iPlot

Marketer sind die Feuilletonisten der Wirtschaft

The German Werteindex blog has published an interview with me (in two parts, in German) about values-based-based leadership and how marketers can act as “chief meaning officers” to fight the disentchantment of business.

Part 1

Herr Leberecht, Sie bezeichnen ein “meaning surplus”als grundlegend für zukünftige Markenloyalität. Und während sich unser gesamtes Wirtschaftssystem im Umbruch befindet, rufen sie gerade Marketer dazu auf, diesen Prozess des Wandeln federführend zu gestalten – als Interface zwischen Kunden und Unternehmen. Was ist das Neue an der Idee von “Meaning”? Inwiefern unterscheidet sich dieses Meaning von anderen emotionalen Markenbotschaften?

Ich sehe “Meaning” als ein vorgelagertes oder weitergreifendes Konzept. Emotionale Markenbotschaften sind Instrumente zur Verbreitung von Meaning. Aber die Botschaft ist nicht die Marke. Erfolgreiche emotionale Markenbotschaften berühren den Konsumenten nur dann, wenn der Markenkern für ihn von Bedeutung (“Meaning”) ist. Die unmittelbare Erfahrung der Marke kann (und sollte,  im Idealfall) emotional sein, aber der Markenkern – die Werte, die die Marke verkörpert und der Sinn, den sie stiftet – sind eher langfristiger und übergeordneter Natur. Die beiden Ebenen sind interdependent: Emotionale Momente in der Markenerfahrung verstärken die spirituelle Grundbindung an die Marke, und die bisweilen religiöse Bindung zur Marke (siehe Apple) manifestiert und festigt sich in emotionalen Marken-Momenten.

Aber das Neue am Meaning-Konzept ist nicht der Wertekatalog der Marke. Wirtschaft ist per definitionem kein wertefreier Raum (niemand wusste dies besser als der Moralphilosoph Adam Smith, der ja bezeichnenderweise vor Wealth of Nations eine moralphilosophische Schrift mit dem Title Theory of Moral Sentiments veröffentlichte). Schon immer haben Werte die Entscheidungen von Unternehmen und Organisationen geprägt: vom nach innen gewandten Arbeitsethos – wie arbeiten wir miteinander und behandeln wir unsere Mitarbeiter? – zum nach aussen gewandten moralischen Kodex – wie gehen wir mit unseren Stakeholdern um, und welche Werte liegen unseren Produkten und Dienstleistungen zugrunde? Seitdem zahlreiche Studien aufzeigten, dass Konsumenten “moralische” Marken bevorzugen, haben Unternehmen verinnerlicht, dass die Triple-Bottom-Line-Ausrichtung einen echten Wettbewerbsvorteil darstellt (“doing well by doing good”) und durch Modelle wie CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) und zuletzt Values-Based Management Werte externalisiert und ethisches Handeln zunehmend als strategischen Erfolgsfaktor in ihr operatives Geschäft integriert. Noch einen Schritt weiter geht der stark wachsende Bereich der Social Enterpreneurship: for-profit Firmen, deren Geschäftsmodell einzig und allein auf der Schaffung sozialen Mehrwerts basiert. Schon jetzt sind 10% aller europäischen Firmen Social Enterprises (mit insgesamt 11 Millionen Angestellten), und die Europäische Union hat gerade eine neue Social Business Policy erlassen, die diesen Sektor weiter stärken wird.

Was das Chief Meaning Officer-Konzept von all diesen Paradigmen unterscheidet, ist, dass es das Unternehmen – und hier Marketing als die treibende Kraft – als den Urheber von “Bedeutung” begreift, der aktiv Moral schafft, und zwar nicht nur als Grundlage und Checkpoint für die Moralität des Geschäftsgebarens, sondern als vorrangiges, philosophisches Ziel der gesamten Unternehmung, jenseits von CSR und Social Enterpreneurship: “The job of leadership today is not just to make money. It is to make meaning”, schreibt der US-Autor und Consultant John Hagel. Meaning ist nicht auf die soziale Verantwortung eines Unternehmens begrenzt, sondern reicht weiter und meint die Produktion von Bedeutung. Diese kann sich in einer intellektuellen, emotionalen, spirituellen oder ethischen Kategorie manifestieren, oder idealerweise in allen gleichzeitig. Unternehmen sind nicht nur ein moralischer Kompass für Konsumbürger und bieten Orientierung; Meaning Officers produzieren selber Moral und stiften Sinn. Sie setzen auf intrinsische Motivation und erweitern die Maslow’sche Pyramide um Meaning – um eine transzendente Erfahrung, die über materielle Bedürfnisse und die Selbstverwirklichung hinausgeht.

Wie können Meaning Officers das bewerkstelligen?

Dies kann durch umweltfreundliches Handeln geschehen, durch das Wahrnehmen von Verantwortung in der örtlichen Kommune oder die Achtung von Menschenrechten, aber eben auch durch individuelle Sinnstiftungen abseits der großen CSR-Themen, wie z.B. die Schaffung von kleinen Ritualen. Ein bisschen ist das wie Religion for Atheists, um den Titel des jüngst erschienenen Buches des britischen Philosophen Alain de Botton zu zitieren, der eine Art Gebrauchsanleitung zur praktischen Re-Spiritualisierung  unserer säkularisierten westlichen Gesellschaft verfasst hat. Chief Meaning Officers kämpfen gegen die “Entzauberung” der Wirtschaft, gegen die Diktatur von ROI und Excel-Tabellen, und gegen Marketing als objektive Wissenschaft. Sie bringen die Kultur zurück in die Technokratie, verbreiten Ambiguität und Geheimnis in einer weitgehend prozessbestimmten, zweckorientierten Arena, und schaffen Erfahrungen von Intimität und Exklusivität in aller Öffentlichkeit.

Diese neue Art von Leadership gewinnt an Bedeutung vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Ereignisse – von Lehmann Brothers zur Euro-Krise, dem Arabischen Frühling zu Occupy Wall Street. Wir erleben den Autoritäts- und Vertrauensverlust der traditionellen Institutionen und eine fundamentale Legitimitätserosion des Kapitalismus, und beides sind letztlich moralische Krisen. Konsumenten und Bürger erwarten mehr von der Wirtschaft, aber nicht nur im Sinne von praktizierter Umwelt- und Sozialverantwortung, von “guten” Produkten und moralischer Orientierung. Es geht um die Transformation von Wirtschaft an und für sich, um die ‘raison d’etre’ von Unternehmen, um die “Moral von der Geschichte”. Und da legen es die jüngsten politisch-ökonomischen Entwicklungen nahe, ein radikaleres Umdenken zu fordern. Was ist, wenn der Sinn des Wirtschaftens in der Sinnstiftung liegt? Oder aus der Marketing-Perspektive: Machen Marken nur dann Sinn, wenn sie Sinn machen? Der amerikanische Ökonom Robert C. Solomon argumentiert in seinem Buch A Better Way to Think About Business – How Values Become Virtues, dass das Marktsystem sich nicht durch Effizienz oder Profit rechtfertigen lässt, sondern nur dadurch, dass Menschen vor allem soziale und emotionale Wesen sind. Märkte bieten ihnen einen Mechanismus, eine “sympathetic community”, wie er das nennt, zum sozialen Austausch.

