.

With Deana on board our involvement in things social will extend beyond strategy and content provision to the day to day, sleeves-up management of these spaces.

Exciting times.

Why aren’t all things mobile as high a priority for marketers as they perhaps “should be“?

I was invited to address this topic as guest speaker at yesterday’s Mobile Monday lunch in Edinburgh.

In addition to sharing my own views, based on observation and anecdotal insight, I conducted a survey of Blonde clients to canvas their opinion on all things mobile. Twenty people kindly completed the questionnaire and provided some very useful additional insights.

These responses come from clients in a variety of sectors – Financial Services, FMCG, The Arts, Public Sector, Transport and Retail.

The individual respondents all have smartphones of some description and all use these for a wide range of “high order” tasks. So if anything is holding mobile back in these organisations, it certainly isn’t any lack of familiarity with the functional potential of mobile devices.

Here are the results of that survey. Remember when viewing the quantitative charts that the sample size is only 20. I suspect that the verbatim responses to the open-ended questions will be of most interest.

It may be that the text size on some of the charts is a bit small to read within this blog post. Perhaps better to view at a larger size on the Slideshare site.

IRN-BRU’s Bruzil campaign went live today to coincide with a press launch event in Glasgow.

It represents a cunning plan to catapult the Scottish football team from non-qualification for a certain major football tournament in 2010 to winning the thing in 2034.

What if the Scots were to make babies with the Brazilians and breed a Samba McFootball team of world beaters for 24 years time?

Well the results might be something like the series of films that will be released on the IRN-BRU site over the coming days.

The films were produced by our friends at The Leith Agency and the first one, released today, features “big” Bobby Carlos.

The site also includes a couple of applications, the first of which allows you to take a spoof DNA test to assess your suitability as a prospective Bruzilian parent. The other is a simple but funny Bruzilian name generator that gives you an idea of what it would be like to play alongside Rabaldinho, McKaka and the other stars of 2034.

A cunning plan.

And.

It.

Might.

Just.

Work.

Keith Rankin has joined Blonde as Head of Search.

He is just back from a year travelling. His search (geddit?) for enlightenment included several months in South East Asia, including an ascent of Mount Kinabalu on Borneo. At 13,500 feet, that made him the highest Rankin (geddit?) sightseer on the island.

Prior to that Keith did lots of clever things at Fast Web Media in Manchester. His clients included The Premier League, Carling, Grolsch and PA Sport. Whilst there he picked up several awards including a “Best Use of Search” for Carling at the 2006 Revolution Awards.

Keith brings with him not just proven expertise in search engine marketing, but also a keen interest in optimising content on social platforms such as Facebook and YouTube.

As well as being good at what he does, Keith is a culturally and philosophically aligned with the people-first thinking that characterises Blonde work. We all just clicked (geddit?) during the interview process.

That’s probably enough. Small prize for the best search related pun in any comments.

“Vast amounts of money have been wasted on evidence-free initiatives.”

So said a senior figure from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine during an interview on Radio 5 Live this morning.

He was arguing that government decisions affecting the provision of emergency medical care have been based on myth, wishful thinking and a desire to play to the (voting) gallery.

The myth in his view is that of accident and emergency departments being clogged full of people with minor injuries, who would be better treated in walk-in centres and by GP’s.

The combination of a myth such as this, that many people will be predisposed to believe, and a political desire to be seen to be doing something innovative was, he contended, a recipe for inappropriate strategy.

Surely such a thing could never happen in the realm of digital marketing.

Perish the thought.

Perish the thought that digital strategy would ever be developed on the basis of wishful thinking and a political desire to be seen to be doing something innovative.

Unfortunately though a significant amount of digital marketing is indeed innovative but inappropriate.

It’s based on myths that people want to believe.

The myth that people will willingly participate in your marketing plan, creating and distributing content on your behalf, and expecting little or nothing in return.

The myth that describing a piece of content as viral will magically make that content go viral.

And so on.

A people-first planning approach, ideally including primary research into the social technographics of specific audiences, is crucial to ensuring that digital strategy is underpinned by insight and truth.

