I was reading Ross Dawson’s excellent blog on media trends and was entranced with a visualization he developed (with Richard Watson) on future trends.

Along with the usual trending topics of urbanization, gentrification and a power shift to the east was “anxiety.”   Anxiety as a trend? 

This struck a chord, especially during a week where every critical technology in my life malfunctioned!  What are the ways technology is contributing to growing levels of anxiety in our culture? 

• Paralysis

Last year I was in the hunt to buy a new digital camera. On top of the millions of combinations of brands and features, there were an incredible number of purchase options.  And sorting through hundreds of consumer and web reviews –supposed to make things easier —  seemed impossible to process.  Many consumers faced with a similar amount of information simply shut down — they are afraid to make the wrong decision. Decision paralysis that comes with too much information is a real issue.

• Complexity

I just bought a new computer. It took me three weeks to move the software, settings and files from one computer to the new one. This involved multiple phone interactions with various software companies, finding licence numbers that required a magnifying glass to interpret and manipulations of servers to get all of my applications to work together again in harmony ( which has not happened).  Just setting up this basic business functionality was difficult and time-consuming.   While individual applications may make life easier in the short-term, the complexity and fragility of technology systems is making life increasingly stressful. Which also leads to …

• Impact of Gentrification

What if I did not have the underlying experience with technology to make this all work?  There are two speeding trains heading straight for each other — the increasing number of senior citizens and the increased complexity of technology. 

• Vulnerability

We are becoming increasingly vulnerable to Internet attacks as our dependence on web life-tools increases and the analog method of doing things becomes obsolete.  Don’t buy that?  Try getting by for one week without email. 

• Ubiquity

Undoubtedly the Orwellian vision of “Big Brother” is coming true. Technology companies may soon know more about us than we truly know about ourselves. What are the implications for how we live our lives when every movement, and every mistake, is recorded for posterity?

• Rate of change

Technology moves in dog years.  If you un-tether for a month, it’s like missing seven months of technological advancement.  The answer to staying on top of things?  Never un-tether.

Before you beat me up and point out all the wonderful benefits of technology (including this dialogue) I’d like to leave you with this thought.  Two hundred years ago, the pressure to keep up with technological change was not even a human consideration. Life pretty much went on as it always had,  and our mindset was that it would continue that way forever.  Mankind lived a rural life dependent on friends and family, weather and livestock … as it had for centuries.   There was no “app for that.”

Genetically, we are cut from the same cloth as our pioneering ancestors.  What are the implications for having a constant imperative in our lives to understand, assess, deploy and maintain our digital selves?

A lot of social media content elicits “rants,” “vents” and snark these days.  But today I am overwhelmed by the positive feelings flowing from the blogosphere.  Let me back up a step.

This has been a difficult couple of weeks. I have been very sick, had a string of daily technology disasters, and the perfect storm of critical customer deadlines.  By today I am exhausted.

Then this amazing thing happened.  I started getting all of these little “Follow Friday” love notes.  About every 10 minutes or so my computer would “ping” with an unsolicited little ‘atta boy. I think maybe 30 or so floated in with very touching and generous sentiments on many of them.  How did you know I needed this today?

Did you ever think we could live in a time when you could get 30 love notes from people you’ve never met? 

Even more important are the growing friendships I am developing with you. When I see your comments on my blog, tweets or Facebook posts, I get a smile on my face because I think of the special relationships I’m developing with so many people, and it has been so powerful and unexpected.

I began on Twitter eight months ago. In that time I have:

Collaborated on videos, articles and books with Rebel Brown, Ben Hanna, John Bottom, Jamie Wallace, Robin Frank, Shane Mac, Neicole Crepeau, Kimmo Linkama, Jayme Soulati, Anne Giles Clelland, Jenn Whinnem, Venessa Miemis, Nancy Scott, Rebecca Denison, Michael Winn, Jeremy Victor and Steve Farnsworth.

Started working on customer projects with Steve Dodd and Jeremy Floyd.

Donated to charitable causes with the inspiration of Danny Brown, Billy Mitchell and Kacy Maxwell.

Created a video (you’ll see it soon!) with Michelle Chmielewski.

Wrote a case study with Nathan Dube.

Provided potential new business opportunities to Trey Pennington, Nitin Gupta, Tim Knight, Stuart Mease, Lisa Foote, Michele Linn, Rebecca Renner, Christina Kerley, and Rebekkah Hilgraves.