Wer in diesen Communities, diesen Netzwerken, florieren will, muss eine eigene, identifizierbare Kultur pflegen und jede Menge Sozialkapital mit einbringen. Marketing – ganz im Sinne des in jeglicher Hinsicht prophetischen Cluetrain Manifestos von 2001 – ist daher immer eine kulturelle Leistung, ein Diskurs. Chief Meaning Officers sind die Feuilletonisten der Wirtschaft. Sie schaffen die Soft Power, die den langfristigen Erfolg des Unternehmens gewährleistet. Das mag sich in der Tat “soft” anhören, aber in der Network Economy, mit ihrer zunehmenden Komplexität von Beziehungsgeflechten zwischen Konsumenten, Produzenten, Konkurrenten und Partnern, sind Sozialkapital und soziale Intelligenz zu entscheidenden Erfolgskriterien geworden.

Inwiefern sind auch Werbe- und Kommunikationsagenturen gefordert, “Meaning Agencies” zu werden? Was machen Agenturen heute schon richtig? Was machen die meisten noch immer falsch?

Viele machen vieles richtig. Die Branche ist viel smarter als ihr Ruf, und vordergründige pseudo-soziale Kampagnen wie Pepsi’s Refresh Project sind eher seltene Ausrutscher. Wie Wieden + Kennedy für Nike authentische Sub-Kulturen begriffen und behauptet hat, verdient höchste Anerkennung. Toll ist auch die Dachis Group, die den Begriff des Social Business konsequent auf alle Bereiche des Unternehmens augedehnt und eine einflussreiche Plattform aufgebaut hat, die unter anderem den Social Business Index und zahlreiche wegweisende Veröffentlichungen beinhaltet. Oder die Ads Worth Spreading Kampagne von TED (“ads so good you choose to watch!”).

Werbe – und Kommunikationsagenturen sind, glaube ich, insgesamt einen Schritt voraus und haben “Meaning Production” schon lange zu ihrer Domäne gemacht. Allerdings bleiben Agenturen aufgrund ihres beschränkten Einflusses letztlich nur Impulsgeber; die Hauptverantwortung liegt bei den Inhouse Marketing Departments – und die tun sich schwer, von traditionellen Marketing-Konventionen abzurücken, weil in der Konzernzentrale oft der Mut zum innovativen “meaningful marketing” fehlt und ihnen daher das Mandat zum umfassenden Change Management versagt bleibt.

Wo sind die größten Hemmschwellen auf dem Weg zum “Chief Meaning Officer“?

Die größten Hürden für den Meaning Officer sind jedenfalls intern. Da stoßen Meaning Officer naturgemäß auf jede Menge Skepsis, und es ist nicht immer einfach, den Zynismus der eigenen Mitarbeiter, die Kluft zwischen den Glaubensbekenntnissen der Geschäftsleitung und der tatsächlichen Kultur des Unternehmens, zu überwinden. Ein Bekenntnis zum Anderssein, kreative Risikofreudigkeit, der Mut zu sozialem Marketing und der Drang zum Experimentieren sind die Charakteristika des Chief Meaning Officers. Wie Marketing-Guru Seth Godin so schön treffend formuliert: ‚Wer sich nicht der Gefahr aussetzt, wegen seiner Idee gefeuert zu werden, dessen Idee ist nicht wirklich originell.‘ Ich weiß, das ist leichter gesagt als getan, aber Marketer müssen endlich aus der Defensive heraus und selbstbewusster ihre Philosophie vertreten – und anstelle des ständigen Nachweises des Wertes von Marketing neue Werte definieren, einfordern und schaffen.

Part 2

Herr Leberecht, Sie fordern Unternehmen auf, mehr meaning zu produzieren statt neuer Produkte. Den Marketer sehen Sie als zentrales Interface zwischen Kunden und Unternehmen, der den Prozess der meaning production führt.

 Haben Marketer überhaupt ausreichend Einfluss auf die Praxis ihrer Unternehmen in Bereichen außerhalb der Marketing-Abteilung?

Die Irrelevanz-Falle ist allgegenwärtig, aber inwieweit man reintappt hängt vom Selbstverständnis des Marketers ab. Marketing wird ja oft fälschlicherweise als Cost Center gebrandmarkt, als Luxus-Funktion für gute Zeiten, dabei ist es ein kritischer Erfolgsfaktor (wir wissen von zahlreichen Studien, dass der Erfolg oder das Scheitern von Unternehmen stark vom Marketing abhängt) und im Idealfall eine der wenigen Funktionen, die eine ganzheitliche Sicht auf das Unternehmen haben. Das sollten sich Marketers zu nutze machen. Sie sollten Beziehungen aufbauen zu anderen Funktionen und auf (Marken)Kontrolle verzichten, um somit mehr Einfluss auszuüben.

Das einflussreichste Marketing ist Marketing ohne Marketing: Marketing, das sich mehr als ein Netzwerk versteht als eine Funktion. Ich sage meinem Team immer, dass wir unser Ziel nicht erreicht haben, wenn unsere Funktion unternehmensweit an Macht gewinnt, sondern wenn das ganze Unternehmen zur Marketingorganisation geworden ist und wie ein Marketer denkt und fühlt.

Was zeichnet Unternehmen aus, in denen Marketer erfolgreich ganzheitlich gestalten können?

