Josh Bernoff and the purists

A couple of days ago, Josh Bernoff posted on what he describes as a divide between "corporatists" and "purists," saying both groups are wrong and that what is coming is a hybrid version of the two camps. I have have written a good deal on this topic and agree that there are two camps . I do stand in one of them as I defined them. Josh calls me out, pointing to a post I had up in December and seems to think that I am in his "purist camp," a camp that he characterizes as being anti-corporate, and personified by Doc Searls, co-author of Cluetrain and one of the pioneer thinkers of what has evolved into social media. He implies that we purists somehow oppose corporate objectives, which seems to me to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what I have been writing about these last several years.

We are at a flex point in social media's advent that will impact how small, medium and global enterprise will relate to markets. It is a point of great disruption. Some companies will get it right  and some will get it wrong. This happens at flex points in history and inevitably, when things settle down there will be survivors of past eras and victims. There will be new names as yet unknown as Google pretty much was at the turn of the new century.

The debate that Josh addresses will determine some of the winners and victims. The issues are unique in some ways but redundant to earlier times in some ways. Every new world-changing technology puts some businesses through wormholes of change and that is what is happening now.

The social media revolution is very much like the early days of radio. Radio allowed people in homes everywhere to hear the same event, sports, symphonies, the president speaking. It faced a moral dilemma between providing culture and entertainment or lighter fare such as Amos 'N Andy. The outcome was determined, not by evil broadcast mogul as is often described, but by a market who bought more Lucky Strike cigarettes because of commercials that advised them to reach for a cigarette instead of a sweet. 

Social Media is now at the type of crossroads that radio faced. What I say or Josh says, or corporation say may influence the outcome in some small way, but the market will decide, not us. Just as viewers decide whether American Idol will enjoy greater support than CSpan. Many of us would rather kick back with a Lost Episode than National Geographic in Kenya. So we get more of the former.


The broadcast debate went on for more than 50 years. Perhaps it continues. The social media debate may extend just as long, but I think not. ill it ultimately be just another channel, a brand extender, another place where corporate messages can be crammed into the foreheads of people who do not want them?

I think not. I hope not. But it is not for me to decide. The best I can do is keep writing pieces like this and maybe influence a few people in the right direction.

I think my viewpoint has a chance of prevailing because of how the Broadcast Media turned out.
People have grown tired of broadcast marketing and they have grown weary and wary of marketers who seem to stalk them wherever there eyeballs land. No one seems to want to be marketed to anymore, not even the marketers themselves, or so they keep telling me. People want to be listened to and now that there are social technology tools available, commercial interests can have conversations with people at very low cost. That means they can make better goods and services, build stronger relationships and loyalty, generate authentic word-of-mouth endorsements and extremely high efficiency .

As nearly all business decision makers will tell you, traditional marketing is not low cost. It is not highly efficient. It is not very credible. It does not give people a sense that a corporation or a brand, a government or a candidate wants to hear what we think and feel.

Josh implies I am a purist. I would not call myself any such thing. Until six weeks ago I made a living, consulting companies on how to profit and prevail.

As Josh implies, I am indeed a revolutionary, but that is because I think business will benefit from the result of the upheaval as well as customers and all other infrastructure players who can adapt to the fundamental change which we are now undergoing.

I believe scalable conversations make markets friendlier, more profitable and much more efficient. I am an advocate of freedom and believe there can be no freedom at all without economic freedom. Corporations are characterized by some as being no more than the pieces of legal paper that form them. I characterize them by the people that comprise them and form their culture. I am for free enterprise because there is no freedom without economic freedom and because that is the best way to improve products, services and profits.

I resent Josh's implications of the "purist" label because it implies a rigidity that is not the case. People will do with social media whatever they wish to do. All I can do is write pieces like this and hope that I will influence someone somewhere.

I also think Josh fails to understand the relevance of Doc and the "Cluetrain Quartet."  Revolutions are rarely started in the centers of power. They usually begin up in the hills, far from the centers of power. What I have done subsequently and what Josh has done subsequently would not have happened if the seeds of revolution had not been planted by Cluetrain. The revolution has moved from the hills and into the centers of power. It's language and culture is evolving rapidly from one dominated by geeks to those concerned with the cost of goods sold and making the margin forecast for the coming quarter.

But we would never have gotten hear without the Cluetrain guys. Just like the moderate John Adams would never have had a presidency to go to without the fiery words of his cousin Sam, who dumped British tea into Boston Harbor.

I have read Josh's post several times now I am still not certain I understand what he means by "Hybrids" in terms of social media. Perhaps it's intended to just e a teaser for his upcoming book with Charlene Li.  If his implication is that corporations can treat social media as another traditional brand extender, as another place to push messages into the foreheads of people who do not want them, I agree that companies are free to try.

But I think it's bad advice. It just will not work. It's not about purism. It's about pragmatism. 

Comments

[Josh Bernoff]

Hi, Shel. If I understood you properly in earlier posts, you said that companies can't talk to the social world, only people can. That's the stance I'm challenging. I think companies CAN talk -- and that when people within a company talk, they should do so as part of a corporate effort. If you agree with me, you're not a purist as I defined it.

