We Are Social - Latest Comments in Learning to speak human

Re: Learning to speak human

V A SANCZ — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:26:53 -0000

Speaking Human is not necessarily being nice at all. Some of the most attractive, successful humans are obnoxious, belligerent and opinionated.

Speaking Human is embracing that contradiction, being willing to alienate some in order to stand for what you believe.

Being 'nice' is akin to being invisible...

probably why so many traditional corporate marketing types find it all a bit confusing...

Re: Learning to speak human

Stefano Maggi — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:39:54 -0000

I think this is a real interesting post about being human, that should be considered http://blogs.forrester.com/...

Re: Learning to speak human

Markus — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:49:52 -0000

It would be wrong to say a market is a conversation because it sets you up to think in a static way. As a marketer, now Experience Planner, I know how dangerous the concept of a market can be... it induces "group think" so I never associate the market as a conversation... Markets are containers of similar conversations, but it's still the individual conversations defining the market and you must keep that front of people's minds.

Here's a blog I posted last year on the subject covering off my views: http://neuroexperience.net/...

Re: Learning to speak human

anjali28 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:08:08 -0000

Sorry I'm late to the party Robin but better late than never I suppose.

I started off not having that much to say because I agreed with most of what is being said here but then I figured I actually did.

Brands being nice, as Faris said, is important. No doubt. But sometimes one has to think of the commercial practicality of an intervention vs. the individual need for personalised interaction with a brand. It isn't impossible for brands to be nice - I'm thinking of something like Orange Rock Corps or Starbucks Pledge 5. But every product by every brand does not lend itself to this, for example cigarettes or alcohol or even deodorant. What's important then, when companies cannot present a human face (we've got to the stage where not only is outsourcing cheaper than having customer service assistants in the same country, but automated systems beat them both), is to lend themselves/their name to something that is nice instead - maybe a charity, maybe an event, maybe subsidizing something for their customers, maybe just making them smile - with whatever means they have at their disposal. Whether this is through creating a social network for customers that centres around a particular activity (the Nike 6.0 Loopd community) or creating an ad like Gorilla or Eyebrows that makes people smile, is largely irrelevant.

The general public doesn't really have the time or inclination to engage in this sort of debate (which I admit I enjoy as someone who works in the industry). They just want to lead happy, uncomplicated lives. And they like people, things or companies that help them do that.

Period.

Re: Learning to speak human

dave bedwood — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:40:02 -0000

"What worries me though is that this something should really be embedded within the product or service they sell -- and not something as peripheral as their marketing activities."

I don't understand this bit. Is this an aftermath of the Nike+ work? Wherein all agencies now think they have be product designers and add utility to everything. Its might be relevant for some briefs, but not all. By a long way. This then boils down to make better products have better services and let word of mouth do the rest. What happens when everyone is as good as everyone else? When say all jeans are the same actual quality? How do you get a lead on the the other brand - marketing.

Re: Learning to speak human

Tina Glengary — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:53:01 -0000

You know when you're trapped at a party with someone who won't stop talking about themselves...yeah, it kind of feels like brands are that someone.

The best conversations are the ones that are engaging. Conversations with a lively back-and-forth (like in these comments). Conversations that are based in active listening.

Being nice never hurt either.

Re: Learning to speak human

Scott Monty — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:09:10 -0000

To me, dealers are an inextricable part of the process. No matter what we do well at the corporate/brand level, if someone has a negative experience at the local level, that's going to color their perception of Ford. To that end, we'll be working with dealers this year to train them in both traditional and social media, giving them the tools and access to advisors as they need it.

I'm convinced that the more forward-thinking dealers will be able to grasp this and survive this difficult downturn. Stay tuned.

Re: Learning to speak human

mediaczar — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:59:13 -0000

Scott -- interesting and valuable rebuttal. Something I've wanted to ask you for a while: where do Ford's dealerships fit into this brave new world? To the end-user, their dealer is Ford's representative. To Ford (I imagine - based on experience with other marques) the dealer is effectively a kind of "customer." Is this something that will need to change now?

Re: Learning to speak human

mediaczar — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:54:02 -0000

Agree with the way you frame the conflict: yes -- to do better marketing we need to understand "social" motivations, and that what we and our clients do often seems antithetical to these. Let's put that to one side.