Received new business opportunities from Nathan Egan, Lisa Worley, and Leil Lowndes.

Worked through problems on phone calls and meetings with Jason Falls, Dianna Huff, Olivier Blanchard,  Joseph Fiore, Christina Kerley, Gavin Baker, Karl Yeh, Dean Holmes, Jen McClurg-Roth, Dan Levine, Sidney Eve Matrix, Gregg Morris, Bill Sledzik, Jennifer Yeager and many others.

In less than a year, there been nearly 2,000 comments on my blog from hundreds of people.  Thank you so very much.

If you’re not on the list and we’re connected, it’s just a matter of time until we find some way to work together.  Let’s make it happen!

Thanks for making {grow} the greatest community on the social web.

P.S. I’m sorry if i missed somebody. Remind me and I’ll add you to the list!

 The mysterious, mean-spirited, self-proclaimed “strumpette” Amanda Chapel is the most divisive personality in the social media movement.  She relentlessly shoots poison darts at nearly every voice of authority on the social web.  It’s typical for her to characterize many of her A-List blogger targets as:

• “Baby babble”
• “Full-on non-stop shameless surreptitious sleaze”
• “The cacophony of dopes”
• “Sacs de douche”
• “Self-important fatuous boobs”

… and worse. But her commentary can also be positively brilliant, insightful, and hilarious.  There is no humor so sublime as pomposity pricked. 

All this venom sometimes leaves me wondering if she’s a just a pesky mosquito annoying everyone at the social media picnic or if she is having a meaningful impact on the evolution of the social web.  Does Amanda Chapel even really exist?  Does she matter?

I decided to ask her these questions myself.  Here is my interview with Amanda Chapel, which was conducted last week via email (I added the hyperlinks):

MWS: You are one of the most reviled personalities on the blogosphere. Why are you so mean?

AC: Actually, that’s two separate questions.  With regard to “reviled,” I am/we are anti the general Web2 Cluetrain commie crap.  We poke at the movement’s weakest links.  We show their Golden Calves for what they actually are, i.e. self-serving buffoons.  That said, we also take no prisoners.  As such, we lay claim to, and inspire, the inverse of the movement’s immature passions … as does anyone who thinks critically … as does any skeptic who refutes a bogus pseudo religion.

As to “mean,” I am cutting.  Satire and mockery are biting at their best.  Poignant is poignant.  It’s smart and often cuts through the clutter.  I also believe that the “David Letterman Beat It To Death School of Comedy” is VERY effective and resonates.

MWS: So you refer to yourself as “we.”  This begs the question, are you real?  Are you even a woman?

AC: The identity issue is so old and tedious frankly.  It’s been asked and answered SOOOO many times.  Sadly, it keeps coming up because the nature of the SMedia crowd tends to be literal minded. Brian’s interviews with Bill were pretty explicit.*

“We” means a group represented by a single brand.  Asked and answered.

All to say, you can call me Amanda Chapel.  That’s what we are.

MWS: One of your biggest criticisms is that many of the A-List bloggers don’t have the business experience or credentials to have a voice of authority in this space.  Why are you different?  Why should we listen to you?

AC: I’m not selling anything.  I’m questioning.  Those two things are NOT on equal footing.  “Doubt” is not about credentials, per se; it is about the strength of the argument.  That said, we stand on what already exists.  The core of our system/Union is NOT enthusiasm; it’s rationalism.

MWS: What is pissing you off the most these days?

AC:  Most?  That’d be Liz Strauss, Brian Solis, and Deepak Chopra.   Ironically, as more light has been shed on the ethereal emptiness of the movement, its “evangelists” have gotten bolder and strident.  They’ve become irrepressible caricature.  It’s like watching amateur Benny Hinns whistle on the way to the bank, having only increased their flocks after being busted on 60 Minutes.  Arrrgh.

MWS: You have been one of the most visible voices of dissent for several years.  Have you made a difference?

AC:  Many say I have made a significant difference.  Frankly, I’m not so sure.  I think I’m more of a catalyst than a direct agent for change.  Our outrageousness with Strumpette,** etc. made it safe for critical thinkers like you, Bill Sledzik,  Sean Williams,  Joel Postman,  Ike Pigott, et al. to occupy the middle.