And not on myth.

Hi Phil,
Hope you’re well. I’ve now changed my mind completely and decided that Twitter is rubbish.
Yesterday we got 50k visits on the site. Facebook sent 6,000 people and Twitter 600, but we have more Twitter followers than Facebook ones. No one clicks on the links and there’s too much on it.
It’s OK for the punters but for driving traffic and building brands I think it’s a lame duck.
There.
Have a great weekend.
Paul

Paul Stokes
Publisher
The Daily Mash

I received the above email from Paul Stokes over the weekend and subsequently got his permission to quote him.

Twitter = rubbish for building brands in his view.

He makes an interesting point about there being too much on it and no-one clicking on links.

I suggested that this might have something to do with the fact that The Daily Mash uses Twitter as a one-way, broadcast channel (see below), and that a more “engaged”, dialogue approach might yield better long term dividends.

With such a broadcast approach it’s probably not surprising that Facebook performs better as a traffic driving channel. People tend to fan/follow fewer, more considered, more personally important people and organisations on Facebook than they do on Twitter. The signal to noise ratio is higher. And Facebook is hardwired for word of mouth.

Is Twitter rubbish for building brands?

Live tweeting from conferences sucks.

It sucks for the presenters, who must be aware that their ‘audience’ is more concerned with writing rather than properly listening.

It double-sucks for presenters if they have to get through their content with the double distraction of seeing the ‘audience’ heads-down in their laptops AND being faced with a Twitterfall of real-time, critical comments projected on the screen behind them.

And it sucks for the audience. You have paid (or more likely you employer has paid) good money in order to learn something. Or to be inspired. Ideally both. Bashing away on Tweetdeck when you should be absorbing slide content, verbal content and hopefully a compelling on-stage performance is a waste of someone’s training budget. You can call me old fashioned about this, but you’d be wrong.

I was mighty glad to see that there was no Twitterfall at MediaGuardian’s Changing Media Summit 2010.

And, as you can see, I vowed not to tweet while people were speaking.

Here, however, is a summary of the high and low points of the day as if I had live tweeted. Tweeting after the event.

I COULD LISTEN TO JIMMY WALES (WIKIPEDIA FOUNDER) ALL DAY. #CMS2010

Jimmy Wales spoke for about 20 minutes and was then interviewed by Rory Cellan-Jones for about another 20 minutes. Neither slot was long enough, a consistent failing of this conference if truth be told. He was eloquent, passionate and candid. He had clearly edited a wealth of material down to 20 minutes, and the audience would clearly have kept him talking in the Q&A had time permitted.

LOVE THE WIKIPEDIA MISSION STATEMENT. LAYERS OF MEANING TO EVERY WORD & PHRASE. #CMS2010

Mr Wales spoke with great conviction about the role and purpose of Wikipedia. This clearly isn’t a bland, vanilla, dust-gathering pronouncement to be laminated, stuck on office walls and ignored. It is an active credo by which the organisation lives and works on a daily basis. Well worth a closer look.

His discourse on the layered meaning of the word ‘free’ (”free as in speech, not as in beer”, “not just no paywall, no wall at all”) led to an interesting examination of the contrasting approaches of Google and Wikipedia in China, which is again a hot topic as I write this.

CHINESE MENUS DEMONSTRATE THE POWER OF WIKIPEDIA. #CMS2010

If I had live tweeted this I would have used Twitpic to illustrate the point. Mr Wales showed several examples of menus from restaurants in China that appear to list Wikipedia as a key ingredient of several dishes. I have included an example below.

The explanation for this appears to be that when looking for English translations of Chinese ingredient names, the corresponding Wikipedia entries were returned first and misinterpreted.

CORPORATE ATTITUDES TO CHINA ARE LIKE THOSE TO SOUTH AFRICA DURING APARTHEID – JIMMY WALES #CMS2010

In that some companies choose not to be associated with the regime, some choose to be there as an active force for positive change, and some are just there to make money regardless of any human rights issues. Despite the differences between their approaches, Mr Wales placed both Wikipedia and Google in the middle category.