Erfolgreiche CMOs wie Beth Comstock bei GE sind für Geschäftsfeldbestimmung, Produktentwicklung und strategische Wachstumsinitiativen verantwortlich, in enger Zusammenarbeit mit den Business Units. Wie es Comstock vorgemacht hat, sollte Marketing nahe beim Kunden sein, eine langfristige Sicht einnehmen (und sich darin deutlich von Vertrieb/Sales unterscheiden) und als ein Change Agent agieren. Dies trifft insbesondere auf den Bereich Digitale Transformation zu: Ein jüngste Studie von Cap Gemini/MIT besagt, das zwei Drittel aller globalen Konzerne mit der Transformation zum digitalen Unternehmen erhebliche Schwierigkeiten haben. Das Thema Enterprise 2.0 – also der Einzug sozialer Medien in den IT-Mainstream und die Auswirkungen sozialer Technologien im allgemeinen – bereiten Chef-Etagen erhebliche Kopfzerbrechen. Wie Business zu Social Business wird, und nicht nur im Sinne von Social Responsibility, sondern viel weitreichender, im Sinne einer kompletten Neu-Definierung von Wertschöpfung – durch Ko-Kreation mit dem Kunden, Crowdsourcing, radikale Transparenz, usw. – diesen Wandel können Marketer als Meaning Officers entscheidend mit antreiben.

Unterliegen nicht auch Werte und Sinnstiftungen der Gefahr, austauschbar zu werden? Z. B. Umweltbewusstsein ist schon längst kein USP mehr. Welche kritischen Erfolgsfaktoren gibt es ist in der Positionierung von Werten und “Meaning” zu beachten?

Meaning hat kein Verfallsdatum. Die Produktion von Bedeutung kann nicht austauschbar werden, weil sie eigentlich immer austauschbar ist. Es ist ein Template. Mit anderen Worten: Was zählt, ist die Erfahrung, der Moment des Sinnstiftens an sich, das “Unterschiedmachen”. Mit welchen Werten und Ideen das im einzelnen geschieht, sollte jedes Unternehmen für sich entscheiden. Apple steht für die Humanisierung von Technologie, IBM für die globalisierte Nutzung von Technologie im Dienste eines “Smart Planets”, Coca-Cola für Happiness und so weiter. Marken müssen ihre These finden und dann jene Argumente im kollektiven Bewusstsein verorten, die ihnen recht geben.

Aber über diese allgemeinen Markenassoziationen hinaus: Wie produziert man Bedeutung? Was macht Bedeutung aus?  Vereinfacht gesagt, sind das, denke ich, vier Komponenten: Disruption, Seltenheit, Soziabilität und Transzendenz. Disruption bedeutet die Abweichung von der Routine, die Verletzung einer „mental map“, eines standardisierten kognitiven Modells. Zum Beispiel: Das iPhone stellte die mental maps von Computer und Telefon in Frage und verband beide zu etwas Ungesehenem, einer neuen Kategorie, die eine „dritte Bedeutung“ schuf.

Sehgewohnheiten und kognitive Muster brechen – so funktioniert Werbung. Meaning braucht daher noch weitere Dimensionen. Nehmen Sie das Beispiel der deutschen Nationalmannschaft: Hört sich trivial an, aber was würde den EM-Sieg des Teams bedeutungsvoll machen? Nun, zum einen, Seltenheit. Die deutsche Elf hat schon seit 1990 keinen internationales Turnier mehr gewonnen. Meaning ist umgekehrt proportional zum Auftreten von bedeutenden Ereignissen.

Und der Seltenheitswert eines Ereignisses potenziert sich, wenn er teilbar wird, d.h. ein soziales Moment hat. Dies kann auf vier Arten geschehen: durch die Möglichkeit, an Bedeutung teilzuhaben und sie aktiv mitzugestalten; durch das Teilen einer bedeutenden Erfahrung mit anderen (Bedeutung entsteht immer im Austausch mit anderen, ist ein soziales Phänomen – siehe „Fanmeile“); durch Großzügigkeit (wenn man mehr gibt als nimmt, entsteht ein Bedeutungsexzess, ein “meaning surplus”); und durch den sozialen Mehrwert, den Beitrag zur Gesellschaft, zum allgemeinen Wohl oder dem von benachteiligten sozialen Gruppierungen.

Letzteres führt zum Kriterium der Transzendenz: Es kann ein gesellschaftliches Ziel sein, das das individuelle Ereignis überhöht, eine Ideologie, oder eine abstrakte, universale Wahrheit. Bedeutende Erlebnisse deuten immer auf eine übergreifende Vision, eine „dritte Bedeutung” hin. Sie stehen nie nur für sich selbst. Warum wird eine Fussball-WM zum “Sommermärchen” und ein Team zum „Weltmeister der Herzen“? Das ist ja kein reiner PR-Spin, sondern eine echte emotionale Bewegung. Das konnte man auch bei Steve Jobs Tod sehen, als die kollektive Trauer fast schon ekstatische Züge annahm, oder in Obamas vieldiskutierter Präsidentschaftskampagne von 2008, in der sich Hunderttausende von jungen Amerikanern engagierten, weil sie von der Vision von “Hope” – von der Machbarkeit echten Wandels – inspiriert waren. Oder zuletzt Occupy Wall Street. Es gibt einfach diese Momente, die eine tiefe innere Wahrheit in uns bloßlegen.

Chief Meaning Officers behalten alle diese Faktoren – Disruption, Seltenheit, Soziabilität und Transzendenz – bei ihren Aktivitäten immer im Auge. Aber ein fünfter fehlt noch: Echtheit. Nur wenn die Intentionen des Unternehmens ehrlich sind, wird die Authentizität der Marke fühlbar. Ansonsten ist Meaning bedeutungslos.

Wie passt die Entwicklung zu mehr Meaning zur ansonsten ebenso immer öfter hörbaren Forderung nach mehr Meßbarkeit und effektiven ROI?

Zunächst einmal: Ich schenke der geläufigen Formel, dass man nur das managen kann, was man messen kann, keinen Glauben. Im Gegenteil: Die besten Manager sind Experten im Managen des Nicht-Messbaren. Um es noch etwas mehr zuzuspitzen: ROI ist eine Schimäre und in der Regel ein Alibi, um Chefs zufriedenzustellen. Wer keine Ideen und keine Vision hat, der hat eben Zahlen. Verstehen Sie mich nicht falsch, ich bin nicht grundsätzlich gegen die Quantifizierung der Wirkung von Marketing-Programmen. Aber nur, wenn man im Hinterkopf behält, dass diese Zahlen immer nur eine Annäherung dastellen, eine Interpretation, aber niemals eine objektive Wahrheit. Der ROI bleibt zwangsläufig oft “intangible” (Anm. d. Red.: immateriell). Wobei selbst der Sprachgebrauch zweifelhaft ist. Dass die vermeintlichen “tangible assets” (Anm. d. Red.: materielle Vermögenswerte) unter Umständen wesentlich volatiler sind als die “intangibles” hat die jüngste Finanzkrise ja nachdrücklich bewiesen. (Sie hat uns auch daran erinnert, dass ein Grossteil der Buchhaltungswerte eines Unternehmens sich als vollkommen virtuell herausstellen kann.)

