RareBird

• home
• about us
  • Why Rare Bird?
  • The Crew
  • Our Clients
  • Job Openings
• news
  • Blog
  • Releases
  • Web Reviews
  • Newsletter
• portfolio
  • Web
  • Email
  • Print
• contact
• login

Rare Bird Blog

Can social media replace traditional marketing communications? Doesn't look likely...

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Dan forwarded me an article today that ranks right up near the top of my "Things to read that are relevant" list. Titled "What If Giving Up Your Brand Really Means Giving Up?" this Advertising Age article from Jonathan Salem Baskin asks some very pointed questions and draws some mildly controversial conclusions. (At least, I'm assuming they might be considered controversial among those people advocating a complete rush to social media in lieu of traditional branding, but it hasn't seemed to bubble up to the top of Digg or gain a notable trend on Twitter, so we may never know.)

Baskin argues, basing his conclusions on the recent Edelman 2010 Trust Barometer, that consumers are growing weary (and wary) of their peers as credible sources of branding information. Where we once happily turned to people we trust to learn their opinions about a company or brand, we're now skeptical of the same people and what they have to say. Maybe it's because so many have turned out to be shills working on behalf of the companies they were promoting. Or maybe it's because some of them turned out to be the actual companies themselves, pretending to be average Joes.

Or maybe it's because Twitter recently announced that they've surpassed the 50 million tweets per day mark, and we're all buried under the noise.

Regardless, this paragraph from the article seems a perfect summation:

"If we renewed our commitment to selling based on credibility, authenticity and utility, maybe people would trust what we tell them, respect our corporate reputations, and give us their purchasing loyalty. Maybe if we stopped thinking we can give up responsibility for why they should buy, and start acting like David Ogilvy and sell to them once again, they'd find comfort relying on our communications as well as the subsequent iterations through the social echo chamber. This might unleash the ultimate promise of social and empower people to know, discuss and change the way businesses function, not just blather on about marketing blather."

Absolutely, positively right on the mark. I recommend that you read the rest of his excellent article. You can also read the results of the Edelman study. Enlightening stuff.

Labels: authenticity, marketing, social media, twitter

Circa 1995: “Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn't, and never will be, nirvana”

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Clifford Stoll was wrong. And partly right, too.

A Newsweek article from 1995 titled, "The Internet? Bah!" and sporting the unfortunate subtitle "Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn't, and never will be, nirvana" has recently begun making the rounds on the internet. As you can imagine, it's normally passed along with some comment about how short sighted the author, Clifford Stoll, must have been. "The poor guy," so the sentiment goes, "how could he have been so blind to what the rest of us could see so clearly?"

But when you read the article, it's easy to see that some of the problems he addressed were real. Some even continue today. But others... whoa! He couldn't have been further off the mark. Some examples:

"The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works."

That's a sentence I'm guessing he'd like to have back.

"How about electronic publishing? Try reading a book on disc. At best, it's an unpleasant chore: the myopic glow of a clunky computer replaces the friendly pages of a book. And you can't tote that laptop to the beach. Yet Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we'll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet. Uh, sure."

Another crow he's certainly chewing on. Interestingly, it seems that Stoll's biggest problem in this whole mess was his inability (or unwillingness) to accept that things would change, technology would improve, and the status quo would be ever nudged in the direction of improvement. On the other hand, he was trying to sell a book he'd written called "Silicon Snake Oil - Second Thoughts on the Information Superhighway," so I think we can at least understand his perspective.

But just before that previous line about books, Stoll offered this:

"Consider today's online world. The Usenet, a worldwide bulletin board, allows anyone to post messages across the nation. Your word gets out, leapfrogging editors and publishers. Every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly. The result? Every voice is heard. The cacophany more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harrasment, and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen."

Honestly, to me, that still sounds a lot like today's world. Just substitute "internet" for Usenet, and you'll get a feel for blogging, Twitter, Facebook, and much of the other platforms people are using to 'spread the word.'

He also talks about the loss of human contact, and he's certainly right about that. There really is no substitute for being face-to-face, but the technology is certainly getting better in this area every day. My kids love talking with their grandparents over video chat, and it's easy enough that any of them– including the five year olds– can do it on their own.

But there are two paragraphs that really struck me as so far out in left field as to be on another planet. They are:

"Then there's cyberbusiness. We're promised instant catalog shopping--just point and click for great deals. We'll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obselete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month? Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet--which there isn't--the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople."

Obviously, online shopping is here to stay. Technology has solved the problem of transferring money online and this marketplace will only keep growing. But the internet won't kill the local mall. Some people like the act of shopping as much or more than the act of buying.

Lastly, he eschews the sea of information as being unedited, uncontrolled, and lacking completeness. Without "editors editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don't know what to ignore and what's worth reading." Partly true. But discernment has always been a part of communication. Just because someone tells me something doesn't mean I should believe it.

He then laments the inability to find anything in the haystack:

"Logged onto the World Wide Web, I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. Hundreds of files show up, and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them--one's a biography written by an eighth grader, the second is a computer game that doesn't work and the third is an image of a London monument. None answers my question..."

