The World is Grey and Mushy - Part 1 of a gazillion
February 13, 2007 by Chris Heuer
I was chatting with Brian Solis just now about his post called, Are You Talking to Me? Taking the BS out of Business Blogging, when I noticed Strumpette’s comment bagging on conversational marketing and some of the broader Cluetrain principles. Its a funny thing that everyone is always trying to be absolute and literal instead of allowing for smart people like Brian and others like Dave Weinberger who understand both the ideal and practical implications of “markets as conversations”. Regardless of your perspective, I hope that more people do understand that all of these emerging practices, however you want to classify them (conversational, social, participatory etc…), are based on COMMUNICATIONS, one way, multiway and bi-directional. To that extent, there are times you want to talk to people and times you want to listen.
The thing is, Strumpette gets caught up in the social and conversational side, or rather the word ‘conversational’, neglecting that all media is a form of communications, and could be easily described as conversational in most of its forms, eventhough the purpose is occasionally out of self interest than group interest. The media created between a performer and their audience, between a blogger and the people who are interested in what they have to say and even David Letterman is largely conversational.
Is conversational marketing or business blogging always good? - of course not, but it often is, and could be better if we work together to explore how and understand why.
Much of the same criticism leveled at Social Media champions like Brian is very similar to that slung at brand marketing before it became widely understood and refined. Same for banner advertising. Same for ecommerce. More case studies with ROI will appear in time. Indeed it already has helped many, they just have not shared their stories yet with many trying to maintain a competitive advantage.
No the world is not always flat, nor is transparency always ok, nor is a consensus driven model always best - we need to use the right thinking in each unique situation. The world is grey and mushy, not black and white. However, when a stragegy is more often broadly appropriate for organizations than less, why not talk about a practice area affirmatively and discover the edges of what works and what doesn’t and where it can go. As I was reminded recently, ‘don’t make yourself the Chief Electricity Officer‘.
When a company has established its trustworthiness in the market, when it is focused on creating value over greedily chumming up sales, when it listens as much as it talks, good things generally do happen - the organization is, in a sense, in harmony with the market it serves. If the organization is having conversations with customers, potential customers, former customers and influential people in their market segment, and the right people are leading the organization’s team, conversation can be the difference between delivering an ok experience and one that becomes a Lovemark - which would you rather have?
Sphere: Related Content
Chris,
Here…
1. I do recognize that Brian and David are smart people. But I think it is time to also acknowledge that their idea does NOT have practical implications. Period. If I can’t measure it, it’s not practical.
2. With regard to these “emerging” practices being based on COMMUNICATIONS, that “there are times you want to talk to people and times you want to listen”… no. There are times you want to listen, times to speak with, times to speak AT, and times to disengage and completely ignore.
3. I do not get caught up with “communications.” I am however weary of hearing the vacuous mantra of the sacred nature of bidirectional claptrap. It is time to STOP associating handing over control to an unruly mob of strangers to that of the Second Coming.
4. The media created between performer and audience is NOT conversational as Weinberger or Doc Searls would define it. NOT.
5. “Is conversational marketing or business blogging always good? - of course not.” Thank you.
6. As to CM being good “often”… based on what? Thus far it’s all qualitative, i.e. ITS AN OPINION! Keep in mind opinions are like assholes; everybody’s got one.
7. “Much of the same criticism leveled at Social Media is very similar to that slung at brand marketing before it became widely understood and refined.” NONSENSE. “Same for banner advertising. Same for ecommerce.” APPLES AND ORANGES.
8. As to “more case studies with ROI will appear in time”… excuse me but there are people who absolutely believe Jesus is checking his parachute as we speak. Bottom line, there is NO rational basis to believe that to be true.
9. With regard to: “No the world is not always flat, nor is transparency always ok, nor is a consensus driven model always best - we need to use the right thinking in each unique situation.” Ah… there’s hope.
10. “The world is grey and mushy, not black and white.” Speak for yourself. I (and other who own stock) do NOT want to live in your mushy made-up world.
11. “When a company has established its trustworthiness in the market, when it is focused on creating value over greedily chumming up sales, when it listens as much as it talks, good things generally do happen - the organization is, in a sense, in harmony with the market it serves.” AND HOW OLD ARE YOU AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS? So much for hope.
