There’s Something To be Said for Crashing En Masse

When he blogged for Advertising Age on Monday, I understood Simon Dumenco’s fear of a high-flying crash from Googling in the Clouds. Simon wondered what might happen if 10, 20 --or heck 75 --percent of, say, all U.S. small businesses were dependent on Google Apps and the Google went down for hours.

Sounds possible. Still, I'm thinking (selfishly, I know) it might be better to go down with all my friends, colleagues, and clients than go down alone.

I had a system failure -- my first in 25 years -- in January. I remember skulking off to Panera to disclose I'd had a hard drive crash and plead for patience. Amid the sympathetic grunts, I suspected some corporate colleagues were attributing the failure to my "little home office" or to my failure to back-up properly. I was backed-up, of course – in three places -- which didn't mitigate the complexities of rebuilding a Mac mail file during an upgrade from Tiger to Leopard .. but that's another story.

In less far-flung -- but every bit as debilitating -- disasters, system upgrades also can render software applications useless. It's no fun being disarmed all alone.

I’m not using Google apps. Maybe I never will. But this little Desktop Diva that I have to upgrade, back-up, clean-up, coddle, and tend to every single day is pretty high maintenance. She whines for the latest toys and gets nasty when I ask her to do too many things at once. Sometimes I’m not sure she won’t commit suicide. I'm thinking her Big Brother might be more stable ...

Maybe Google Clouds will burst every now and then. The rain could be refreshing, what with it happening to everybody at once. Kind of like a no-school Snow Day, yes?

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Marketers Alert: Research Shows Trust Is A Brain Wash

The death of Walter Cronkite – the “most trusted man in America” -- prompted Paul Raeburn at NRP to interview Antonio Damasio, Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience at USC, and Director of USC’s Brain and Creativity Institute.

Raeburn asked Dr. Damasio what made Walter Cronkite so trustworthy. At first glance anyway, it seems brain chemicals were the deciders.

Damasio cited research that disclosed how -- at first sight -- human beings decide whom to trust. A large group of men and women of all ages and races were shown many images of expressionless people. Result? Certain facial configurations -- symmetry, sizes of facial components, overall balance, etc. -- triggered an automatic, rapid, undeliberated, non-conscious response to trust ... or not.

There’s more. When asked whether a voice can engender trust, Damasio said, “I believe so. It has to do with numerous aspects of voice. Probably pitch is the most important. The music of the voice, the tones and how they glide as you speak-- prosody -- is another important factor. [Our reaction] does not have to do at all with the content of the words.”

It seems that a “trustworthy” face coupled with a “trustworthy” voice can create a perfect storm of likeability. So what’s going on in our brains? That’s what Damasio and other neuroscientists are studying.

Damasio says certain types of brain damage can cause those affected to trust folks that others don't trust. By the same token, in experiments, the release into our brains of one small neuro-peptide – oxytosin -- also appears to increase a sense of trust in others. Awash in oxytosin, we seem to approach others more easily and with less fear. Damasio notes that oxytosin is an interesting molecule that has numerous other positive effects on human behavior, including effects on sexual behavior, romantic feelings, and even lactation.

Raeburn wondered if we can apply neuroscience to marketing. "Can this research, this notion of trust and what we're learning about it, help GM sell more cars and get itself back in its feet?"

“Yes, though I don’t know to what degree. I think it goes back to the fundamentals of human behavior and we don’t need to interpose detailed knowledge of the brain for that ... What is very important is for people to factor in this other aspect of trust with which we began the interview, which is natural, spontaneous, automatic and non-conscious [and which] will function as a bias...Ancient wisdom would tell you that you should not judge people by first encounter, but neuroscience can guarantee that [we do].”

As marketers, let's be sure the face/voice representing us is one consumers/customers/donors can instinctively trust. I mean, that’s not brain surgery .. or is it?

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

p.s. Still think these little brain washers aren't in charge? New research finally confirms that chemicals released in the brain do create the famous “runner’s high.” Finally, read NPR's full transcript here.

Tom Peters Says Blogging Changed His Life. And That's Not All.