Das schöne deutsche Wort der “Wertschätzung” wird immer noch unterschätzt im Vergleich zu den sogenannten “harten” Metrics wie Leads, Funnel Contribution oder Revenue Contribution. Goodwill, Reputation, Customer Lifetime Value (der Wert eines einzelnen Kunden über den gesamten Zeitraum der Kundenbeziehung), soziales Kapital oder “organizational capital” (wie es der US-Finanztheoretiker Baruch Lev nennt) – diese Werte sind meiner Meinung nach wesentlich aussagekräftiger, wenn auch ebenso schwer präzise zu messen.

Hinzu kommt, dass die meisten ROI Messungen meist kurzfristig gedacht und allein auf das Quartalsergebnis oder die unmittelbare Wirkung von Marketingaktivitäten bezogen sind. Aber das Quartal (und wie überhaupt der gesamte übliche Budgetrahmen von einem Jahr) sind recht willkürliche Planungseinheiten, die nur selten mit der Realität eines Unternehmens übereinstimmen. Der Markt steht niemals still, Kunden denken und handeln in unterschiedlichen zeitlichen Perspektiven, und die Investition in Marken, in die Beziehung zu Kunden, in intellektuelle und emotionale Erfahrungen, lässt sich nur schwer formal erfassen. Jeder Marketer, der erklärt, genau zu wissen, mit welchem Effekt er wo investiert, lügt. Der ROI von Marketing ist letztlich immer eine Scheinkalkulation.

Und dennoch machen die meisten Marketingleute das Spiel mit – weil sie durch die Machtkonventionen in ihren Unternehmen dazu gezwungen werden und glauben, sonst ihr Mitspracherecht bei strategischen Entscheidungen zu verlieren. Wer Zahlen hat, gewinnt.

Ich bin mir sicher, dass viele Marketingabteilungen 50% ihrer Zeit damit verbringen, ihre Programme zu evaluieren und ROI Reports für das Management-Team zu erstellen. Stellen Sie sich vor, wie viel mehr sie erreichen würden, wenn sie auch nur die Hälfte dieser Zeit nicht für Reporting, sondern für kreative Marketing-Aktivitäten aufbrächten! Wie viel mehr Bedeutung könnten sie produzieren, wie viel neue Kunden könnten sie schaffen und wie viele existierende Kundenbeziehungen stärken? Ich kenne viele Kollegen, die gezwungen werden, detaillierte ROI Analysen zu erstellen, bevor sie überhaupt Geld ausgeben können – aber dann ist es meistens schon zu spät. Im Zeitalter des Social Web hat das Marketing keine Zeit mehr für ausgiebige Planung – alles was passiert, passiert jetzt. Just do it! Der Marketing-Mix ändert sich jeden Tag. Das einzig konstante sind Experimente – und die Werte, die sich in langfristigen Beziehungen zu Kunden und Öffentlichkeit ausdrücken.

Ein letzter Gedanke noch: Trotz des ganzen Hypes um Big Data und die totale, Echtzeit-nahe Erfassung und Analyse von Kundendaten, sollte man nicht vergessen, dass Daten immer nur reaktives Verhalten ermöglichen; selbst die datenbasierte Zukunftsplanung ist eine Reaktion. Statt auf Big Data setze ich auf Big Intuition! Wer wirklich innovativ sein will und etwas verändern will, vertraut seiner Intuition. Die ist nämlich schneller als alle Daten. Paradoxerweise gilt in der Wissensgesellschaft: Intuition sticht Wissen aus. Chief Meaning Officers wissen das. Sie erahnen Trends, bevor diese messbar werden, vertrauen ihrem (Mit)Gefühl und machen somit den Unterschied aus, der dann in ein echtes Differenzierungsmerkmal mündet. Wer nur Daten analysiert, ahmt das Bestehende nach. Wer selbstbewusst genug ist, um Daten zu ignorieren, kann Verhalten beeinflussen und tatsächlich etwas Neues schaffen. Henry Ford hatte Recht: ‚Wenn ich auf meine Kunden gehört hätte, hätte ich schnellere Pferde produziert‘. Daten helfen uns zu verstehen, wie die Welt ist; Innovatoren und Visionäre aber (und Chief Meaning Officers sind beides!) sehen die Welt, wie sie nicht ist.

 

Forrester: Adaptive Branding and the New Four P’s of Marketing

Forrester is about to release a new report on “Adaptive Brand Marketing: Rethinking Your Approach to Branding in the Digital Age,” in which it proposes replacing “brand managers” with “brand advocates.” Advertising Age provides a sneak peek at the ‘new 4 Ps of Marketing’ presented in the report: permission, proximity, perception, and participation. Other core elements include: “embracing an expanded role for consumer intelligence, focusing on strategic brand platforms, and empowering a federated organization."

A fervent advocate of marketing as a cross-organizational catalyst for change myself, I wholeheartedly agree with BBH Labs which believes the Forrester report points to a potentially larger opportunity for the discipline: “It’s not just the marketing organization that needs to reorient itself given the now normal digital age, but the company itself should consider how it reorients itself around its marketing organization. In most progressive companies, it is the marketing function that has most quickly and deeply engaged with the new interactive toolkit.”

This view is really becoming a groundswell, and you will be hard pressed to find anyone these days who would deny the profound change social media presents for all customer relations; the new need for openness, agility, and hyper-sociality; as well as the call for “networked” (or “federated,” as Forrester calls it) organizations. David Armano from the Dachis Group (“Social Business Design”), Francois Gossieaux (Beeline Labs), or Charlene Li and her Altimeter Group are just some of the pundits who have very succinctly articulated these themes.

Further reading:

HSM Interview with Amazon’s former Chief Scientist Andreas Weigend on the four P’s of marketing

Ogilvy and Acision white paper on advertising in 2020

Jones and Bonevac: "Should We Be In the Advertising Industry?"

Dave Evans: "Social Business: the New Black" 

John Ellett: "Marketing has changed"

George Potts: "Political Campaigns: The New Paradigm for Marketing Organizations in the Social Media Age"

Rob Rose: "Stop Being a ‘Data Driven’ Marketer"

The Conversation Wars

Modernista did it. Skittles did it. And now the world’s hottest advertising firm, Crispin Porter + Bogusky (CPB), has done it, too: the NY outfit has re-launched its corporate web site as a conversational social hub that curates what is being said about CPB rather than staging what CPB has to say. Some may scoff at this move and denigrate it as “sooooo six months ago,” but I agree with Paul Isakson when he heralds the influence of the new CPB site on the rest of the industry as potentially paradigm-shifting.