12. “If the organization is having conversations with customers, potential customers, former customers and influential people in their market segment, and the right people are leading the organization’s team, conversation can be the difference between delivering an ok experience and one that becomes a Lovemark - which would you rather have?” COMPLETE PLATITUDINOUS CRAP.
Looks like you’ve got 2 out of 12 Chris. Apparently your ROI is aligned with what you profess.
- Amanda Chapel
ROFL
You pseudonymous people you! (which one of you are we talking with today BTW? maybe you could at least be Amanda1 or Amanda2 so we know the difference). For those of you who don’t know about Strumpette, A-man-da-Chap-el is a pseudonym for a couple of PR and Communications folks, that allows them to openly attack ideas comfortably without having to cause grief for their agencies, or take hits to their personal reputations. Some people detest people hiding behind such a mask - while I would prefer to ‘know who I am dealing with’, I do understand why they do this, eventhough I disagree with the tactic.
Personally, I find it a terrible waste that they have some real valuable insights to share that should be heard and discussed, but they are not being as widely appreciated as a result of the manner in which they choose to express themselves, and as a result, I need to write 100+ words to set context instead of focusing on the meat of the matter.
I don’t have an inclination to dissect the responses line by line here (too busy laughing at the obvious incongruencies), but first things first, to take a very basic understanding of the math applied, your summation is incorrect. 2 of 12? HA - that is entirely subjective and misleading - not absolute at all - I won’t count each of the statements I made, but there were more than the 12 you chose to agree/disagree with, and the nature of your statements for a couple of responses indicated agreement, though you counted it negatively. But I guess that is a subjective issue of whether or not some of those statements can be grouped together into one claim, or if they are indeed multiple claims. Besides, you gave me a zero for your point 2, when instead it would seem you are merely further elaborating on my original point to which we are both in agreement - it is situational!
Second, who anointed you scorekeeper? There are most certainly others who would score this quite differently - some of whom you probably respect and others you don’t. Most would have an entirely different count - no Amanda, the world is not the absolute one you crave and hope for, though I do agree there are some absolutes and believe it would be better to have that degree of certainty in some areas of life - like when a corporate check is being cut for an independent contractor. But then again, where would the fun and surprise and delight come from if all outcomes were certain?
Finally, and most poignantly, the very nature of your response points to there being valid, subjective opinions on key issues, which further supports my main point that there is no absolute, the world is grey and mushy. In fact, the question you raise in point 6, about conversational marketing ‘often’ being good is a circular argument, because that is your opinion on whether or not it is ‘often’ or ‘infrequently’ good.
To cite an overused, but relevant example - “is the glass half full or half empty?” This is a personal choice of language where both statements are ‘measurably’ correct and therefore absolutely correct. The tone and perspective, however, provides a much deeper insight into the manner in which the statement maker is measuring the glass, and their leanings towards a negative or positive world view.
So attack the optimists as you wish - some certainly need their evangelical fervor ratcheted down a notch - but count me among those who think a return to conversation is an opportunity much greater and more important than whether or not a given stock portfolio rises in value. Still, you should know that I ultimately believe this perspective and approach will ultimately yield those sorts of measurable results you desire (and I desire too) as long as it is tempered with a practical understanding of ’situational realities’.
As I was reminded recently by a friend, realists, ‘devil’s advocates’ and naysayers provide important checks and balances as part of a team, but they are not the one’s LEADING positive and meaningful transformations within their organizations, or broader revolutions in their industry, their community or society as a whole.
Chris,
I cannot help you. You are doomed to have your ass kicked by Corporate America.
Good luck.
- Amanda
[...] Let’s stand up for what is right about “social media” rather than tearing it down just because a few misguided folks are misappropriating the meme. Better still, let’s not get all caught up in trying to control the message around the phrase – isn’t that part of what many are fighting against anyway – the right of people in the world to choose how they tell the story? Kind of ironic that so many ‘defenders’ of the spirit of what we are doing are in fact engaging with the same controlling mindset as those they are attacking. We can get all caught up in the semantic analysis and attempt to create a taxonomy for “social media” or we can stop trying to control it all and watch what emerges, accelerating the good bits and putting the kebosh on the bad. The world is often grey and mushy, especially when it comes to emergent memes such as this… [...]