Just Things To Think About

By and large, executive management in companies undertaking this hottest marketing rage of social media think the company has an overriding right to what goes on in social networking. That seems normal and reasonable enough.

And there are some powerful tools to speed up the strategy and adoption, like

CommonSense Twitter

However, the employees (the ones actually moving tweets and posts in the new media) think their activities in social networking should be off the table, as far as the company should be concerned.

There are lots to different ways of thinking about it.

And the right answer? It’s probably best summed up with: “Well, it depends.” A starting point on the thread to a “right” answer is not just “who” owns it, but also who owns what part of it? Here are some questions from some fictional inquiring minds:

“I had a Twitter account when I joined XYZ, Inc. and tweeting wasn’t a responsibility,” says Bob.

Congratulations, Bob! The way things seem to stand right now, the Twitter account belongs entirely to you.

Carol chimes in, “Well, I had this Twitter account when I joined XYZ, Inc. and after I got here tweeting became part of my duties. Now what?”

Well, Carol, most likely the account is yours, however the followers – depending on when they started following you – may or may not be. If you brought them before it became a responsibility, they’re yours. If not, you’ll likely be exploring how to split the followers with your employer.

And according to Ted, “I tweet, but XYZ, Inc. asked me to setup the Twitter account for promotion of XYZ, Inc.”

Kind of cut-and-dried, Ted: XYZ, Inc. owns the account and the followers.

“I tweet,” Alice says, “but it’s using an account setup for me when I hired on.”

Once again, Alice, it’s clear: the account and the followers are ‘owned’ by XYZ, Inc.

And finally, there’s Rodney: “I tweet, and my account existed before I joined XYZ, Inc. But I was hired just for doing the company’s marketing in social media.”

This is a little slippery, but most likely the account is yours. But there might be some clarification necessary if, for example, XYZ, Inc. did, or did not specifically offer or request to buy the account when you were hired.

It’s high-level, but you see how having legal recourse and advice might be a major component in the expanding social media airspace. Just being aware of the name on the account registeration can go quite a way to avoiding confusion later.

Some things to think about, but no ‘stoppers’ to social media as a part of strategy. And it remains to be seen just how permanent tweeting will be on themarketing landscape. Something will always be emerging, though, and the lessons might apply later. But like any other major undertaking, Legal should must be appraised beforehand, if not actively involved from the early stages. There might be decisions made impacting not only standard employee policy, but relationships with social media marketers, too. Keep in mind, though, that if you delay, waiting for clarity based on new, bizarre cases before you act, you’ll likely find the competition and the rest of the market will be down the road ahead of you. It calls for due diligence, cross-functional involvement early on, Legal involvement, and then: ACTION! And if you happen to be the tweeter, take the same advised steps as they apply.

Phil Marnell is a serial entrepreneur and musician, and consults and writes on a number of topics at http://www.marnellgroup.com Download his whitepaper on dialog mapping in .pdf and .mp3 format Marnell Group’s Visual Analytics page.

Recently the shadow of environmental catastrophe has crept over the American gulf coast. It appears that an accident in one of the industries that provided economic lifeblood to an entire region of the country threatens far-reaching and devastating repercussions across many other industries and parts of the economy.

Whole industries will be impacted, if not permanently altered or even rendered extinct. And this in an area that still sways under the weight of another disaster that resulted in one of the largest forced migrations of humanity in all of history.

What manner of negative, destructive and fearful trains of thought run rampant in that kind atmosphere? And what are the many ways in which all of that must, by human nature, manifest?

It would appear, on the surface, to be an excellent time to avoid the region, to write it off and, casting a glance to the floor, shake our heads in wonder at how “they” will ever survive, let alone prosper.

But America has a history of going against that kind of resigned ambivalence. George Washington’s success at Valley Forge stemmed at least partly from the sheer audacity of attacking at that moment, in that weather, with that force. In World War II, General McAuliffe, the commander of the 101st Airborne, encircled at Bastogne, staring into the teeth of certain annihilation, replied, “Nuts!” to the German demand for surrender. And in one of the most stunning displays of everyday duty and heroism, firefighters and first-responders, men and women, in New York City didn’t flinch at the idea of entering the World Trade Center in response to the need. (Cops and firefighters do that every day. They’re unsung heroes, I think.) And what about Rosa Parks and Susan Anthony?