The demarcation line here runs between pioneer and early adopter: CPG is the latter, no doubt, and while there’s nothing really innovative about the new site, it is nonetheless still radical relative to the vast majority of corporate web sites out there. Bringing CPB’s client portfolio to life by marrying the Kantian “You are what you do” with the Twitterian “You are what they say about you,” it certainly sets a new standard for the online presentation of creative industry brands. And – the proof is in the pudding – it accomplishes the ultimate goal of any conversational site: it is the talk of the town (or at least that of Madison Avenue).

However, as I was browsing through the plethora of content on the new (beta) CPB.com, an unsettling feeling came over me. It occurred to me that the trend of conversational corporate web sites going mainstream might trigger an unexpected, inadvertent effect. With brands turning into curators of conversations about them and brand value increasingly determined by the value of aggregated content, third parties might be inspired to hijack these very brands by offering curated conversations on their behalf.

Similar to Google’s profiting from original content on the backs of original publishers, brand-specific aggregators could benefit from being parasites of original brands’ social universe. In other words, what if Skittles faced unexpected competition from a third-party site that provided a much more comprehensive and easier-to-access curation of Skittles conversations than Skittles.com itself? Or if McDonalds suddenly saw itself confronted with a site aggregating blogs, videos, news, and tweets, all about but not by McDonalds? Think of this as the logical extension of the company profiles that already exist on LinkedIn and XING, which aggregate individual member data into a fairly transparent view of companies, including employee information and recent news. Indeed, third-party brand curators might realize that brands live in the ‘social commons,’ and that whoever builds the right aggregation mechanism and establishes the most popular channels to reach a mass audience will “own” the branded conversation on the web.

This scenario will hardly be a conflict that brands can legally solve, and it may therefore present a troubling blind spot in the social media ecosystem. Sure, brands can claim their corporate URLs and even their Facebook profiles (not always their Twitter feeds, as you can see exemplified by http:/twitter.com/ted – “I got it first, I win.”). Aggregators, however, operate in social web’s no man’s land, in indisputable territory.

Brand value, extremely volatile anyway, would then become completely unmanageable for the original brand owner. The very transcendence that is emblematic of powerful brands, may become their curse: brand loyalty is not so much loyalty towards a certain company; rather it is – as the name implies – loyalty towards a brand, wherever it lives and however it appears, both of which not limited to the confines of the official representation on the brand owner’s properties. It is the conundrum of successful brand builders that the bigger their brand becomes, the more likely their risk that they lose it to the social commons. Skittles and CPB have recognized that the main threat for their brands is not coming from competitors at the center of their industry but from outliers at the fringes –and they have preempted it, at least so far. My advice for all the others, the late adopters: Take action quickly and launch your own branded aggregation portals before third parties beat you to the punch!

While third-parties might try to benefit from curating branded conversations, Twitter produces the reverse trend as well: brands acting as parasites of existing third-party conversations. UK furniture retailer Habitat had to apologize for referencing the popular hashtag #iranelection in its Twitter feeds. (Over)-eager to drive eyeballs to its feed, it had committed the ultimate sin of social brands: it had stolen a collective currency that no one brand could possibly own.

Another scenario is brands initiating Twitter conversations that are essentially solipsistic. Web-site building company Moonfruit conducted a campiagn offering10 free MacBook Pros as prizes randomly awarded to Twitterers who would use the hashtag #moonfruit. The result: #moonfruit became a trending topic, attracting 400 tweets a minute, more than 10,000 times per hour, and 200,000 per day. Moonfruit’s Twitter followers rose to 23,000, and according to a Moonfruit spokesperson, visits to its site were up 600% on day two of the campaign. Some bemoan it as a "tragedy of the commons" or caution that "unless the Twitterverse wises up, we'll end up getting deluged with hashtag spam." I'm not so worried. The different responses to Habitat's and Moonfruit's campaign show that the Twitterverse can self-regulate attention-hijacking attempts and tell the cool from the not-so-cool. Let Twitter do what Twitter can do. All is fair in the conversation wars.

[Picture credit: Werkmann]

Get Social Now!

Several blog posts this week, combined, pinpoint what are arguably the two most influential trajectories for the impact of communication technologies on business these days: from real-time web to real-time business, and from social media to social business design.

Let’s start with the former. Referring to Salesforce.com founder and CEO Marc Benioff and his presentation at the Structure 09 conference in San Francisco last week, DigitalBeat claims that the real-time web is not only shaping the future of all computing but also that of business overall: “In business it’s real-time or it’s no time.” It goes on by quoting Benioff: “Customers (…) expect everything to happen right away— if they update their data, they expect those changes to appear immediately, not an hour or two in the future. (…) Any concept of batch or delay in development or execution, I think, will not be tolerated by customers anymore. (…) Even in development, customers are demanding now that they want to be able to build in that sandbox and deploy immediately, instantly, no delay.”

Sure, you may say, customers always want it faster and cheaper, that’s not news. But the implications Benioff talks about are more profound and affect the way organizations operate and adapt their business models to the new and ever-changing demands of immediacy. Some examples: Zara, the Spanish clothing chain, uses customer feedback to develop new clothes, in near real-time. TCHO, the San Francisco-based chocolatier, relies on continuous flavor development and customer feedback to drive constantly evolving versions of its dark chocolate, with variations emerging as often as every 36 hours. Status updates, embedded news feeds, and Twitter apps have injected some “real-time-ism” into professional online social networks such as LinkedIn and XING, converting them from address books to conversational circles, from networking forums to collaboration platforms. Zappos, the online retailer, successfully combines real-time customer service on Twitter with near-real-time delivery – having established a powerful, dynamic brand before letting its customers decide what business it was actually in. And Skittles, the candy brand, ingeniously replaced its corporate homepage with the 'Interweb,' a collage of real-time social web conversations not by but about Skittles – essentially recreating itself as the first ever real-time brand. All these models show that the news industry’s big conundrum applies to every other business, too: It used to be that there’s nothing more boring that yesterday’s newspaper. Now there’s nothing more boring than today’s. When you relaunch your business model, product, brand identity, web site – it’s already too late. Real-time beats planning to the punch.

Real-time businesses therefore must get rid of long-term strategy plans, product road maps, goals and objectives, and all the other superfluous documents that distract organizations from focusing on their true mission – the here and now. Most of these documents are inward anyway and can be easily replaced with one strong and permanent mission statement (which, if your company culture is intact, does not even need to be verbalized).