It would seem Tom Peters had scaled the heights when he went In Search of Excellence back in 1982. No doubt he became famous. Peters has written 15 books, so we'd assume this man knows how to write. But in the Amex/Open session in July, Tom Peters said writing a blog – yes blogging – has changed his life. In Peters' words:

"I will simply say my first post was in August 2004. No single thing in the last 15 years professionally has been more important to my life than blogging. It has changed my life, it has changed my perspective, it has changed my intellectual outlook, it's changed my emotional outlook-- parentheses, it is the best damn marketing tool by an order of magnitude than I’ve ever had and it’s free."

Seth Godin, who appeared at the Entrepreneurial Mind Series with Peters, says it doesn’t matter if anybody reads your blog. "What matters is the metacognition of thinking about what you’re going to say. How do you explain yourself? How do you force yourself to describe in three paragraphs why you did something? How do you respond out loud? If you’re good at it, some people will read it; if you’re not good at it and you stick with it, you’ll get good at it … Basically you’re doing it for yourself to force yourself to become part of the conversation.”

My colleagues who blog seriously cite at least eight benefits (none of which have to do with making money):
• you learn stuff you never expected to learn
• blogging forces you to examine your own viewpoints
• blogging teaches you to justify and support your opinions
• the wisdom you impart is nothing compared to the wisdom you gain
• as you blog, your writing gets better and better: sharper, less wordy, more energetic
• over time, you learn to speak more forcefully
• blogging promotes discipline and structure
• blogging is big fun.

Bonus Point: Check out the entire AmEx Open Forum video series here.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Will American Airlines' New Tax on the Poor Take Off?

American Airlines has hiked their checked-baggage fees by $5.00 -- but only for us regular blokes. First- and business-class flyers are exempt from extra baggage charges, as are international flyers and full-fare tickets holders in economy class. Some might call this “taxing the poor” and it seems a questionable pricing practice in the dawning day of equal opportunity marketing.

Extra-baggage fees on domestic flights actually make sense. Most of us haul too much junk around anyway and a trimmed down view of what we "can’t do without" is laudatory. But the marketing engine that applies a surcharge only to certain classes of customer could backfire. In short, marketers should consider whether class-created price differentials are a good marketing strategy.

When the economy was in high flight, the travel industry promised various classes of travelers different treatment than that given to "regular" people. The system worked really well. "Loyalty" and other perks made travelers felt oh-so-special. Now that times have changed -- now that our downwards-adjusted economy includes lots more people with lots less money -- how will class-based pricing strategies fare? Will such distinctions evolve to a marketing revolution? Will consumers demand new egalitarian treatment, stoked by social media participation?

Maybe response to American’s baggage plan will divulge what's ahead . Let’s watch.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Bloggers Should Expect Press Releases

A colleague of mine recently got a digital spanking from a blogger. Amy (not her real name) had sent him a short news release targeted to the blogger's area of interest (marketing). The release featured a brief profile of and contact information for a client with digital marketing expertise.

Imagine Amy's surprise when she got back an email that began with the words ”Does your expert talk about spamming bloggers, Amy?” The note included a link that sent her to a blog post about spam.

Maybe he was having a bad day, but I think the blogger was as wrong as he was rude.

1) Results of an international Text100 Survey released in June make a clear distinction between professional news releases and spam. The survey confirms that 90 percent of 449 bloggers surveyed say they welcome contact by PR people and email is the preferred form of contact.

2) News releases (electronic or otherwise) shouldn’t require opt-in. Journalists -- by virtue of their chosen career -- have already opted in to receive legitimate information in their interest area.

3) Bloggers who write about corporate activities are arguably journalists. Information is their stock in trade and their tool is writing. Many bloggers can acquire press credentials and the practice is expanding.

4) Some blogging is flat-out business (nothing personal is going on here). Many bloggers accept advertising on their sites. Quite a few have published books. A good number accept speaking engagements.

All our blogger had to say was "take me off your list." No PR professional is going to pursue a journalist OR a blogger who's made that request. So why the attitude?