WIKIA – END OF THE ROAD FOR NICHE MAGAZINES? JIMMY WALES #CMS2010

Mr Wales is also the founder of Wikia, a “consumer publishing platform that enables passionate communities to collaborate”.

He cited the example of his daughter, an avid user of the Club Penguin platform who, once exposed to the rich depth of (free) content on the Club Penguin wiki, is bitterly disappointed with the mere 100 pages of content that she gets from a $6 niche magazine.

BAKERS SELL FRESH BREAD AND GIVE AWAY STALE AT THE END OF THE DAY. NEWSPAPERS DO THE OPPOSITE. #CMS2010

An interesting parting shot from Mr Wales. He attributed the stale bread/fresh analogy to Matthew Freud, whom he had met the previous day.

SHIFTING CULTURE AT THE BBC. TECHNOLOGY AND EDITORIAL ON EQUAL FOOTING. ERIK HUGGERS. #CMS2010

Erik Huggers is Director, BBC Future Media & Technology at the BBC. His presentation (deliberately?) took the entire 20 minutes allocated to this slot, leaving no time for questions from what, judging by the murmurs, was not an entirely friendly audience.

He talked about how the creation of “products” at the BBC (things like the iPlayer, the news website, C Beebies etc) was a collaboration of equals between technologists and editorial staff. This is a common theme right now, with people like Mike Arauz posting recently about the magic that happens when technological ‘tricks’ and great storytelling work hand in hand.

IS IT IRONIC, UNLUCKY OR JUST INEVITABLE THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS FAILED FOR THE DIGITAL BRITAIN PRESENTATION? #CMS2010

Oh dear. Least said soonest mended I think.

IN SWEDEN 20-30 YEAR OLD MEN SPEND MORE TIME ON SPOTIFY THAN WATCHING TV. #CMS2010

A comment made during a panel session on “The New Economics of Content” and the different business models currently being explored by Condé Nast, CNBC, Spotify and Pearson. The above observation was made by Jonathan Forster, Global Sales Director of Spotify, as he opined that the agency mindset needed to work harder to keep up with changing content consumption behaviour.

Some interesting stuff in this session about combining various business models (freemium, micropayments, virtual goods, oh yeah and advertising) rather than relying on one.

USEFUL, USABLE, DELIGHTFUL – THE AKQA RECIPE FOR CREATIVE SUCCESS. #CMS2010

This was from a pre-lunch panel session on “Quality creative control”. Once again the format wasn’t ideal. The panelists were potentially awesome (from Contagious, Nokia, Ogilvy Labs, DDB Stockholm, AKQA and BERG) but none of them really had enough time on their feet to get into any kind of stride. Some interesting bits and pieces like the AKQA philosophy on digital creativity, but I was left wanting much more.

MEDIA COMPANIES CAN’T HOLD AN AUDIENCE BECAUSE WHAT THEY PRODUCE IS SHIT – MICHAEL WOLFF. #CMS2010

Michael Wolff is the founder of Newser.com, a news aggregation site with the mantra “read less, know more.” He also wrote The Man Who Owns The News, a biography of Rupert Murdoch.

The quote above refers to his opinion that US newspapers in particular are rapidly becoming victims of their “over-supply of inconsequential content”.

THE NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY IN THE U.S. IS OVER – MICHAEL WOLFF. #CMS2010

Michael Wolff continuing his candid and thus highly entertaining tirade against traditional media owners.

And against Mr Murdoch…

UNTIL A YEAR AGO RUPERT HAD NEVER BEEN ON THE WEB UNACCOMPANIED – MICHAEL WOLFF. #CMS2010

Michael Wolff and Jimmy Wales were the undoubted highlights of this conference.