Real-time business is inherently social – there is no real-time without social. The more businesses open up their organizations and invite external voices into their inner sanctum, the more real-time they will become. Getting social will help companies gather customer intelligence in real-time and use it to move faster. In the future, real-time businesses may deliver before their customers even articulate their needs. And they will provide immediate value without immediate return, in other words they will over-deliver – free for now but with a material or immaterial return later. What is the inadvertent business model for media might be a fulcrum for companies that manage to achieve a brand premium through customer participation as a part of real-time product development: “building a plane in the air,” together with their customers.

"The process is the product,” as Trendwatching writes in its latest report, in which it also claims that the real-time the web is breeding a new quest for longevity or “Foreverism”: “the new popularity of technology that allows consumers to find, follow, interact and collaborate forever with anyone & anything.” It’s not as paradoxical as it may sound. Living real-time means living in the ongoing – forever. If everything happens in real-time, nothing is ever final and always in permanent beta. Conversely, if everything lasts forever on the Google web (your emails, networks, conversations) and your digital presence is only as good as your latest search results and Twitter updates, you better utter some digital impressions NOW.

And yet, what’s required is a shift in thinking and ultimately a new organizational model that goes beyond feeding the social media beast on the real-time web: “If the big picture is business transformation, it's going to take more than a few tweets to get there,” David Armano writes in his post on ‘social business design,’ and argues that ““Social Businesses are those which are designed from top to bottom as a reflection of the world we all live in online today. A business where everyone is connected and able to contribute but also where the right tools are available to them to do all of this with business intent from the beginning.”

For centuries, organizations have considered it their task to conquer chaos and manage people, now they have to embrace the sudden chaos instigated by unmanageable throngs of instantly and elegantly self-organized individuals. Whether that will lead to the end of organizations remains to be seen; it will definitely lead to the end of organizations as we know them.

frog design Unveils “Power” Issue of design mind Magazine

I'm very happy to announce that we just released the latest issue of our design mind print and online publication. The new issue, the third print edition and tenth overall, focuses on the theme of "Power."

As the global recession has altered the economic landscape, and digital technologies continue to challenge conventional hierarchies, design mind explores new definitions of influence and power. Who has it, where can you find it, how is it being used, and what happens if you lose it?

Highlights of the new issue include an interview with Philip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychology professor, TED speaker, and Abu Ghraib expert witness known for his infamous 1971 Prison Experiment, in which he recruited students to play prisoners and guards in a mock jail until the project took on a disturbing life of its own.

frog founder and legendary designer Hartmut Esslinger offers readers an exclusive sneak peek of his new book "A Fine Line: How Design Strategies Are Shaping the Future of Business." The book, to be published by Wiley imprint Jossey-Bass on June 29th, delves into frog's iconic work for global powerhouses including Apple, Disney, Lufthansa, SAP, and Sony.

Other features in the new issue include:
- "Wanted: Chief Meaning Officer": How the new social power of marketing can transform business.
- "Power Up": Ten innovative clean-tech and energy startups to watch.
- "In Search Of": Seven design researchers write about their unusual and wonderful discoveries on the job.
- "Design with Intent": How designers can influence behavior.
- "The Appearance of Influence": Do you have to look a certain way to be powerful?
- "The Napoleon Effect": Why small and simple ideas sometimes bring the most success.
- "The Art of the Unfriend": When social networking becomes social stress.

Written by frog designers, technologists, and strategists, design mind provides the design and innovation community with perspectives on industry trends, emerging technologies, and global consumer culture. The magazine is published three times per year and features interviews with high-profile thought leaders along with contributions from external writers, designers, and photographers. The print edition is currently available for purchase online at designmind.frogdesign.com; in San Francisco at Alexander Book Company and Farley’s; in New York at St. Mark’s Bookshop; and in Shanghai, China, at the 100percent design store. Readers can also access select content from the magazine online along with additional Web-only features including a video series, a blog network, and interactive content from frog’s exclusive speaker series events.

The premier print issue of design mind launched in July 2008 and was widely recognized by the design and business community as well as by publications such as BusinessWeek, Forbes, The San Francisco Chronicle and Core77, which called it "a tightly designed, thoughtful tool." The magazine was selected as a winner for 365: AIGA Annual Design Competitions 30, STEP magazine’s STEP Inside Design 100, and Creativity + Commerce, Print magazine’s International Business Graphics review.

This summer, frog design has been invited to produce a special design mind issue in conjunction with the upcoming TEDGlobal conference in Oxford, UK (July 21-24).

Is Advertising Dead? or The Third Way of Building Brand Equity

(Credit): Element 22

There seem to be three (non-mutually exclusive) models for marketers tasked with building brand equity: marketing scarcity, marketing artificial scarcity, or marketing relevance.

Scarcity seems to be at the core of all marketing: an exclusive, unique value that can be reproduced; an original idea replicated for many. That's how markets work, how marketing works. Branding is effective when it keeps the aura of an original idea intact despite its mechanical reproduction. Apple's original idea, for instance, could be described as "technology must be fun and human," and it has not lost an inch of its integrity. That's the trait of a strong brand: the idea remains scarce while its distribution becomes abundant. The scarcity of all branded, manufactured products is of course artificial. If it wasn't, these products wouldn't need to be branded. That's the whole point (and the difference between water and bottled water.)

Some brands have taken this concept a step further by creating a special type of artificial scarcity: "democratic exclusivity." Sounds paradoxical? Well, it is. But it works. Gmail has pioneered it: An (exclusive) invitation-only service that pretty much everyone can get invited to (democratic). As another example, take Apple's strategy with the iPhone app store. It is a closed system (exclusive) but principally open for third parties (democratic). Look at the Kindle that Amazon purportedly shares as an app for other mobile devices. It shows that it's certainly good to have recognizable hardware (exclusive) but the true value lies in the software that you own and that you can use to extend the reach of your brand (democratic). Or Radiohead's pay-as-you-like release of “In Rainbows”: Buyers could determine the price (democratic) but the offer only stood for a limited period of time (exclusive). The album - online and physical distribution combined - sold more than Radiohead's previous releases, and the radically democratic way of pricing created a significant amount of brand equity for the band. Democratic exclusivity at its best: artificial scarcity in abundance.