That the "right to speak and get a reply is now demanded" seems more problematic to me. The word "now" for example: I grew up watching consumer watchdog and right-to-reply programmes (boring as they were.) Customer complaints departments (now called "customer relations" with any luck) have existed for as long as mass-produced brands [no evidence supplied].

We all know that people haven't just started complaining or sending in suggestions or calling up and asking for stuff. So why do we pretend that this is the case? I'd suggest that it's because -- until now it hasn't really been seen a marketing issue. It's been an operational thing -- now it's a brand thing.

Why? Well -- because the complaints are much more public, for one thing. Because they pile up on Amazon reviews, or smart customer activists have better tools at their disposal than they did (iPod nano flaw/Kryptonite.)

But also because in the past people complained to the retailer (who gave them a new widget, or a voucher, or a refund or whatever.) Because circumstances are beginning (for a variety of reasons) to kill off the relationship between retailer and customer.

Because the web meant that all the brands we work for suddenly developed a public face. At first they thought it was going to give them a competitive advantage, or reduce overhead on their call centres -- only much later did they realize it was a new overhead. I recall, in the very late nineties, a client asking us if we could please stop his customers from emailing his company.

Ultimately I agree with you Faris -- if brands want people to talk about them they should do something worth talking about. What worries me though is that this something should really be embedded within the product or service they sell -- and not something as peripheral as their marketing activities.

This in turn puts a massive strain on the relationship with their agencies. In the long term, I think everyone in this comment stream has an idea of where we should end up. In the short term, circumstances are such that it's remarkably hard to innovate. As a result we focus on what we can achieve -- cosmetic activities like making campaigns famous, or creating value-add services -- without really addressing the issues that make it so hard for big-brand owning clients to "get it."

Does this mean that we're contributing to the very problem we're trying to solve? I hope not. I hope that we're involved in a constant evolutionary process where little by little we help the brands that want to change direction do so and set an example for the others.

Re: Learning to speak human

Nick — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:15:07 -0000

Some brilliant points here.

Just to pick up on something really important that Gareth said:

"it's those companies that have an ambition beyond business, a social mission not just a commercial proposition, that will succeed in a more 'human' business world."

I think that we can apply this same sentiment to our private selves, so that: "it's those *individuals* that have an ambition beyond business, a social mission not just a commercial proposition, that will succeed in a more 'human' business world."

If we, as professional marketing folk, have an ultimate desire to make things better then we need to walk the walk in our personal (non-day job related) interactions with companies too.

I believe that we have more power to enact positive change as consumers who happen to be professional marketers than we do as professional marketers who happen to be consumers.

Why? Well, because as consumers the best companies will listen to what we have to say.

And what we have to say shouldn't be a cry of FAIL when we suffer in the face of terrible customer service. We should apply our professional thinking to the situation and proactively suggest practical changes to the organisations who let us down.

There is no clocking off from making marketing more human.

Re: Learning to speak human

V A SANCZ — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:35:53 -0000

if anyone has worked in customer service or retail - the vital thing is to communicate with your customers. regulars, new customers, complaining customers and those annoying 'browsers' who just wanted a quiet place to make their phone call five minutes before you close up.

so, yes marketing is a conversation, and therefore social.

However, just as a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square - being social is not necessarily marketing, it's expressing yourself, or being informed.

being well informed is vastly different to sounding well informed - for one it involves a hell of a lot more listening.

So effective use of social media tools for marketing -should mean that you listen more, say less!

maybe why so many traditional corporate marketing types find it all a bit confusing...

Re: Learning to speak human

Charles Edward Frith — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:26:55 -0000

Agreed. Sorry about that Nigel. Just trying to squeeze in a last comment before bailing out the other night. It was inspired from a conversation I had where a friend was talking about watching a DVD or something and although quite articulate was floundering for the the right words to the describe the media exprerience he was seeking and I chipped in you were looking for a monologue which seemed to hit the spot.

However I agree fully that what we are witnessing through the internet is pretty much a socialiastion of pretty much anything if it so chooses to be.

Sorry if I came off a bit haughty.