MWS: Do you have plans to ever shed the Amanda Chapel character or are you in it for the long-haul?

AC:  I think the character is only good as long as our argument is relevant.  Let’s put it this way: most of the failure of Cluetrain, etc. is pretty basic.  But it is a bubble that sadly continues to grow.  However, the FTC, Congress and business are waking up.  I’m certain when the bubble breaks a new canvas will present itself.  I’m pretty excited about that actually.  It’s long overdue.

MWS: So far I have not been the target of your fury.  What would I have to do to have you take a crack at me?

AC:  We’ve seen you slip on occasion.  But that’s rare.  To REALLY get our attention, I’d think you’d have to have had a serious head injury.

______________________________________________________

The title of this post is “Does Amanda Chapel Matter?” so I’ll offer an opinion. 

One of the most disturbing aspects of power and the social web is the herd mentality.  You’ve seen it.  If Chris Brogan, Guy Kawasaki or Jeremiah Oywang burps, it is tweeted 900 times.  That burp gets repeated and codified by other bloggers and soon, it becomes a marketing tenet, a “rule” for social media marketing.  That’s called “group think” and it is DANGEROUS.  Maybe we should call it “burp think.”

It is difficult to have an impactful, dissenting voice in this arena.  It’s like yelling for the opposing team at a home Steeler game – You won’t be heard and you’ll probably be squashed.  

But Amanda gets through.  She often pisses me off.  She’s shrill, offensive and sometimes even flat-out wrong … but her message GETS THROUGH.  We need that dissent. Even her detractors should admit we need it.  Some of the most important and effective dissenters in history have been anonymous “characters” and maybe that’s what we need to rise above social media’s sycophantic mind muck — a voice who doesn’t play nicey-nice all the time.

I think Amanda matters.   What about you?

* This refers to a 2008 series of interviews of Brian Connolly by Bill Sledzik.  In this interview, Connolly disclosed that the idea for the Amanda Chapel character started while his friends were watching a basketball game. The idea for the “blog of naked PR” was born, complete with an Amanda Chapel backstory. Between 4-7 people have sustained the Chapel character and signed a non-disclosure agreement. “Amanda” would not disclose the identity of the person or persons who answered these questions.

**Strumpette was the Amanda Chapel blog which was discontinued in 2008. 

A while back I wrote an article about the fortress-like tendencies of the A-List bloggers and the sycophants who follow them. I compared it to an exclusive country club.

But as I’ve reached a wider audience and gained more experience on the social web, I’m learning that some of the online behaviors deserve even less credit than that.   A couple of anecdotes:

• Last month I met with a high-profile blogger/speaker who said he had been “black-balled” by those following Chris Brogan (not Chris himself) because of disagreements he lodged with the uber-blogger.
• Another top blogger told me conference speaking invitations had dried up since he criticized fellow A-list bloggers
• I recently politely disagreed with a number of high-profile folks … who promptly “unfollowed” me on Twitter
• One follower implied I was chauvinistic because I had more men than women on one Follow Friday tweet
• A nasty and unprofessional online fight recently erupted between East Coast and West Coast factions over the issue of social media credentialing.
• Recently, a well-known social media pundit named me as one their favorite bloggers.  One of my followers said she now had a “moral dilemma” of whether to follow me or not because she did not like the other blogger. 

Pardon me folks, but doesn’t this sound a lot like high school?  Or worse.

The petty politics of every day relationships are exacerbated on the social web because we are making very limited assessments of people based on their written words. People seem quicker to judge, and harsher in their reactions without thinking about the real live human beings behind those little icons.  I’ve been guilty too.

In the end, I can only be accountable for myself.  The social web mantra of  “authenticity” and “transparency” is a load of crap.  Nobody is truly authentic. Nobody is truly transparent.  Nor should you be!  However, there is an urgent need for civility, tolerance and honesty in this space.  I’ll try my best to walk the talk in those areas and if this makes any sense to you, maybe we can support each other and make the change together. 

Thanks for hanging in there through the rant.  You may now return to your social media high school home room, wherever that may be.  : )

Community alert: Sean Williams, a regular contributor to {grow}, pointed out this timely WSJ op-ed piece  on the subject of social web civility. Which was a civil thing to do.

I read a blog post yesterday that staggered me. It was about a woman who could only find success as a blogger and freelance writer after she posed as a man (under the name of James Chartrand).