Another hero of the second world war, General Douglas MacAuthur, waded into the battle in the Pacific knowing a full-on battle would only feed the enemy’s power. So he expertly deployed his resources and planned his campaign to bypass the heavily fortified front of the enemy. He attacked where he knew the enemy was weakest, where his forces could be most effective at weakening the front and crippling the enemy’s ability to sustain the battle much longer.

So, now – April of 2010 – in America, and especially in the gulf coast area, our enemy’s heavily fortified front is “fear” and “chaotic change”. Those are, and will be highlighted and exploited by the mainstream media and commentators.

But here in Terminus (the original name for Atlanta) on the other hand, we are blessed with this diadem called Stompernet. Everyone involved is exposed to, and participates in the stunning, fundamental reworking of the entire world economy as it evolves on the web.

So this is the call to arms: Like Patton racing to Bastogne, like MacAuthur racing to Manila, and like firefighters racing through Manhattan on 9/11, we should race to Americans in the gulf region. We have fresh armament, fresh ammunition and clear, pure water of 21st century enterprise and the American entrepreneurial spirit. This community could provide something the media and the government can’t: hope, yes, but also the tools and methods to leapfrog past travail, over the staleness of the past, over the clogged arteries of ‘rebuilding’ (rebuilding what?).

There will always be times of trouble. It’s a reality of life and living.  How we respond to trouble and adversity is the key. In Chinese, the symbol for ‘crisis’ is the combination of two characters: ‘danger’, and ‘opportunity’.

Think about it: Except for “In Mind”, there’s no reason the gulf region need continue to be locked in to old ways, relying on shrimping and tourism, living with all the attendant risks of economic disruption that come from sharing the space with Mother Nature and man’s environmentally-challenged engineering endeavors.

What if, instead, the region was introduced to the idea of evolving into a hotbed of worldwide commerce and change? What if, in a multi-year, sustained, orderly campaign, beachheads for a whole new idea for an economic framework were established in the region? Imagine every single town with at least two businesses – at least 1 woman-owned – doing local and world-wide marketing, Stomper-style.

Could they ALL succeed? Where would that lead? Would it impact my business in Atlanta, or Deb’s business in Boston, or Robert’s business in NYC? Is there enough for all of us *and* that kind of change?

Well, what if web commerce had stopped growing in 2008? It would still be around $200B. But it didn’t stop, and almost doubled in 2009. Is it over, now – stopping at around $350B in 2009? Or is it just getting started?

What totally new, wonderful, unforeseen things could come from an entire region of the American spirit educated, empowered and embracing something so unbridled in possibility and promise?

Okay, so maybe empowering an entire region is too big a dream. Still, wouldn’t that kind of focused power be bound to yield at least some benefit, to at least some people whose lives have been, and are being radically reformed by chaotic and disruptive change?

The old world, the old ways, are always retreating and disappearing. For much of the rest of the world, coming to America is a dream. We’re all already here. What will we make America next?

Phil Marnell is a serial entrepreneur and musician, and consults and writes on a number of topics at http://www.marnellgroup.com Download his whitepaper on dialog mapping in .pdf and .mp3 format Marnell Group’s Visual Analytics page. He’s also the editor of the consciousness online magazine, FemmesVision.QuiltedConsciousness.com, and the companion site, QuiltedConsciousness.com

I’ve become aware of one such tool called Neuro Vector, available through a site called Excel i-Commerce and it seems to be in a class of “get it done” products to help you achieve your goals.  Weight loss and smoking cessation are a couple of the uses for which it’s suited.  If you’re ready for change, and ready to take your own responsibility for CHANGING YOUR OWN LIFE, well maybe you’re ready to at least check it out.

While I believe so strongly in personal transformation, I’m also intrigued with the idea of organizational change and transformation.  So, what if – instead of just one person in an organization acting on transformation and brain reprogramming – an entire group acted concurrently using the same set of tools. And what if that change of awareness and self-image enhancement was clustered around the overall goals of the organization?

Wouldn’t it be awesome if a big “C” (CIO, COO, CEO…) and their staff all engaged in the same powerful, dynamic life-changing process AT THE SAME TIME!

Together, as a group, all in the room at the same time?  Maybe.  That would be an amazing group of people who could pull that off.

But even “together” but separate would be inspiring.  Gathering in their meetings, the effect of each person’s exploration would start to emerge and percolate through the whole group.