Re: Learning to speak human

gareth — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:59:48 -0000

i think faris (as he often does) has nailed it. this debate probably wouldn't exist, or at least be as heated, if we thought about people as humans rather than consumers, and brand owners thought about the larger world and just not their category.
the other useful point of reference in all this is the stuff dan ariely wrote about in predictably irrational around commercial and social grammar. because marketing is the social function of a business entity to fulfill a commercial goal, it is perhaps unsurprising that so often they get it wrong, or at least, come across as alien rather than human. it's those companies that have an ambition beyond business, a social mission not just a commercial proposition, that will succeed in a more 'human' business world.

one final thing - can i join iain and the others in the plea to ban the phrase 'social media'. it's getting more useless than the concept of the brand:)

robin, sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your request to join in the debate.

Re: Learning to speak human

George Nimeh — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:17:44 -0000

If there was a way to retweet what Faris wrote, I would, but I'd do it, but without the Jerry Yang lowercase. (See what I did there? A Twitter reference in the first sentence. I’m sure I score extra for that.)

I was really happy to see Faris mention ‘control’ as a real issue to contend with. What's still missing here is a debate about the signal-to-noise ratio, as the pile of stuff we have to sift through is getting bigger every day. Invent a good sifter, and you’ll retire early.

In the meantime, let me add to the noise:

One of the fun parts of language (part of being human) is you can call things whatever you want. So, if you want to call something “social media”, for example, that’s just fine with me. The trick is for people to understand what you're saying and for them not think you're a dick for saying it. I'm obviously struggling with that at the moment ...

And Matt, you're right, we should all keep handing out copies of Cluetrain and use it as discussion a guide with clients and colleagues until they get it. FFS, it has been a DECADE!

And since it is late (or early) and I get snarky 'round this time, I thought a bit of multiple choice might be in order ... So here goes … What happens when you put a bunch of adver-mktr-twitr-blogr-planners in a room and ask them to think about human communications? Do they:

a) Google quotes from admen of days gone by and then quote said admen using their first names (as if they knew them, Don Draper style) in order to establish their credibility? (Seriously folks, I'm just kidding.)

b) Happily mix and match human comms theory with marketing manifestos without ever mentioning that brands and products aren't human and people know that.

c) Not come up with anything more interesting to say that hasn’t already been said by the aforementioned admen of days gone by and The Cluetrain Manifesto.

d) alloftheabove

Hint: There are no wrong answers.

So, how’d you do?

Don’t you all think this would be more fun around a table with a few drinks? Robin, many of the folks who have commented here are in London, and if you wanna help organize something the first round is my shout. Twitter: iboy

~G~

Re: Learning to speak human

faris — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:18:20 -0000

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

anyway.

being 'social' is about trying to understand the non-commercial motivations that drive people to do stuff and talk about things and build relationships and that.

which is a problem for companies because they have commercial motivations and are attempting to leverage social ones to drive commercial interests.

that said, the right to speak and get a reply is now demanded - so cluetrain style companies need to cater to this, understand they don't get to control other conversations like they can control what goes in their own, and realise that if they want people to talk about them they should do things that are worth talking about.

and remember to be nice.

Re: Learning to speak human

mediaczar — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:35:22 -0000

At first glance I want to applaud this. At second glance there are so many weasel words in the comments section alone that (I suspect) they make a mockery of everything that's being said here.

Too many people are saying "social media", "conversation", "human" and "authenticity" when they mean -- what exactly? To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Also - there's a lot that is very wise -- but the interesting wise stuff seems to run counter to what's being said in the article.

I need to look at this all much more closely. Analyze it. I'll come back to it.

Re: Learning to speak human

Box Network — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:39:07 -0000

hey robin.

i'm like the old guys from the muppets on this one (slater and waldorf??). it just gets me going on a rant (http://www.contentandmotion....

social media isn't media.... its just social. and i think 90% of the world's in violent agreement.

and i violently agree with you.

and i never want to talk about it again. never. ever.

yours

waldorf

: )

Re: Learning to speak human

Paul Knott — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:20:28 -0000

The authenticity of a brand's role is increasingly in question. Corporates posing as individuals within social networks is scary. "Sock puppet reviews" from competing developers in the iPhone app wars is one example. Today on Twitter a fake follower led me to a pyramid scheme that Fonejacker's George would have been proud to try on. Or Iain's recent post about the all-seeing meerkat. It's nasty. A form of grooming, for naive and unsuspecting consumers...