The third and perhaps most game-changing model for marketers is selling relevance rather than scarcity. Jeff Jarvis points to Digg's new advertising system that enables users to vote on ads. Techcrunch calls it a "self service advertising product" that is "somewhat similar to Google Adwords, but with a twist." The twist is essentially a reversal of the traditional advertising paradigm: The most popular ads, as voted on by Digg users, will get more prominent placement and a lower cost-per-click. In other words: The more users digg an ad, the less the advertiser pays. "The Digg system rests on a Cluetrainy need to deliver authentic value and relevance – like Google's ads," Jarvis notes, and he argues "that's the way advertising probably needs to go: The better your relationship (which springs from a better product and service), the more your customers will market it for you, the less you'll have to pay to market it." Jarvis is right: "The future of advertising needs to be selling – that is, enabling – relevance instead of selling scarce space, time, or eyeballs. The future needs to be about adding value – relevance – rather than selling scarcity (extracting what the market will bear).”

Equity is the accumulation, the repeated occurrence, of actions, interactions, and transactions that add value. The best way, then, to build brand equity is to repeatedly and consistently add value through all your interactions with customers. Advertising doesn't add value; branded content does (information). Promotions don't add value; branded entertainment does (entertainment). When you brand something, you don't just market scarcity and advertise your products and services, you market your ability to add value that is relevant.

The web, and the social web in particular, reconciles artificial scarcity with relevance, and that's why more and more branding dollars are moving online. It is the ideal forum for creating an abundance of scarce moments, thousands of small great ideas instead of one great big one. These small great ideas come to live in brief moments of attachment with customers that are personalized and truly relevant for them.

"Advertising is failure," says Jeff Jarvis, and he thinks "media only get in the way of customer relationships." And indeed, how will you make more friends at a party? Showing up with a big banner around your neck that says "I am a great friend" or engaging in a handful of conversations with strangers, listening to their stories and detecting affinities whilst accomplishing a sense of privacy that gradually becomes intimate? Right. In the end, that’s what we should be doing as marketers to build real, sustainable brand equity – creating publicity through intimacy, loyalty through decency.

next09: Video of "Chief Meaning Officer" Talk

Here's the video of my talk at next09. Note that I changed the title last minute...

next09: From Google Economy to Twitter Economy

I'm still processing the many great insights from the next09 conference in Hamburg, one of Europe's leading digital/creative/marketing forums and one that stands out from the conference circuit because of its unique German-international focus (bilingual program, 80% international participants, many international speakers). This year's theme was "Share Economy," and the 1,300 attendees consisted of European VCs and angel investors, web 2.0 entrepreneurs, media, creative agencies, and execs from German corporations (from BMW to Deutsche Bank to Deutsche Telekom).

Jeff Jarvis: "The Great Restructuring"

The first day, the keynote day, was a little disappointing, maybe because expectations were so high. Jeff Jarvis warmed up the crowd with his trademark "What Would Google Do?" Powerpoint deck. While a terrific thinker and speaker, for some reason he and the audience did not really click although he presented a lot of thought-provoking content. The rather stiff response may be attributed to the fact that the attendees were either too familiar with what they heard or felt slightly overwhelmed. Or maybe they were indeed excited - but too German to show it…

Umair Haque, who followed Jarvis, faced an even tougher, albeit partly self-inflicted challenge: explaining the new paradigm of "Constructive Capitalism" in 45 minutes. That's like asking Marx to walk you through his Communist Manifesto in a Twitter chat. It didn't help, certainly, that Haque used the much gushed-about Prezi presentation software; all the zooming in and out was dizzying and, if anything, exposed the lack of stringency in his outline.

Fortunately, Haque had an opportunity to correct this first impression and reiterate some of his thoughts on a panel with Jarvis a day later, which turned out to be a much more suitable format for his ideas on the transformation of capitalism. He also took the occasion to rebut the attacks of Andrew Keen ("The Cult of the Amateur"), who, on the opening day, had chastised Haque (and all the other thinkers he considers to be under the dark influence of Silicon Valley) for propagating rampant free market liberalism and a dangerous new radical individualism in the guise of the social, consumer-empowered share economy that the conference was celebrating. Keen poignantly remarked that Twitter was getting us back into the 18th century: rather than liberating us from institutional hierarchies, it would reinforce an old power structure and an all too human division of roles: between those who follow and those followed.

Andrew Keen: "Digital Vertigo"

Jeff Jarvis & Umair Haque: "When Money Talks"

Keen accused Haque et al of naïveté and insisted that Google and the other web juggernauts were not "leveling the playing field" through link love (by sharing the scarcest resource on the web: attention), as Haque had claimed, but were rather using it to expand their pursuit of world dominance. In Keen's eyes, Google's openness is nothing but a suave mechanism to foment a monopoly in the attention markets. In the same vein, a party pooper in the audience asked Jarvis: "If free sharing is the future of business, why doesn't Google share its page rank algorithm?" Jarvis' response wasn't all too convincing: concerns over malicious abuse of the data. Hmm. So much for radical transparency and trust as overriding principles in the share economy.

To Google's (and Jarvis') defense, one could counter with Haque's sharp line: "When we're all hyper-connected, the cost of evil goes up." True. Moreover, Google does provide real value as it has created a win-win-win business model (advertisers, consumers, Google) that is vastly different from the toxic chunk Haque bemoaned in the non-sustainable and ultimately value-free products that toppled capitalism as we knew it: the Hummer, fast food, derivatives, etc. And yet, if advertising is the admission that you have a mediocre product, and that it is in fact an expression of "failure," as Jarvis put it, then it is hard to reconcile this view with the fact that advertising remains the main revenue stream in the very Google economy from which Jarvis wants us all to learn.

Despite the flaws in Jarvis' and Haque's thinking, however, I am eager to defend them. It's easy to deconstruct constructive visions of the future as ill-informed descriptions of present realities but it is a much bigger task to actually come up with a positive vision. Keen, the rebel with a good cause, does nothing but throwing a bomb, which he readily admits, but he falls short of offering an alternative to the frameworks Jarvis and Haque and others provide in response to the fundamental crisis of capitalism.

Google wouldn't care about any of this intellectual arm-wrestling all that much. It is fully consumed with doing what it does best: firing out beta-products and services, successfully failing by failing rapidly. One mistake that it made, however, may arguably have lasting implications. It didn't buy Twitter. And so the question, it seems, is no longer "What would Google do?" but "What will Twitter do?" Does Twitter mark the beginning of the end of the Google economy?