And the ramifications are even more extreme if it could be used in conjuction with some modern thought tools like Dialog Mapping.  One aspect of mapping, as an exercise, is that it serves to expose the viewpoints of the people on the team.  As the problem or process is deconstructued or analyzed in the mapping the thoughts and trends of people and organizations start to emerge. The collective use of something like Neuro Vector on the individuals own time and for their own self-improvement could amplify the change dynamic for the entire organization.

Such an open-ended proposition!  And where does that lead for your enterprise?

“For some future state to be realised, some current state needs to be left behind and some structured, organised process for getting from one to the other needs to exist.”

- F. Nickols (2002)

So much is in play.  Numbers I’ve seen say $350B was spent in online purchases by around 200M people worldwide.

That’s remarkable enough.  But, even more amazing:  it’s also just the beginning.

What will _not_  ( or cannot) be conveyed via the web?  Buying and selling are entrenched.  Even enlightenment and awareness.  Can olfactory stuff be far behind?  No.  In fact there’s already a means to convey human touch via the web – well, a form of it anyway.  And we live in an age in which the entire ‘Encyclopedia Gallactica’ is available for an overwhelming number of individuals to browse, on their schedule and at the touch of their hand.  That has never, ever been the case in ‘…the history of histories…’ to paraphrase Dr. Eleanor “Ellie” Arroway (and, of course, Carl Sagan).

Right now nearly all of the accumulated knowledge – not just of the human race, but of the entire universe for all we know – is available in some form online.  (There’s some ambiguity around that: turns out it depends on who is looking, and exactly what ‘knowledge’ they’re looking for.)

It’s interesting, though, that almost all of it is triggered and transactional.  In other words, something is raised as a condition to a human or organization that leads to an action to buy something, or do something, or consume some element of information.  And out of that some kind of transaction occurs:  someone sells something or buys something or reads something or posts something.

Imagine a pond, viewed from beneath the surface, and these transactions flittering about like gnats on the surface.  They dart to and fro, and they alight, and then they take off and the slenderest trail of a ripple is left.  And then that disappears, replaced by a hundred other trails and dartings.  All on the surface of this gigantic pool.  Viewed from beneath the surface, it’s all very impressive – lots of motion and activity.  But, it’s not very effective most of the time.

I’ve always been impressed with how computer architecture evolved along a path that made it such a “dramatic dialog” to use.  HAL would have been a step in the right direction.  AI was big in the 80′s and early 90′s, but with lots of shallow explanations about how insufficient the technology was.

In a way, the dreams weren’t nearly  big enough, and they were still  operating in the downstream straitjacket of  Von Neumann and IBM.  Too, the world was just winding down from the cold-war (an extension of the “hot war”), which had helped keep knowledge of computers and the importance of people like Alan Turing pretty much in the shadows.

HAL – for women

When will technology become an agent for the masses, instead of a taskmaster and a chore to operate?

If I could tell Audrey, my computer, that I’m interested in these certain things and she could just deliver _those_  things – forget having her saddled with extrapolating what else I’m likely interested in and all the nanoseconds that would take , wouldn’t that be swell?  If she could just say, “Good morning.  Your bank balance is <this>, and today the forecast is <that> and – by the way – based on the traffic information there appears to be some congestion on Moreland Avenue, you might try Glenwood Avenue instead this morning.  I’m watching the reports, and I’ll let you know if that changes before you leave.  And your mom’s birthday is tomorrow – shall I send a reminder to you later today?”

Now, in todays world could I get the traffic on TV?  What a major fart morning TV is (any TV, for that matter).  Pretty sure those old-days/old-ways are numbered.  Besides, consider this:  if there’s so much interest in ‘the grid’ and electric cars and what-not, who [exactly] is going to be driving those cars, and where [exactly] will they be going?  With the emerging technology, isn’t it stupid to think that we would grandfather in gridlock and traffic jams, and just switch fuel sources?

Anyway – back to Audrey:  Really.  Is that asking too much?  It’s not like the computer DOESN’T KNOW.  It does.  And that’s another thing:  it knows because I have to TYPE IT IN.  What’s up with that?   I was having asyncronous conversations with Sally Voicemail before IBM bought ROLM back in the early 80s.  Is that really the best we can do – STILL:  write a program that responds by sending electronic pulses to a flat panel, from a server 2500 miles away, through an unimaginably complex network everyone takes for granted -  but it can’t just say, “Ok. Got it.”