Re: Learning to speak human

Susan Rice-Lincoln — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:32:05 -0000

I have a book coming out in Europe in June called Mastering Web 2.0 and I have a whole chapter on this topic...about corporations becoming Corporation/People. This is so crucial...and so hard for so many companies!!!

Re: Learning to speak human

Mark Cridge — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 09:50:43 -0000

There's always going to be a practical requirement for interruptive messages delivered to largely passive audiences, delivered thorough broadcast media. No media has of yet fully displaced any previous media. Video hasn't yet killed the radio star as yet, and social media is not going to kill the broadcast star, as much as some of us may like that to be the case.

What is of course true is that the past 10 or so years since the Cluetrain has seen a radical shift and rise in the requirements and possibilities given to us by interactive, two-way communication and conversation, which we are all rabidly enjoying participating in.

So whilst traditional mass communication requirements aren't going to vanish, the likelihood is that conversational social interactions are going to become far more if not the most important form of interaction in the years to come. Traditional media will be continually changed and forced to adapt as a result.

Looking at the discussion around the recent T-Mobile ad is a fine example of this. Whilst it received a degree of criticism of not being authentic, that would be missing the point somewhat. It did for me a very simple thing which was to 'fictionalise' a real event, or genre of events, and in doing so packaged up and made more palatable for a grateful and welcoming more passive mass audience.

What it created was a convenient middle ground, 'based on a true story', that has no doubt allowed that particular piece of communication to bridge both worlds in as relevant and enjoyable way as possible. So whilst I wouldn't want to necessarily celebrate to actual packaging up of a story in this type of way (as Iain tried to point out recently), it is an interesting example of how we're all going to have to fumble our way forward as we explore and experiment with what might work.

As Dave suggested if we don't bridge the gap in some way you're left with the traditional lot off making up stories about brands in ads, potentially being completely contradicted by the real life human from the company chatting away on twitter. Polarised disconnected approaches are simply not going to work.

Re: Learning to speak human

Stuart Bruce — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 09:48:04 -0000

With one or two exceptions most of these comments are very advertising/marketing orientated. We didn't need The Cluetrain Manifesto to tell us that two-way communication is what's important. It's what public relations has been about for decades and their is a wealth of practical and academic literature pointing to it.

The main thing that has struck me about practising 'social media' or 'word of mouth marketing and communicaitions' is that the terms are a bit of a sham. We use them as a short hand so that people who've been sucked in by the hype can identify us. In reality what we're doing is practising real public relations (two way communication), rather than the rather simplistic media relations that too many advertising people frequently confuse PR with.

Re: Learning to speak human

Tim Malbon — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 09:18:44 -0000

Wow, what an incredible debate.

I too found the Cluetrain Manifesto incredibly inspiring when I read it first, and I frequently dip back into it, despite the fact that I find its proselytizing tone a bit irritating. It's full of statements that are difficult to disagree with but actually very challenging for clients with businesses that are *extremely* hierarchical and often some way off from being liberated by the hyperlink, to embrace. It's almost aggressive in it's "wise up, you dumbass" tone - full of 'you must do this and that'.

I guess its intended to be very challenging - and to be fair, its power and enduring appeal is derived from its Lutheran-esque '39 Articles' style. One can easily imagine Doc Searls nailing it to the Door of the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg. Like the Reformation in fact, the real Cluetrain revolution is much more intricate than its neat and rousing slogans/articles make it seem. Like the Reformation, there are complex interlocking socio-economic, political and technological drivers. And weirdly enough - to take up my brother's point - there is a spooky parallel in the perceived "decline of magic", caused by the new humanism of 'algorithmic man'.

Whatever. I think I might have become a little diverted with the Reformation there (that's how I tend to think and speak, so you really can't complain!).