Jyri Engeström, who sold Twitter-competitor Jaiku to Google and is now a Google employee, might have a clue. On a panel with social media guru Chris Messina he offered some good insights on micro-blogging trends on the web and defended the new Google Profiles ("you have to opt in"). Messina seconded him and brought up another interesting point that established the context for upcoming business models in the Twitter economy: the "glocalization" of Twitter. He described how Twitter is failing to extend the real-time conversation to the whole world, simply because of time zone differences: one part of the world is always sleeping when you're tweeting. The instant social web conversation is therefore asynchronous, after all, and it is an interesting thought experiment to envision services that bridge the time zone gap and deliver tweets when the recipients can actually receive them (keeping them on the top of the feed), almost like an echo across time zones. What if the real value of real-time was the delivery of tweets when it really mattered?

The whole time dimension of Twitter is uncharted but valuable territory, and there are other add-ins, integrators, and localization services that will emerge in this vibrant new ecosystem. The conversation on the social web is as rich as the human communication (if not richer), and it is just beginning to fully emerge.

What everyone agreed on at next09 is that the next big frontier on the web (and in the Twitter economy) is how businesses talk to their customers. We are witnessing an irrevocable convergence of players. Conversational services such as Twitter and Yammer are moving into the social networking space and are acquiring the credentials of social networks and collaboration tools, while traditional social networking sites such as XING, LinkedIn or Facebook are embedding conversational features to catch up with the irresistible pull of real-time communication.

For both groups, and in fact for all other companies, Umair Haque's advice is golden: Take one of the big ideals (democracy, peace, transparency, equality, etc.) and apply it to an ailing industry that is in need of transformation or at least some serious disruption: healthcare, finance, news, energy, government – you name it. Combine that with the principles of the Twitter economy – transparency, instantification, collaboration, and free sharing – and you have a winner.

Twitter Chats and Sponsored Hashtags - How To Do It Right

(hat tip to Kristina Loring; re-posting from CNET)

With the Twittersphere reaching critical mass, lots of companies are establishing accounts to speak directly with customers, monitor their brand, and respond to questions and rumors. Most of them are using the micro-blogging service to become more transparent and as a trustworthy resource for their followers, while also exposing a more personable aspect of their brand.

Here are some examples, researched by Brilliant Ink, a communications agency specializing in strategic messaging and content development:

- Ford used Twitter to host conversations and answer criticisms during the recent federal loan hearings in DC: http://twitter.com/scottmonty. Scott Monty is Ford's social media manager and often uses Twitter to enable people to ask questions of Ford execs. Ford also held a chat featuring its CEO Alan Mulally at #FordCEO.

- Microsoft is partnering with Exectweets, a Twitter chat room of sorts for executives.

In addition, there are several companies that do a good job fostering customer service and engagement via Twitter and occasionally focus on a particular discussion topic:

- Dell: http://twitter.com/delloutlet

- HR Block: http://twitter.com/hrblock

- Comcast: http://twitter.com/comcastcares

- Zappos: http://twitter.com/zappos

- Marriott Hotels: http://twitter.com/MarriotIntl (the hotel chain used Twitter to communicate with customers in during the recent bombings in Mumbai)

How exactly one is supposed to use Twitter is still up for interpretation, but these companies seem to be doing it the right way, especially in contrast to those that have chosen to use their Twitter accounts as nothing more than a means of self-promotion (essentially using Twitter as an extension of their RSS feed). These companies most often find themselves broadcasting to an absent/vacant audience. A stark reminder was the recent controversy over Land Rover's use of social media in an ad campaign, and the fact that some Twitterers were paid to contribute, sparking discussions about the risks of "sponsored hashtags."

Organized Twitter chats are a particularly effective vehicle to provide entry points for consumers to engage with companies around specific topics, events, or issues that are meaningful to them. More and more companies are beginning to use these kinds of "hashtag conversations" (using the hash symbol (#) in front of a keyword is a familiar convention for Twitter users; it allows people to search for and follow specific conversations).

Brilliant Ink studied to what extent these conversations offer an opportunity for consumers to truly inform the company's priorities and perspectives around specific topics. One of the brands it examined was PepsiCo. At the end of April, the softdrink company began #PepTrends, an organized conversation around global trends. The moderator introduced a number of trend themes to the conversation, and the most popular topic turned out to be "social media and marketing." There were more than 1,400 individual tweets from the participants, and 171 people registered to take part in the chat. This was PepsiCo's first moderated hashtag conversation, following a very successful South by Southwest engagement where the company had used Twitter and blogs to interact with customers.

Another brand that has been able to amplify its voice through Twitter is Growing Bolder, an organization comprised of former journalists and other professionals interested in issues concerning those over the age of 50. The company hosts a chat tagged #ageop and describes the event as a "weekly informal think tank." It is facilitated by a guest host who asks questions to get the conversation going, but the discussion is fluid with participants introducing newsworthy issues of the week. Topics have ranged from President Obama's first 100 days in office to health care to prom memories. Participants also recently called on State Farm to join in a conversation about insurance -- which brings up an interesting dynamic. Will larger companies such as State Farm respond (or not) to activist- and issue-based groups like Growing Bolder? Indeed, can organized Twitter conversations online translate into offline social organization and action?

At frog design, we recently hosted a #froghealth Twitter chat on the subject of mobile health. Participants included our own health care experts, members of the press, and external health care professionals. Originally planned as an internal experiment to explore the use of Twitter, the chat turned into a discussion about a redefinition of health care and a restructuring of the health care system. External participants noted the event on their own accounts and joined in. One participant of the conversation called it "curated crowdsourcing." In the end, the Twitter chat provided a new way to have a frank discussion with our customers and with experts in the field about on-the-ground concerns.

If you want to host a moderated Twitter chat yourself, here are Brilliant Ink's General Guidelines:

- Determine the format (there are three options): 1. Create a free-flowing discussion where anyone can say anything germane to the topic; 2. Establish a structured agenda where the organizer asks questions and gives participants a set time to answer before moving on; 3. Feature a guest speaker, where s/he answers participants' questions and gives advice.

- Use the first 10 minutes for introductions.

- Don't allow pitching of participants' businesses until the final 10 minutes.

- Take banter or irrelevant chat offline ( remove the #) so as not to hijack the conversation.

- Use a specific account to represent the brand for the chat (@frogdesign) vs. a personal account.

- Never disparage or dismiss ideas or comments.

- Participants expect a 1:1 relationship, so the exchanges need to be conversational.

Power to the People

Issue 10 of frog's design mind magazine rolls off the press on May 25 with over a dozen articles on the theme of power, including stories about design research, the promise and peril of technology, and why designers should be in the "behavior business." Also debuted is "Wanted: Chief Meaning Officer" — the first article in an ongoing series about value-driven business practices. The magazine will be available for sale through the design mind Web site later this month.

http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/power-to-the-people.html