If I got you wrong, sorry.

I didn't use the word hybrid. But the strategy I advise is to acknowledge, as you put it, that the market is the powerful force, and you cannot control it. And then to go on, anyway, and try to accomplish your corporate goals. And yes, I did co-author a whole book about that.

I don't believe in forcing messages down people's throats any more than you do. But if you can create messages that people will adopt and shout to the rooftops, more power to you. And I'm happy to help with that.

As for Cluetrain, there needed to be a scream in the darkness to wake up the world. Theirs was an eloquent and amazing scream, which still amazes me in its prescience. I could not do what I do without their groundbreaking effort. But I don't think I'm walking down the path they had in mind.

[shel israel]

Josh, I'm still not clear. Do you mean people in companies should blog about their work using the word "I" to describe themselves, or do you mean the assumption of a corporate voice, a "we" which creates the illusion of representing what could be thousands of people. Do you mean an individual showing passion and transparency or do you mean a committee devising a message that they push out. I'm really trying to see what you are saying Josh and to me that differentiation is no small matter. It seems you have as much trouble understanding what I'm trying to say as you have understanding what I have been saying these past four years.

[Tom O'Brien]

Shel:

Thanks for the follow-up. I wrote a long post about this here:

http://humanvoice.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/purists-vs-corporatists/

You have a fairly simple position. Only people can participate in conversations. Corporations or brands cannot participate in conversations.

Josh says that companies can participate in social media.

Depends how you define social media. Your definition:

“The essence of social media is that it is humans. Humans connect to humans and they form communities. They own their communities, brands don’t. The perspective of traditional marketing is to take a message and find delivery channels to inseminate into people’s foreheads. This is not social. Social is for a marketing executive to start a blog and ask people why they hate his marketing efforts–then listen–really listen to what people say the way Dell has done and a few others are trying to do.”

Under this definition (which I agree with) corporations cannot participate.

The opportunity I see is for PEOPLE representing corporations to participate in an open, honest, fully disclosed and transparent way.

My $0.02

Tom O'B

[shel israel]

Thanks Tom. That is an accurate capsule of my thinking, that and the thought the companies will prosper from social media if hey do it right.

[Laurel Papworth]

Tag you're it! meme eight things And grrr, don't look like that, I hate that look, everyone hates memes. But it's just a game, right? :P

[Vaibhav]

Hi Josh Bernoff,

Yes you said very true that the social media revolution is very much like the early days of radio. Radio allowed people in homes everywhere to hear the same event, sports, symphonies, the president speaking. But today we are also facing this compaction between the companies is very high. At this movement it is very important to take care of each thing at the company. Workers spending too much time on social networking websites such as Facebook are costing employers a staggering £130m a day according to the findings of one recent survey, and the problem looks set to become much worse if businesses fail to take action, and fast. Facebook shows 125% growth year over year.

Vaibhav
Call Centers India

[shel israel]

Laurel,

I've already played the silly game and posted my eight several months ago. I cannot possibly come up with 16.

[shel israel]

Vaibhav

I imagine there was a time when employers were also worried about workers wasting time listening to radios. I do not know where you you got those stats, or how one could possibly estimate such a thing as time lost to Facebook use at work. What I do know is that Josh did not make the reference to early days of radio. I did. This is my blog, not his. But I am glad you liked it.

[Geoff Livingston]

Forrester is a research firm, but they are paid by companies to help them engage. Perhaps there's a kool aid factor here. I'm not sure.

I tell companies that their outbound efforts must have People associated with them. The faceless corporation doesn't work, in my mind. Even if the person is a shill, it's a person. We may not like that person, but it's better than talking @apple or @johnsonandjohnson.

Without personality, social media falls flat. It just sucks. If that makes me a purist, so be it.

[shel israel]

Geoff,

Thanks for your comment. What I resent about the term "purist" is that it implies we are not about helping companies make money. I am very much about that and if they do not use real people to tell authentic stories, their social media efforts will be just another failure to engage customers when it can be so much more.

[Mark Johnson]

I took a stab at defining a two-dimensional version of Josh's scale on my blog. I wonder if you agree with the axes and where you would fall on my chart?

[shel israel]

Mark, I have a natural and strong resistance to being reduced to either a single word [purist] or number. I think such exercises are not analysis, but oversimplifications. So no, I will not give you a numeric rating of myself.

[Ted Shelton]

I guess the thing that I find strange is the debate about whether or not companies can talk. Clearly they cannot. They have no vocal cords. I am not saying this to be facetious. Companies are constructs that are made up of people. Only people can talk. People can talk for companies. The point that I think you are making Shel (and that I think Doc and Cluetrain make) is that when a speaker's personal views are aligned with the views that are being spoken on behalf of the company, they are more interesting and more believable. And when a person has to speak on behalf of anyone and doesn't believe in what he/she is saying - then there is a problem. Does Josh really disagree with this?

[shel israel]

Ted, Thanks. To be honest I really do not know what Josh is trying to say. I'm still trying to get past the fact that I resent being boxed in as a "purist" and he insisted that he was right about me being a purist. Somehow, he knows better than me.