“But, ooooohhhh the IPad.”  Fiddle-dee-dee.  It’s still something you (the user) have to wake up and say, “Hey, tell me the salient things I’d like you to remember, but you can’t.”

We’re becoming less and less disconnected.  Someday we’ll become more connected, but to get there I think there’ll be a period of real discomfort as the dimmer side comes to the realization that regardless of what is being fed to them from their masters and the powerful actors who know _exactly_ how this universe of information functions, their isolated peasant view of things doesn’t work – even in their own best interest.

Or – slightly less elitist-sounding, and probably more likely – the gap will continue to widen, and the noise level at the bottom of the pyramid will stay pretty much the same, with maybe a few more million voices chattering.  Following the pyramid upwards, as it narrows there’ll be a more and more refined and filtered grouping who will operate at their own level, leaving the chaff and noise to those below.

Everyone will buy. Everyone will think.  Everyone will become more aware … well, some will be anyway.  The web will penetrate the sphere that’s around each of us.  It will grow more and more online and take us with it.  It will grow more and more in experience – in ways not publicly known about, so far.

But those climbing will know how ‘buying’ and ‘thinking’ is evolving and how it works.  Such is my version of how things could turn out.

But, it occurs to me that what I’m describing might be the way it’s been all along.

It comes in lots of flavors, but what really happens when ‘things change’ in an organization?

I recall the palpable change that took place inside IBM on the occasion of the announcement, in 1986, of their first quarter without a dividend. That was unheard of and as a young analyst in the HR function, I could actually feel the walls squeezing in. Almost overnight there was a deep current of change in the halls of the National Marketing Division (NMD) headquarters in Atlanta where I worked. Division leaders disappeared and were replaced. And in an amazingly short span of time (days, literally) an entire mechanism emerged to move people from headquarters locations (where they were percieved as overhead) to the field where they could be part of the revenue generation engine. [The reality was that many were expected to fail in their new assignments - an 'attrition' component not publicized in order to not have to frontally address the IBM heritage of lifetime employment - which was decidedly ending. There's another post in all of that, though.]

In the prevailing frenetic mindset project planning, systems analysis and business analysis were not at a premium as was evidenced by the hasty redeployment of lots of the marketing training staff – even as another part of the machine was gearing up to funnel large numbers of HQ-types into the marketing training program.

OOOPS!

So began what was, in the day, a major business transformation that unfolded over the next ten years including retooling bonus structures, various attempts at customer engagement and continued downsizing. Sometime around 1990, the entire administrative component of IBM went home on Friday as IBMers, and came back Monday as employess of a temp agency. That was business change, and a lot of personal transformation (the hard way). Ongoing change sees IBM recently moving its outsourcing component to … India. Imagine that.

Is there an end to business transformation? Well, consider Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), IBM’s biggest competitor in the small-to-medium business (SMB) airspace during the same reference timeframe . The owner of DEC, for his own reasons, resisted the wave of change that was America in the 80s, with some unhappy outcomes. So, I guess it’s safe to say that for DEC, reinvention and business transformation ended when DEC was purchased by Compaq and went out of business.

Is human nature unchanged, despite the roar of technology?

I’m not so sure: we have ‘speed dating’ now, and I’ve recently seen ‘speed networking’ – “…making valuable relationship-affirming connections in 15 minutes or less.”

Honking horns seems to help some drivers feel like they’re speeding things up.  It’s always entertaining when two individuals who would otherwise never note the existence of one another, carry on a honking conversation.  It’s like some loud garish Morse code conversation.

I’ve heard lately from a couple of individuals that “they say” while it used to take around thirty seconds for people to form opinions of one another, now that number is closer to 6 seconds. I’m always a little hazy on exactly who and/or what ‘they’ are (is?). When ‘they’ say something, it seems a good bet to have a little skepticism as to its objective correctness. These things never seem to be documented.

But it could be at least partially true, and for the purposes of this blog entry I’ll say that it seems like it fits with all else that’s happening. And if that’s the case, then maybe human nature actually IS changing.

There are those who are actually driving change, there are those who are part of the machinery of affecting change, and there are the unnumbered masses who sleepily accept all kinds of change. Like an oderless gas, it filters into their lives in a meandering stream of media and modality that they’re largely unaware of. Most of the time there is surprisingly little disruption or objection.

Humans are adaptable. Eons have demonstrated that. But that was nature acting. Now, man is acting – on man _and_ nature.