The gist of the tale was that she was a talented, hard-working individual who could not make enough to feed her family until she lied about her gender. Once she became “James,” her life changed. She’s been living a double life for years and has attracted a loyal audience to her photo-free, phone-free persona. It made me sad and angry … and it stirred a lot of other people too.  It was tweeted more than 2,000 times and received more than 400 comments.

One of those commenters was Jenn Whinnem, who suggested that I blog about the underlying issues.  I thought it would be a richer experience if I could capture a woman’s perspective too, so I embarked on an experiment – a virtual chat that became today’s blog post on gender inequality on the social web …

Mark: My initial reaction was “stunned” that this kind of blatant inequality still exists, especially on the social web, which is supposed to be so democratic. I guess that myth has been exploded.

Jenn: I was saddened, but not surprised.  Since establishing a professional presence on the social web, I haven’t experienced discrimination (to my knowledge).  I have, of course, experienced sexism in the workplace – everywhere really – so I see no reason why it would be any different on the Internet. I realize James Chartrand was pushed into outing herself, but I’m really grateful for the attention her decision has brought to this topic.  When I’ve been offered a salary, I’ve had no idea if a man would have been offered more.  But “James” knows, and she shared it with us.

Mark: You said you didn’t know if you had experienced discrimination on the web and this made me think about my own behaviors. I looked at who I work with, who I am connecting with on the web, who has been guest-blogging … just any data points I could find. I guess I’m trying to judge my behavior by the numbers. Does that seem silly?

Jenn: I don’t think it’s silly at all.  Reviewing one’s own behavior is necessary for change. As for examining the ‘numbers’ aspect of it — well, that’s a pretty hot topic in social media – proving that the time spent using social media leads to dollars for your business.  I know it’s something you’ve written about, Mark.  It’s important to know which numbers you’re paying attention to and knowing what they mean.  You can look at the number of men vs. women you’re following on Twitter, but what is that going to tell you?

Mark: At the end of the day, equality has to come through self-awareness. I can try to look at numbers and still fool myself about how I treat people. I had one boss who treated women terribly … to the point that I was compelled to address it. He said, “Look at all the women who report to me. How can you say I have a problem with women?” In his case, the numbers supported “equal treatment” but his actions were incongruent. So Jenn, what do you do to see yourself more accurately?  To make sure you’re congruent?

Jenn: That anecdote is a perfect example of how someone can fool themselves into thinking they’re ‘okay’ and why there’s a real need to keep fighting for equality. For me, that fight begins with my own behavior.  I’m the first to admit that I’m often guilty of ‘incongruent’ behavior, and like you, Mark, I find that awareness is the first step in correcting that.  I also had an excellent boss (hi Alice!) early in my career who lived the mantra “nurture other women, don’t compete with them.”  And, when I think about it, this complements nicely the social media mantra “promote others, not yourself.”

Mark: Do you think that is a social media mantra or a feminine mantra?  I ask this because the comment section in my previous blog post on this topic contained speculation that some inequality stems from the fact that men are perceived to be better self-promoters than women. I think the male social media mantra might be “help others, promote yourself.”

Jenn: I’ve read the “promote others” mantra in several blog posts, but didn’t notice if the authors were men or women.  But I don’t know that this is a feminine mantra. My experience has been, at least in the work place, that women are more likely to tear each other down to eliminate the competition, rather than help each other out.  This is why Alice’s advice was so powerful to me.

I find the conversation about men or women being better at self-promotion more difficult.  If we look at gender roles in this culture broadly, I would say that self-promotion goes against socially desirable behavior for women.

Mark: That’s an interesting observation. Perhaps this cultural expectation for socially-desirable “female” behavior is just exacerbated on the narcissistic social web. Instead of being the great equalizer everybody hopes for, it could actually highlight and reinforce aspects of our culture that keep gender inequality in place?

Jenn: If I can back up a minute, where did the idea of social media as an equalizer come from?  We encourage the idea of “being human” on the social web … and any space where people are invited to be human means they’re going to do just that.  On the positive side, I think this kind of highlighting is a good thing.  When attention is drawn to inequalities, it starts to change.  Something of a theme in our conversation.