I think we need to be accountable storytellers: people with the empathy, humility and compassion to win a client's trust and the insight, skills and rigour to deliver. Remember, we're asking them to trust us with the future of their businesses - not just to agree with us on an abstract point of view about how the world might be changing. Our job is to make them successful, not simply to make them loosen up, take off their ties and start 'speaking human' - that is not an end in itself. We have to find the right business contexts for them, and to demonstrate the benefits. Sure, we'll be impatient with what we perceive as old-fashioned and retarded thinking - if they could do this sh*t themselves we wouldn't have jobs - but it's probably more about taking them on a journey of smaller steps, and demonstrating at each stage that the world hasn't ended, revenues are safe and everything still works (hopefully better, otherwise there's little point in changing it). We need to sell them on the benefits, but also demonstrate the value for real. Sometimes that might mean being clear about the cost of NOT doing something as much as the gains involved in doing it. I agree with Dan Thornton (above) that some some of the social media thinking we see suffers from its own kind of group-think. We are *not* about to create a collective hive-mind any time soon, and Jesus and the Saints are not going to come marching in.

Re: Learning to speak human

dave bedwood — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:57:24 -0000

Sorry, terribly formatted copy in my last post - how can I expect any human to read that...

Re: Learning to speak human

dave bedwood — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:53:53 -0000

Ben Malbon - I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately at the start of online marketing no 'artists' were present (too busy writing films) only suits selling clients the 'holy grail' of advertising - 'we now know exactly how many people looked at your advert!' - Common sense and RISK that essential ingredient to making any form of interesting content went out the window there and then.
The point I was trying to make - badly - was that whilst I agree whole heartedly with what the Cluetrain manifesto my issue is that it is seen as something new and revolutionary (probably not by the writers) when in fact it isn't - yes media is different today but the key point is PEOPLE have not changed. The enemy now as it was back in the 60's is bad advertisers who do shit ads and talk to people as if they are idiots and don't have conversations - Bernbach etc revolutionised advertising and fought against those crap advertisers in exactly the same manner as the Cluetrain points out today - they just did not have the brilliant tools we now have to take it any further - therefore for those who cannot see past the media and technology they wrongly bracket Bernbach into an 'old' way of doing advertising which given you are talking about the past is ridiculous. On a different note I agree (much to my reluctance with Matt Law) most people do not want to have a conversation with a brand (there is far more interesting things to talk about being made by more talented people). When is the last time you had one with an advertiser instead of trying to create one? Me personally the answer is hardly ever. The only time I want a conversation is if something is wrong or I need something doing. And this is where all of this 'conversation' bollocks can get up its own arse. How annoying is it if a brands communication and 'conversations' are brilliant and engaging but when you want to actually talk to someone to say change your handset or query a bill you then go through to an automated service! Most 'normal' people would call us arseholes for that bit of strategic insight and they'd be right.
Anyway it is a bit stupid to eek out such arguments becuase the fact is if we all believe it is about being 'human' then just as you cannot talk to everyone you meet in the same manner (if you want them to do something for you - either listen or buy something or like you or introduce you to another friend) so every client problem needs a different approach. Forget rules the only thing you can do is try to hire people who are good at creating interesting conversations in whatever media you use, which as Ben points out should be more of these 'artists'.

Re: Learning to speak human

dave bedwood — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:21:07 -0000

People can only create in their own era - Bill was revolutionary in his day - precisely because he believed advertising should talk to people, employ wit and charm and not patronise them (just look at the first VW ads and compare to another car manufacturer at the time). Unfortunately for Bill the media landscape at the time meant that this conversation could only ever be one way -
I agree with you were he alive today he would be embracing this era as a completion of what he was trying to achieve.
I write ads, so this is a shallow view from that perspective, but an analogy we use to help us write is this: Imagine we did not write ads but wrote jokes instead - today a joke can appear on TV, in a press ad, on twitter, on your iphone, in a app or whatever they invent tomorrow. However the most important thing is how funny that joke is, if it does not make someone laugh they don't pass it on, they don't like you. To write a funny joke is the skill, knowing about cultures, judging your audience, knowing the angles and knowing how you should structure and present that joke to get it to the right audience.

To write something good you have to think on human terms, and that is the common denominator of all really good creatives regardless of the era and media around at the time.