This actually made me laugh. Can you imagine a world without search? Instant information at your fingertips, wherever you are, whenever you need it.

As Clifford likely knows, the Battle of Trafalgar took place on October 21, 1805. It was a naval engagement between the British and the combined fleets of Spain and France. The British fleet was led by Lord Nelson, commanding from his flagship HMS Victory. And it took me about 7 seconds to find out.

For some fun, read Clifford Stoll's Newsweek article, "The Internet? Bah!"

For even more fun, watch Clifford Stoll talk about ...everything... on TED.

Is integrity vital for success?

Monday, February 15, 2010

We think so. Over the years, we've prided ourselves on our ability to have fierce conversations based on the principles of honesty, integrity, and truth. This is not to say that feelings are completely overlooked or that we take a tack where the complete truth must told despite the personal cost. We do, however, believe in the value of speaking the truth, owning up to mistakes, and openly dealing with things that might, at first, be uncomfortable. What we've learned is that it's preferable to deal with difficult issues early, as the longer they linger the worse things become.

We believe that our clients and friends appreciate this frankness. We believe this is one of the many reasons that they continue working with us, some for many years. As a result, our commitment to maintaining our integrity grows stronger with time. So when I saw this quote from President Eisenhower today, it rang completely true and I felt compelled to share it:

"The supreme quality for a leader is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is a section gang, on a football field, in an army, or in an office. If his associates find him guilty of phoniness, if they find that he lacks forthright integrity, he will fail. His teachings and actions must square with each other."

The first great need, therefore, is integrity and high purpose."

—Dwight D. Eisenhower

Can you afford to be authentic in business?

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

I often say that true authenticity– being exactly who you really are and nothing else– is one of the most important things you can do to help be successful in whatever you're doing. When I saw this article from Business in Blue Jeans CEO Susan Baroncini-Moe talking about some of the issues people struggle with when trying to be authentic, it really struck a chord. To wit:

• We're all works in progress
• The truth has a way of seeping out
• It's not about appearances, it's about truth
• The real secret to gaining legitimacy is authenticity

How refreshing to hear someone discussing both the merits and difficulties of being truly authentic. I think her point about achieving legitimacy is key: we can only hope to find it by first gaining trust, and it's simply impossible to gain someone's trust by pretending to be something you aren't.


I often talk with people who are afraid to be authentic for fear that they might offend someone with whom they hope to do business. In fact, the opposite is often the case. By being true to who you are, you're more likely to connect with someone, not offend them. And, obviously, connecting is far more beneficial than leaving no impression at all. Of course, you certainly run the risk of not connecting– even offending– someone by being yourself. But if the two of you are that diametrically opposed, you're unlikely to be able to build a meaningful relationship anyway. And wouldn't it be nice to know that right away?


If you're interested, read Susan's article on Authenticity in Business.

Labels: business consulting, marketing

Social self-promotion: arrogance or confidence?

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

"There is a difference between being arrogant about yourself as a person and being confident that your work has some value. The first is unattractive, the second is healthy and natural. Some people respond to the one as if it were the other. Don’t confuse them. Marketing is not bragging, and touting one’s wares is not evil. The baker in the medieval town square must holler 'fresh rolls' if he hopes to feed the townfolk."

"But direct self-promotion is ineffective and will go unnoticed unless it is backed by a more indirect (and more valuable) form of marketing: namely, sharing information and promoting others."

Labels: marketing, self-promotion, twitter

Finally! Some good news for the over forty crowd

Friday, February 5, 2010

Sure, you may be younger, better looking, and able to run faster, but there is growing evidence that us old fogies can outthink you. (No doubt these new studies were conducted by, analyzed by, and reported on by someone in the over forty crowd who stands to gain-- or at least feel a little better about themselves-- because of the results.

According to Barbara Strauch, deputy science editor and health and medical science editor at The New York Times and author of The Secret Life of the Grown-up Brain: The Surprising Talents of the Middle-Aged Mind, there are some tangible benefits of all those years we've survived.

According to Strauch, "Results of long-term studies show that we actually grow smarter in key areas in middle age which, with longer life spans, now stretches from our mid 40s to our mid to late 60s."

"In areas as diverse as vocabulary and inductive reasoning, our brains function better than they did in our 20s. As we age, we more easily get the "gist" of arguments. Even our judgment of others improves."

And this is vitally important, especially in the increasing complex environments in which we work. Turns out that we've trained our brains to overcome the natural decline that comes in some cognitive areas with aging.

"It's true that by midlife our brains can show some fraying," she says. "Brain processing speed slows down. Faced with new information, we often cannot master it as quickly as our younger peers. And there's little question that our short-term memories suffer. It's easy to panic when you find you can't remember the name of that person you know in the elevator, or even the movie you saw last week."

"But it turns out that such skills don't really matter that much. By midlife our brains have developed a whole host of talents that are, in the end, just as well suited to navigating the modern, complex workplace. As we age, we get better at seeing the possible. Younger brains, predictably, are set up to focus on the negative and potential trouble. Older brains, studies show, often reach solutions faster, in part, because they focus on what can be done."