Mark: I say “equalizer” because presumably having access to free, global, immediate communication should provide genders, races, religions, rich and poor with precisely the same opportunity to communicate and connect. But I guess you’re right. If underlying inequalities persist, it’s wrong to think that will change by simply having a new way to broadcast it. It drives home for me again how silly it is when people say the social web “changes everything.” Obviously it doesn’t.

Jenn, our dialogue has brought up some vital discussion points. Let’s turn it over to the {grow} community to add to the discussion …

Jenn Whinnem is a Communication Specialist focusing on developing social media strategy for Golden Compass. You can connect with her via @JennWhinnem on Twitter.

With the dawn of the social web, I can’t think of a more exciting time to be in the field of marketing.  But I don’t think we have really seen anything yet!  Here are 12 developments I believe we will witness in the future … and probably sooner than you think.

1) Hyper social measurement– At some point soon, Google is going to start doing something bold with the volumes of personal data they’re collecting.  Google is in the best position by far to define social media monitoring, especially now that they are taking steps to fold in data from Twitter, Facebook and other platforms. Once Google flexes its social media monitoring muscles, companies like Radian6 will become niche players at best. Complex algorithms will determine real-time sentiment shifts down to the individual.  And it won’t be free.

2) Tapping into text messaging– The one communication mode largely untouched by real-time search is text messages.  This is a goldmine of information too big to ignore, especially if you’re a “cool-hunting” consumer product company.  Entrepreneurs will find a way to tap into the “text stream” by rewarding users for being included in their data-gathering systems. Does this seem improbable?  Would people accept a free cell phone and free data service in exchange for their text information being stored in a database for consumer product research and targeted promotions?  It would work.  

3) The human coupon– The massive quantity of personal information available about you will eventually follow you around.  Enabled by GPS and RFID technology, coupons and special offers based on your buying patterns will appear instantly on your mobile device as you near a store.   RFID chips embedded in packaging will send messages during your purchase decision to encourage up-selling and cross-selling.  For example, if you pick up a blouse off of a rack, a message will direct you to the precise area of the store where you can find a matching skirt … on sale just for you. 

4) Radical privacy movement — This intense data gathering and the use of it in a Big-Brother-like manner will spark a backlash, including legislation, assuring the right to be excluded from Internet data-gathering tools.  Because of its power and control over voluminous personal details, Google will become the most profitable, and despised, company in history.

5) Man-machine interface.  Medical advances and social media platforms will converge.  Scientists are already embedding electronics in humans to power limbs, regulate body functions, and enable the brain to access information from micro chips. It’s now possible to think a tweet or control artificial limbs with a thought.  Humans will routinely carry a computer inside of them, powered by body heat and motion. You will literally always be on the social web, generating messages just by thoughts.  Humans will have markings like tattoos to display the premium, designer brand of devices embedded in their bodies. This will give new meaning to the tagline “Intel Inside.”

6) We become the Internet.   Today, people talk about Twitter, Facebook etc., never really connecting that these are all “Internet.”  As the social web literally becomes part of our bodies, we will no longer distinguish between listening, talking and electronic communications. In our minds, there will be no more web. It will just be.

7) Massive national ID validation. The social web will become the exclusive source of consumer information, political research/policy development, and education systems. Because of the increasingly critical  importance of this feedback and the opportunity for corruption, complex systems to prevent fraud will be needed, including a broadly-implemented government validation program that extends across all platforms.

8) Micro politics — Politicians will use real-time sentiment analysis to craft and re-craft voter appeals right up until the moment they enter a polling station.  Political messaging will be nearly-instantaneous and tailored to individuals based on data purchased from Google.

9) Extreme content — Journalism, film-making and advertising agencies will thrive, much to the surprise of nearly everyone.  The need for content on the social web will drive radical evolution of  these three traditional professions and “Content development and management” will become a popular college major.  While most content today is generated through “free” submissions to YouTube, blogs, etc., salaries for the very best and most creative content providers will skyrocket as corporations raise the creative bar to cut through the clutter. 

10) The loner workforce. The cultural impact of the social web will have radical implications for managing the workforce of the future. How do you deal with a generation of employees who have been conditioned to communicate through their thumbs?  Employee training of the future will look increasingly like video games.

11) Digital divide grows  — For many parts of the world, access to free, global communications will be a great equalizer between rich and poor nations, especially as web-based translation services improve and encompass local dialects. However, in countries where people cannot access the web either for economic or political reasons, the digital divide will not only grow, it will become permanent for one simple reason: they will fall so far behind the technology curve they will never be able to catch up. Digital commerce, innovation and technology will be permanently dominated by those nations in the game NOW. 

 12) Pay for play– Social media is free but the cost of attracting consumer attention will become increasingly expensive, especially with the ability to skip ads.  At some point, the cost per impression will be so high it will be less expensive to simply pay people to watch an ad.   Combined with the “human coupon” trend mentioned above, this would provide nearly perfect information on cause and effect of advertising campaigns. 

Well, that’s enough far-out thought for one blog post and I’m sure you have A LOT to say about it!  Your turn. The comment section is now OPEN!

Note: I noticed that today, the little green “tweet” button on this article is not working.  Here is a shortened URL you can use to “tweet” this story and share the love: http://bit.ly/4CumNw

Jayme Soulati is a regular contributor to the {grow} community and she recently challenged me to comment on the whole Tiger Thang.  I challenged her back to go write her own darn blog and to my delight she did!  Here’s Jayme:

Public relations crisis managers are having a field day as the Tiger Woods debacle goes uncontrollably viral.   

The gory details of such an event monopolize gossip moments and no one rests until truth is revealed; everyone is a skeptic today.  The intimate moments with how many, duration of romances and number of bong hits are now tantamount to corporate fraud, backlash over corporate scandal, or poorly manufactured products.

We owe thanks to so many for spicing up the ether and forever tarnishing their celebrity brand: Phelps, Bryant, Vick, Bonds, Letterman, Sanford, Spitzer, Clinton, Edwards, and… (am trying to be gender neutral here, but the pendulum is swaying – oh, yes, Charlie Sheen’s wife could be a husband stealer).

Living life under the public eye has never been more scrutinous (I frequently coin words) or pressurized. A simple transgression like driving a vehicle into a fire hydrant may have blown over with a public statement within 24 hours, but fear and shame about truth over-rode the immediate fess-up. Digging a deeper hole with half the truth is akin to a brand blemish gone to acne.   

How is this unfolding saga relevant to our daily social media business lives?

As Tiger attempts to fix his still-fraying public image of gambler and lady’s man, he’ll grapple with questions about his private life forever.  He’ll be the butt of jokes. He’ll be scorned with “I told you he was too clean” remarks.  The damage control will now last a lifetime and be constantly echoed and amplified by a million Tweeters.  

In this day of social media scrutiny, our companies, clients, and our professional selves may be vulnerable to the same intense under-glass existence within the social mediasphere. The rules of engagement are clear: truth, trust, transparency — not Tiger. You do not want to become an adjective.

The call to action here is a heightened awareness of personal vulnerability, risk and exposure.  And when “Tiger happens,” making your tee time is critical. Public relations must gauge the proper balance and momentum, and do it quickly.

 It’ll be interesting to see how the ruins are restored.  Watch the handlers for the next 12 months; you might learn a few things to repair a brand of your own some day.  And, perhaps, you have some immediate counsel of exactly what that plan ought to be?

Jayme Soulati is a 25-year public relations veteran and can be found at www.soulati.com and on Twitter, @Soulati.

I have never used this community to comment on another person’s blog but today I’m just so happy, so enthralled, so downright giddy that I could kiss my keyboard.  One of the social media purists has finally discovered the bright, clear light of capitalism.

And it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy — Jason Falls.  Jason is one of my favorite bloggers but has historically been one of the stalwart “keepers of the conversation.”  You know the type — the social media country clubbers who set the industry’s tone with a relentless mantra of “it’s all about connection” and “conversation” and “relationships.”  In fact, a few months ago, Jason went so far as to write that any company expecting to make money off of social media will fail.

But a new day is dawning.  Yesterday, in a post entitled “Why Social Media Purists  Won’t Last,” he wrote:

Each time I discuss the business goals or reasons why a client wants to use social media, the answers come down to one thing: selling more stuff. It’s a harsh business reality. If you don’t make money, the business goes under. If you don’t make more money, people lose their jobs.”

The social media purists have laid down the law and, so, to participate in social media as a business, you must do things like, “participate in the conversation,” “engage your customers,” and “talk with us not to us.”

I’ve got news for you. In the world of business, all that talk will get you exactly nowhere. Conversations do not ring the cash register. Engagement does not sell more product. Talking with people just means you have to take time to listen which prevents you from spending valuable time selling more product.

Halleluia.  Maybe I’ll finally have some company out here in the social media netherworld of business rationality.

And if this isn’t enough reason to celebrate, read what the Ultimate Blogging Machine Chris Brogan wrote just a month ago:

Think Like a Business – if you’re in this for business, always ask yourself how this work ties to more sales (and if you’re not trying to make money, think of “sale” as whatever you hope to convert. Hint: it’s not “more audience.”). If you’re just writing to write, shooting video to get it up there, tweeting because people said you should, rethink all that. Decide what’s going to ring your register and work on that.

What???  Ring the register?  Not seeking “more audience?”  Could this be an era of enlightenment for the guy who recently yelled at his audience:  “This is NOT about you and your STUPID COMPANY” ?

What’s happening around here?  My guess is that both have recently had a big dose of the real world.  Falls went out on his own and had to come out from behind the P&L  protectionism of agency life.  Brogan’s sudden emergence on a bigger stage probably got him in front of experienced business people instead of the sycophants who dutifully re-tweet his every blog, bluster and burp.

So this begs a new question.  Are my days as a contrarian coming to an end?  I mean if Brogan’s in, the burp tweeters will fall right in line. If the social media elite are finally figuring it out, what do I write about now?  Hmmm.  How about, “It’s all about the conversation?”  : )

You can witness this transformational power of communication in almost any history book.

Look at a map of Europe. Ever wonder why all the countries are approximately the same size? It was largely determined by how much territory a messenger could cover on horseback in two days. Even the vast empires of the past were divided into states that approximated this size. You could not possibly control a territory larger than a two-day ride from the center point. Communication determined kingdoms.

Communication also defined our social structures. Even the smallest Medieval village had a town square where people could meet, trade and socialize. Gathering each evening to meet was the only communication channel we had for centuries. The entire city was built around that center of communication.

Today, seemingly every person under 40 is wired to a portable electronic communicator to provide news and entertainment how we want it, where we want it, when we want it.  It’s called the Internet and social media, but there isn’t much truly “social” about it. We don’t gather in a city center to share Facebook. We don’t sit around a fireplace and read tweets to one another. 

For the first time in history, daily communication and entertainment can be a solitary event. I’ve observed hordes of teenagers hunched over cell phones, frantically texting one another … even when they are surrounded by friends! Isn’t it ironic these new tools actively, incessantly pull us away from live human interaction, and yet we call it “social” media?

The basic premise of the popular “World is Flat” book is that people and place don’t matter any more. We can be employed, connected, global citizens and never step outside.  If we do, it’s to the coffee shop for WiFi rather than camaraderie.

How strange and sad. You and I never have to meet or speak or touch one another.  We can be completely informed, entertained and connected individuals, while sitting alone in a small dark room.  Civilization is still defined by how we communicate. Welcome to the Era of Alone.

One such rule is that large brands historically use any opportunity for customer interaction to push their product and promotions. Engaging their brand advocates in conversations, rewarding their customers with special deals and promotions, and encouraging word-of mouth on a daily basis is new territory. The real fun begins when they branch out and offer relevant and useful content for their social media audiences. Sometimes this is an easy leap and just a matter of giving them a few creative ideas that are aligned with their brand.

For Gap Outlet and Banana Republic Factory Store, we created a series of tweets (and soon Facebook posts) that run several times a week called “Fab without a Fortune” – these are tips that speak to their social media audiences and show them the brand “gets” what they want and is there to help them shop smarter, stretch their dollars, and still be fashionable. We’ve had a great response with these.

The other invisible rule I sometimes come up against is the “email is king” mentality – brands want to use social media to drive people to their email lists because then they’ve GOT them. I see many companies with big budgets for email marketing, and they need some help understanding that social media channels such as Twitter and Facebook can be less intrusive, more direct, and offer better results.

Customers are more likely to follow you or fan you than give you an email address. And, it is mega opt-in – customers want to hear from you more than say, once a week – they want to hear from you several times a day. I have seen double digit click through rates on Twitter and Facebook that put email marketing to shame. These companies need some guidance to transfer resources and rethink their approach so they can ask their loyal customers to join them on Twitter and Facebook.

Tomorrow: Robin’s six social media strategies for YOU!