ENFORCING CONTROL DOESN’T WORK WHEN YOU NEED TRUST. PARENTS GET IT. MEDIA DON’T – GERD LEONHARD. #CMS2010

Gerd Leonhard describes himself as a media futurist. I don’t know about that but I do know that he’s a complete nutter on his feet. A flamboyant presenter with even more flamboyant slides. I have never seen so much animated giffery in one place. Literally every component of every chart moved in some way, usually all at the same time. His conference slides can be found here but they’re static and so really don’t capture what it was like on the day. Maybe if you close your eyes, spin rapidly on the spot several times until you’re giddy and lose any sense of balance, then look at the charts, you might get close. All he needed were big shoes and an exploding car for the full clown effect. It was a shame because he made some interesting points but you had to not be laughing (at not with) in order to hear them.

IT’S ALL KICKING OFF HERE. YOUNG TURKS FOUNDER HAVING A RIGHT OLD GO AT NBC. #CMS2010

Cenk Uygur, founder of The Young Turks basically accused most American journalists of being liars who are in the pockets of big business and the US political machine. This incurred the wrath of a heckler in the audience and it all kicked off from there. To describe Cenk as “cocksure” would be a massive understatement but you only have to look at some of the engagement stats on his YouTube channel to see that this confidence is not entirely without foundation.

This closing panel was moderated by Rory Cellan-Jones who was clearly enjoying it. Equally clear was his frustration at not having more time to develop and milk the debate further. And that, as you may have gathered, was the story of the conference.

When I were a lad in advertising, topical ads were all t’rage.

Responding quickly to take advantage of an opportunity presented by something in the news was a win, win, win situation.

It made the agency look proactive, engaged, interested in the eyes of the client.

It made the brand team look good in the eyes of their business.

It made the brand look good in the eyes of consumers.

I remember a couple of days after the 1987 hurricane, Volvo ran a black and white press ad featuring a press photograph of one of their cars that had been hit by a falling tree. The occupants had emerged unscathed, reinforcing the brand’s reputation for safety.

Brands such as Heineken and Durex clearly had contingency budgets ringfenced to allow for this kind of activity.

More recently the same topical principle has been applied to this bus-back execution…

That’s the ‘traditional’ approach to topicality.

But what does topical advertising look like in 2010? Maybe a little like this?

During the extended cold snap of January this year, we noticed a few people on Twitter talking about the fact that cans of IRN-BRU left in the car overnight had frozen solid.

So we created WillMyIRNBRUFreezeInTheCar.com, a simple, single-function, topical microsite that answers its own question.

The site was conceived and built in an afternoon. It cost less than £x (where x < you think), including purchase of the domain.

The user simply selects the predicted overnight temperature in their location using a slider device and the site tells them whether their IRN-BRU is at risk via a series of randomised, amusing responses.

We then waited (not very long) for the next cold snap and promoted the link via IRN-BRU’s Twitter account.

In next 36 hours or so we generated just under 750 unique visits, and some very favourable qualitative response.

No doubt we’ll have a few more opportunities to further promote the site before the end of winter, next time hopefully with an offline PR ‘booster rocket’.

Expect to see more of this down-and-dirty, low-cost, do-and-learn style of topical/tactical digital activity over the coming months.

Social channels thrive (nay depend) on social content or social objects as they’re commonly referred to.

And clever, brand-relevant, topical content is as good a route to generating social objects as any.

People are pesky.

So it says if you click on the ‘People’ button in the affectionately named ‘amoeba’ flash panel on our homepage.

They are pesky, not just because they have too many shoes. They are pesky because they have a habit of surprising you and confounding your assumptions.

At Blonde we embrace this peskiness by talking to people. We talk to as many people as we can as often as we can.

And they never fail to surprise us. For which read that we always learn something useful.

That something might be a huge insight that unlocks an innovative strategy. It might be a smaller insight (for instance that b2b audiences are no fans of locked pdf documents), responding to which allows our clients to appear more thoughtful. As often as not it will be a reminder that we need to get our heads out of the emerging technology clouds and get our feet back on the average Joe ground.

Take a look at this video if you want to see just how far we can get our heads up our own bottoms if we insulate ourselves in an early-adopter world of Buzz versus Twitter blog posts and such like. It was produced by Google and asks a simple question of normal people – ‘What is a browser?’

In the recent past we have spoken to classical musicians, breast cancer sufferers, energy advisors, record company execs, independent financial advisors, journalists, high net worth individuals, social entrepreneurs, runners, higher education managers, internal stakeholders from several clients, and a whole range of ordinary folk of various shapes, sizes, backgrounds and locations.

Every conversation has been useful, having a direct impact on strategy and/or execution.

As it says on our homepage, ‘People are pesky. Everything we do is for them.’

Primary research to understand the people associated with a brief sounds like an obvious thing to do, but it can be inconvenient to the agency and/or the client that is in a blinkered hurry to use the latest technology.

We are huge fans of Forrester’s people-first approach to digital planning, and their Social Technographics model.

Understanding people’s relationships with technology (by asking them) ensures that your digital strategies are underpinned by the truth rather than wishful thinking.

Big news yesterday. Forrester introduced a new category of social behaviour to their Social Technographics model.

Welcome the “Conversationalists”.

Full details of the rationale behind this addition can be found in the Forrester Groundswell Blog post. But the new category has been introduced to recognise the rapid fire, short format status update posting that is epitomised by Twitter and which is now a major part of life on Facebook.

The Conversationalists take their place on the second from top rung of the Technographics ladder as shown below.

Some of the initial commentary has focussed on the positioning of this new behaviour category on the ladder, contending that its relative importance is currently being overstated. (Check out some of the comments on this post on the We Are Social site).

But I think there are bigger issues.

We are huge fans of, and subscribers to, Forrester. And we actively use the Technographics model in planning comms strategy for most of our clients.

Thus far, the model has been very easy to explain. Each behaviour category, from Creators to Spectators, does exactly what it says on the tin. Simple, intuitive, and precisely descriptive.

And, equally important, up until now none of of the various behaviour categories overlapped. People overlapped, in that one person could exhibit more than one of the behaviour types, but the behaviour types themselves were discrete.

The Conversationalists moniker is not so straightforward. For two reasons.

1) It is neither single-minded nor precisely descriptive of the behaviours it claims to encapsulate.

2) It describes a behaviour type that overlaps with at least two of the existing categories.

Let’s look at each of these issues in turn.

Is Twitter a “conversation”?

For some people it might be. But the people whose Twitter streams are a constant flow of @replies are the exception rather than the rule in my experience.

Twitter is a lot of different things to different people. That’s why it is not easy to explain to the uninitiated. Sure there are sporadic outbursts of conversation but certainly in “our” world it is primarily an information/content/ideas exchange. And “conversation” doesn’t accurately describe the nature of that exchange.

The short format status updates of Facebook and Twitter allow you to do similar things. In fact some people annoyingly do exactly the same things at the same time on both, simultaneously posting the same content, verbatim, to both streams.

But, for most people that I’ve spoken to, the whole tone and purpose of Facebook is very different to that of Twitter, even if the status update functionality is similar.

“Conversation” is probably a more accurate description of what happens via Facebook updates.

And that brings us onto the second issue of overlap.

“Conversation” is also an accurate description of what happens in the comment threads of many blog posts. And, in a more lowbrow manner, in the comment threads that accompany YouTube videos.

So there is significant overlap between “conversing” and “commenting”.

To a lesser degree there is also overlap between “conversing” and “creating”, to the extent that regular micro-blogging can be construed as content creation.

And then we have the overlap between Conversationalists and Joiners. Joiners maintain a profile on a social networking site and/or visit social networking sites. Conversationalists update status on a social networking site.

In fact Conversationalists actually feel like a subset of Joiners, exhibiting a particular aspect of Joiner behaviour and doing it at least weekly rather than at least monthly.

All this matters to us because we actively use the model to influence communication strategy. We frequently conduct primary research to create bespoke Technographics profiles for specific audiences.

For instance, we found (perhaps not surprisingly) that people on the UK Hip Hop dance scene indexed through the roof against high-end Creator behaviour. Being able to categorise and quantify this gave us the confidence to create a community hub that largely depended on user generated content.

Hitherto, constructing questionnaires and research methodologies to generate bespoke Technographics profiles has been relatively straightforward because none of the behaviour categories overlapped. If we are to embrace the Conversationalists, this will be more tricky henceforth.