Thats my thinking and I’d love to hear yours.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Information Websites Are the Next Move in Social Media

I spent the last two days at the DMAW/AFPDC Bridge Conference (well-attended, especially by the nonprofit, fundraising crowd). I was struck by two similar, but different, approaches that exemplify the trend to what I’m calling “Information Websites” – one for the (collegial) masses, one for the elite.

The first example is ThePort. Introduced in partnership with Convio, Inc., in early 2008, ThePort Social Media Suite lets nonprofit and professional associations build their own branded social media communities. With declining membership in associations and shrinking charitable contributions, the portal cleaves groups and builds allegiance by creating an Internet space for members-only participants to link-up, communicate, share information, blog, post photos, add friends, send and receive private messages, send messages to everyone, rate posted information, create events, etc.

The second example, which won’t be rolled out for another month or so, is an expansive (and, presumably, expensive) site under development by marketing and ad agency Foster-Redmond. The client -- a pharmaceutical company with an obesity drug and $3 billion in annual sales -- has underwritten the development of the portal to bring together top thought-leaders in the medical practice areas of obesity, diabetes, gastroenterology, etc. Participation at the site will transcend practice areas and will be by "invitation-only." Content and activities are designed to attract top-tier professionals in the medical field. Development of the portal took about a year and progressed with the guidance of doctors, chief information officers, research directors, and other senior level managers. All site activities must operate within the strict government guidelines that regulate the pharmaceutical industry and content must pass rigorous legal scrutiny. Despite that, Principal Jeff Foster notes that the process is designed to accommodate the vetting of content, queries, and responses within 24 hours. Foster acknowledges that the effort is a “first,” the value of which remains to be tested, but he and Co-Principal Will Redmond believe that such high-level “ports of exchange” represent the true direction of social media. "We know if we can develop a site like this within the highly regulated pharmaceutical industry, we can do the same for any client," Remond says.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

LinkedIn Groups Deserve A Place in Social Media Efforts

The number of Professional Groups on LinkedIn seems to be exploding. I belong to 13 and just added another today.

As TechCrunch noted on March 20, LinkedIn made group management easier several months ago, when it allowed Group administrators to email updates to members. That's about the time I noticed some valuable activity on my LinkedIn groups. On July 7, Doug McSorley blogged the results of an informal poll that showed LinkedIn groups were getting much better participation than Facebook groups.

I couldn’t find a count on the total number of LinkedIn Groups, but I feel safe in saying there are enough for everybody. On June 24, the Applicant blog cited "10 LinkedIn Grops Every Job Seeks Should Join.” ODesk blog notes that there are 20 Groups for Freelancers. Bradley Will made a list of “Top 20 LinkedIn Groups ALL Entrepreneurs MUST Join." You get the point.

Louis Gray isn’t pleased with the way LinkedIn Groups function, though. On April 21, he noted shallow participation. "While my little social experiment is hardly comprehensive, discussions with other professionals in my network have offered much of the same qualitative analysis: Only a small percentage of groups see any significant conversation threads. So it would seem that in the minds of many I network with, LinkedIn groups are on the outs.”

Folks who commented on Louis’ post -- and if you're gauging whether or not to join a LinkedInGroup, you should read ALL the comments here -- generally agreed that group participation is relatively weak (few members comment, “discussions” fall flat, etc.), but many had useful suggestions. Sameer at Pretzel Logic said, "LinkedIn group discussions can certainly be anemic; however if you do get a conversation going, its far richer than many other social networks. The primary benefit to us in the early adopter crowd is that LinkedIn serves as a much more mainstream assessment of the point you're trying to get across. The tech echo chamber can get very myopic. The LinkedIn demographic helps to keep it real."

It takes only a few seconds to scan the email from Group managers and lately I’m finding that members are posting a lot more interesting articles, links, and suggestions. A couple of months ago the Twitter Innovators group invited members to pass along their Twitter names and profiles. Once they found out about it, a lot of spammers jumped on the bandwagon, but with careful culling, I was able to use the group to build my Follow list.

Bottom line: If a professional has time for only one social media effort, I'd recommend LinkedIn.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo