It's tough to kill the vampire...genre

I was noodling on Vampires the other day, but also lumped Zombies, Pirates and Ninjas in the mix. These archetypes seem different to me than other ‘trends’. Surely the Vampire was dead after the spoof, “Love at First Bite” in 1979. But then the Anne Rice-led revival brought it back (technically the 1st  book, Interview with the Vampire,  was published in 1976, but didn’t gain widespread popularity until later). Then it jumped the shark with the Tom Cruise-Brad Pitt movie (based on the Anne Rice novel) in 1994. But bubbling below the surface was Blade and other genre flicks, then Twilight hit and now vampires are hot.

We can put Pirates away now after the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean flick, right? No, actually, if we’ve learned anything it’s that

What do IT experts and Japanese game show contestants have in common? They both want to be ninjas.

genre memes just go back underground (Pirates for adults [NSFW]You get the point0. These characters are like Zombies (pun intended), they just keep coming back to life.

Ahh, the classics.

If you broaden your scope a bit, I think it would be difficult to find a time over the last 40 years or so when any of these four archetypes didn’t have a level of bubbling popularity via books, comic books, tv, movies, video games, music. If all you’re looking at is 1 or 2 content categories maybe it looks like they’re dead, but they may be flourishing elsewhere, and like a virus they’re just waiting for a new host to carry them to the mainstream.

Personally, I’m waiting for someone to make Pirate Zombies v. Ninja Vampires. Hey, if they can make Aliens and Cowboys, anything is possible.

This post was inspired by a recent post by Grant McCracken. Make sure you read that one too.

Do you "Facebook-like" Starbucks, or just like them?

Earlier this week, a lot was made of the fact that Starbucks became the first brand to reach ten million fans on Facebook (check out Fame Count to see how other brands are faring). How did they amass such a following? Having a rabid offline fanbase certainly helps. As does freebie giveaways. But as we know, offering free product to entice people to be your fan on Facebook tends to attract fans of free giveaways more than it attracts fans of a brand. You can ask TGI Friday’s all about taking the “here, have some free stuff” route.

So yes, Starbucks has a massive community and of course if you look at their Facebook wall at times it can look more like an Amazonian jungle than the gardens at Versaille. That’s no fault of theirs, it would be a task not unlike cleaning the Augean Stables to keep that wall clean. At this point you’re expecting me to take Starbucks to task for creating a monster they can’t control, but in the case of a brand like Starbucks I think an argument can be made for developing a large quantity of low level engagement with millions of consumers. Here’s my argument:

With a product such as that offered by Starbucks, a mere mention rippling through Facebook can be enough to trigger a purchase. When I look at my feed and see that a friend “just earned a free mochacino double decaf soy latte” it’s enough for me to think, “yeah, a quick trip downstairs to Starbucks would be nice treat today.”  Compare that to a brand like, say, Louis Vuitton or Cadillac. It’s much harder to imagine a single (or even several) Facebook updates are going to get me to buy a $1,500 suit or luxury sedan.

When your product has a relatively low cost, can be a repeat purchase and you’re on every street corner, consumers may need just a gentle nudge.  The task for durable goods or luxury products is much harder – or maybe just different. Having a great relationship with Louis Vuitton might not drive me to a purchase, but when I am making a purchase in that category I’ll probably be more likely to go Vuitton or say, Hugo Boss, who I don’t have a relationship with. Now we’re talking about the importance of brand affinity and Social Media can certainly play a role in that.

The Real Housewives of New York. Jersey Shore. Kate Plus Eight. I don’t watch these shows and yet I could probably tell you a great deal about them. More than I could about Burn Notice (but perhaps I’m not alone there). So how (and why?) do I know that Kendra has been betrayed! and what Lindsay Lohan had on her fingernails or what Mel Gibson said to his Russian arm candy? I know these things because I follow a different reality show. This show exists in a parallel universe, somewhere between reality shows and the reality that normal, sane people live in. It’s a collective program, one we’ve all agreed to watch – though it’s not quite like The Truman Show. This meta-reality show has no start and no finish, no set cast and no plot. You can’t turn it off because it doesn’t air on any one network (or medium). It’s more like the matrix – it just exists.

Better than watching the show.

Even Andy Warhol Would Be Surprised By Who Is Famous Today

We now live in a society where The Situation gets more publicity than people like Tom Hanks and Rachel Zoe (who?) is on my radar more than Julia Roberts. How did this happen? When did the incredibly pedestrian lives and ginned up dramas of nobodys, has-beens and other assorted mouth-breathers become the leading pre-occupation in this country? How did car crash television stake such a claim on the American psyche?

Although I find it completely baffling, I won’t dismiss it either. To simply write it off with a “these kids today” wave of the hand would be foolish. Clearly something is going on here, but what is compelling people to say, “watching Jersey Shore isn’t enough, I want to know what’s going on behind the scenes with Snookie and the gang.” How can the marital peccadilloes of Kourtney Kardashian be of interest to so many people?

I can see the appeal of reality programming. Proto-reality shows like the Up Series or An American Family were novel and provided an intimate look at contemporary life, and a mirror on our own. But by the time we hit The Real World can anyone say we were dealing with reality anymore? Do people watch Flipping Out and think it in any way reflects their lives? So let’s call these shows what they are: semi-scripted dramas and comedies (or more often horror stories). Great, that’s fine, that’s entertainment.

The Reality Program Owned, Programmed By and Starring… Everyone

But when People, US, InTouch and all the other magazines cover the ‘stars’ of these shows, we’ve crossed some kind of threshold.

Today on the Meta-Reality Network...

It’s as if we’ve layered another level of programming on top of the actual shows. And the crazy part is, all the participants recognize this and accept that they are now on another “show” in addition to the one they star in on Bravo, MTV, etc. Sure, sometimes they pretend they are at odds with the media, or put out by this (Kourtney Kardashian trashes the trash mags!) constant exposure and coverage, but just as often they are willing participants. Bravo’s Watch What Happens Live program is a pseudo talk show where the stars of AMC shows come on to talk about… their shows. Bravo has one of the real masters of this format, Kathy Griffin, whose show, My Life on the D List is to meta-reality television what The Sopranos was to crime drama.

The show, the after-show, the coverage of the show, the coverage of the stars of the show – it’s all one big mash-up now. And that’s where we smash right into current culture – the absolute blurring, if not elimination of boundaries. Food, music, fashion, you name it, everything goes and combinations that were once off limits, if not taboo, are now considered perfectly legitimate options. The finish line no longer exists. “That’s a wrap” isn’t part of the Hollywood vocabulary anymore. The cameras (or flipcams, or mobile phones, or twitter accounts) are always running, and so the content never stops. As a result, the content often isn’t very good. I watched 10 minutes of Showtime’s Big Brother After Dark the other night, easily the most boring 10 minutes of television I have ever seen. I thought to myself, ‘Jesus, if this is the stuff they can’t show on network TV(!) how boring must the CBS show be?

The New Reality Show

How Did We Get Here?

I think several factors have brought us to this point. Certainly cable television and the Internet form the bedrock of this paradigm shift. Gone are the days when television took the summer off. Original programming 12 months a year is now a requirement. Similarly, CNN and the Internet created the 24 hour news cycle. The idea of waiting a week for the next issues of TIME or Newsweek to come out seems crazy now.  Soon, the notion of waiting a week for new content from television shows will seem just as crazy. Actually, the idea of “television shows” will seem crazy. In the future, whatever the equivalent of The Wire will be, it won’t be called a TV show, it will simply be a content franchise that will produce new content, across numerous platforms and formats, all the time (so, like Law & Order then). It’s interesting to take a step back and realize that reality TV shows have brought this to us right now with the compliance of the magazine and blog editors. This tweet from Faris, which I just came across in the middle of writing this post, sums it up quite nicely:

The ‘backchannel’ is not unlike the meta-reality show I’m talking about. For the celebrity magazines, the ‘thing’ is the shows and they are the backchannel. But the backchannel is just as much the ‘thing’ as the ‘thing’ now.

From Meta-Reality to Meta-Fiction?

So, if our current culture accepts (demands?) a 24/7 entertainment cycle, when will quality shows make the leap? Forget non-stop airings and assorted coverage of Bethenny Getting Married, I want wall-to-wall Mad Men. Not behind-the-scenes interviews with cast and crew, I want non-stop content. Mad Men twitter accounts (officially sanctioned this time), mini-episodes available only on the AMC website, a talk show which lives within the Mad Men universe and features guests from that era (characters? real people of the time?), a Mad Men-lifestyle magazine (featuring the actors, in character), A Mad Men movie… You get the idea, true transmedia integration, Henry Jenkins-style.

There are opportunities and right now it is the producers, creators and stars of ‘Reality Television’ that are taking advantage.

When public space is interpreted a private space

When you’re a brand like Nike few things are easy. Create an ad like “Write the Future” and you’re loved; try some tricky semantic jujitsu at a women’s marathon and you find yourself in a pretty uncomfortable position.  It’s easy to pick on Nike, they’re a big behemoth that, like anybody else, has made some mistakes. But the curious case of Miyashita Park has me scratching my head. If you’re not familiar with the story, here’s the very short version:

Miyashita Park is one of the very few green spaces in Tokyo, located near some of the busier shopping/business districts. It has become a makeshift home for a group people who have fallen on hard times. Nike entered into an agreement with the local government to transform the park into a skatepark, which would mean the people using the park would have to go.  As a result, a protest movement has sprung up. Check out this video for one side of the story:

Here’s an interesting article that provides a broader perspective, courtesy of CNNGO. It seems as though Nike tried to mix (some would say cover) their business goals with a grassroots community effort. For a moment, put aside the issue of homelessness in Japan. That is a complex issue that exists with or without Nike, and quite frankly is more important than whether or not Lebron James joins the Miami Heat or who wins the World Cup (both issues Nike cares deeply about).

One must ask, what was the original purpose of the park? Was it build to serve as a home for people in unfortunate circumstances? Why do these people have a right to monopolize the use of the park which wasn’t build for their exclusive use, yet due to their occupation the park has become run down and is little used by other members of the community. Some local business owners have also noted the disrepair of the park and complained.

When I first saw this story I mentioned it to my friend Johnny Vulkan, who, interestingly enough, had visited the park earlier this year. Here’s his take:

I visited Miyashita park three times over three days in January in an attempt to watch five a side football while in Tokyo. It was deserted every time and the pitches looked unloved and under utilized. It could undoubtedly do with a radical makeover. The place is essentially derelict and in stark contrast to the energy of Shibuya, Aoyama  and Harajuku all of which are minutes away on foot.

How dare Nike try to clean up this park! Wait, what?

I think unfortunately in this instance the park has been seized upon by a group whose interests don’t represent the local community but a political ideology at odds with the darkest views on globalization and brands roles within that debate.

If put to a vote among local residents and businesses it would seem apparent from the article that they would vote for redevelopment and would likely accept Nike’s revised plans for a virtually unbranded environment or at least engage in a discussion. To make this happen will require the council to take the brave step of yet another round of dialogue but this time in a more public forum that puts a local vote up against a political demonstration.

It’s a shame for both Mayashita Park, local residents and Nike. I think their plans represent a good example of a business encouraging local sport and community spaces. Yes, Nike’s business may ultimately benefit from more footballers and skaters but the community wins first and in an age of reduced public funding these are deals that feel empathetic and appropriate. Rightly or wrongly modern sport, which in turn inspires local sports and participation exist only due to commercial investment.

If you therefore believe in the importance of sports and community facilities in society then as of now you need to prepare to pay more taxes or hope that the businesses that will underwrite the investment are as open to debate and evolving a concept as I feel Nike has been in this instance.

Maybe things could have been done differently by the council and going public earlier may have helped but I think Nike emerge intact from this and the biggest losers are kids and young adults looking for a great place to play sport.

We’ll undoubtedly see more instances of businesses offering to fill funding gaps, the next big metaphorical playground being the

Misguided?

UK where the new government has committed to spending cuts and is averse to tax increases. If you want that swimming pool in your neighborhood someone’s paying. We may all feel more comfortable if that funding comes from local businesses and we are probably justified in passing a critical eye over any proposed deals but I am hoping these projects will actually be self selecting. I believe there are businesses that genuinely feel a responsibility to social infrastructure while understanding the opportunities those actions may also offer. I think most that engage in this area are responsible and in an age of transparency and citizen journalism few would be stupid enough to cross to the wrong side of that finely balanced equation.

I think Johnny hit upon an interesting notion with his commentary. Nike have run into a situation where some very earnest, well meaning people, who I think are doing important work, have lost sight of the bigger picture. In their righteousness they have done the very thing they are accusing Nike of doing – putting themselves above the interest of the greater populace.

Groups like A.I.R. Miyashita Park have hijacked the park for their own agenda – Homeless Rights. But do the homeless have the right to use a public park in this manner? And what obligation does Nike have, and to whom? It’s certainly not a black and white issue, and touches on a number of issues that go beyond the renovation of a park. To what degree does the fact that Nike is an American company factor in? If the renovation was done in conjunction with Honda or Sony would the reaction have been the same?

Culturally, where did Nike misstep? It’s not as if they aren’t a popular brand in Japan. Projects like F.C. Real Bristol and spots like this show it works well with modern trends in Japan:

But as much as they created a global movement with Livestrong (check out the Tour de France Chalkbot), they’ve run into a different sort of movement here and it’s not one that aligns well with the Nike marketing machine. It will be interesting to see how this issue is resolved.

So, as my loyal readers (both of you) will have noticed, new content has been pretty sparse here of late. Couple of reasons for that. First, I’ve been focused on my new job as Senior Social Media Planner at Dare. New client, new colleagues, new processes, you get the idea. But secondly, I didn’t have a lot of things I wanted to write about, so rather than just cranking out junk I’ve taken a break. But that’s coming to an end as all of a sudden I’ve found the inspiration – and content – to get going again.

I’m going to kick it off with giving you all a heads up on three projects I’ve come across being produced by people I admire and like to think of as friends. They are doing some really great stuff and I want to share it with you.

There has been a well deserved focus on customer service as a means of customer retention this year. You’ll recall Joseph Jaffe’s

Your marketing starts here

book from this spring – Flip the Funnel. In a similar vein, but with their own unique take, comes Micah Solomon and Leonardo Inghilleri with Exceptional Service Exceptional Profit. I really enjoyed this book because they avoided hacky buzz word bingo or tired old case studies and examples. Instead, they provided straight-forward, actionable insights and interesting real life examples that were easy to relate to.

But it’s the subject matter that really makes this a worthy read. Customer service is a real weapon when used properly. In many industries there is little product differentiation (is one polo shirt really that different from another?), but how you treat customers – throughout their entire exposure to the brand – can vary greatly. Do yourself a favor, read this book (and Jaffe’s too) and put your business (large or small) in a position to win.

Pitch in and help Bud

Next up is Bud Caddell, who recently picked up stakes from the Big Apple to make a move to Colorado and join Victors & Spoils. Bud has launched an ambitious book project called, The Bucket Brigade. Here’s how Bud describes the project:

This book will be for anyone interested in creating products that are not just market exchanges, but cultural exchanges – for anyone that wants to build or reshape an organization for doing business in a world gone digital – and for anyone just finding their footing in the marketing industry today. Ultimately, I want the book to serve as the how, not just the why or what, for transformational growth at a time when a commitment to strategic change will reshape the entire business landscape. At the core of the book will be ten new principles for creating, promoting, and distributing products in the future – my ten new commandments for brands and marketers.

Bud is a really amazing dude, and if you have the chance to get involved in a project with him you should. Good news, you can because he’s using Kickstarter to fund this baby.

Finally, there’s John Moore. I’m a big fan of John because he’s a true original. It seems just about all the big guns in Social

Tough Love - Coming to Broadway?

Media write books, and that’s fine. But John took a really unique approach with his project. He wrote a screenplay called Tough Love in which he shares many of the secrets, tips and hard-won knowledge he has accumulated over his career. That alone would make his effort stand out, but he went way beyond with his outreach. John sent me a an electronic preview copy with a personal inscription to “Pit Master Rick,” a moniker I earned from a comment I posted on his site two years ago. Here’s a little secret – earning that badge is one of the great joys I’ve had working in Social Media. Totally authentic, completely unique and with a high perceived value at absolutely no cost to John. And on some level John understands this and has kept that little flame alive for me.

I haven’t read Tough Love yet, but I’m really looking forward to it. I highly recommend you go check it out.

I’m in London right now, meeting my new Dare colleagues and celebrating the company’s 10th anniversary. As you can imagine, much of the talk revolves around the English National Team and their rather tepid performance in the FIFA World Cup. The pundits, journalists and former players, along with the everyday fans, all have opinions about the current squad.

A lot of the conversation centers on how great the English Premiership is, and why English players who star in that competition, along with the Champions League, don’t carry that quality over to the World Cup.  I’m of the opinion that England doesn’t underachieve at the World Cup, rather the England squad just doesn’t have that may good players.

Over the last six years, English teams have made six appearances in the Champions League final, featuring more teams, more times, than any other country. Arsenal, ManU, Chelsea and Liverpool all making at least one appearance. Only Italy has put more than one team in the final over this time. Sounds good, right? But something is amiss when you look deeper into the stats.

Six English teams in six years has produced 20 English players. More than any other nation, but just over three per English side.

Wayne and Fabio discussing summer vacation plans.

That’s right, English teams average about three English players. By comparison, 14 Spanish players have featured in the last six Finals and two Spanish sides (Barcelona two times) have played in the game, so seven Spanish players per side. A significant difference. Italy has seen three sides and 11 players over the same time period – about the same as England. Aha you say, England poor in the World Cup, Italy won in 2006 so, Rick, your theory is disproven already. Well, when you look carefully you’ll see that in 2006-07, AC Milan made it the Finals with seven Italian starters, just 10 months after Italy won the World Cup. In 2010 Inter Milan won the Champions League without one Italian starter! Italy crashed out of the World Cup one month later.

Let’s look at some other countries. Holland, still alive in this World Cup, and though they haven’t had a club side in the Champions League final they are the only country to have at least one player (12 total) in each of the last six Champions League Finals. You know what other countries have put a lot of players in the Champions League Final? Brasil (13) and Argentina (9). Germany, who are doing quite well in this World Cup, thank you very much, haven’t had a great run in the Champions League recently. Until of course, this year when Bayern Munich, and five German players, featured in the final.

Here’s something else to consider: Twelve teams – six of them English! – and how many English coaches? Yep, zero. Spanish (3), Dutch (2), Italian (2) and French (1) coaches? Plenty of those. Those teams have won a World Cup and European title, and been a World Cup runner up. Coaches from Scotland, Portugal and even Israel have been featured in the Champions League final.

So here’s what I’m seeing: English players are under represented based on their clubs appearances in the Champions League final. Clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and ManU are English in name only. English coaching is way below par.

English fans and media should recalibrate their expectations. Success should be advancing beyond the group stage, and that with a little luck. Anything beyond that is gravy.

For the vast majority of the history of television, the faces you saw on the screen were predominantly white. And not just white, but WASP-white. Eventually Jews and African-Americans found a place. More recently (last 20 years), Hispanics and Asians have finally earned a spot on the screen as well.  Now Hollywood and Madison Avenue have turned their attention to the people of Southern Asia,  and like other minorities before them, Southern Asians are mostly seen as sidekicks, comic relief and crude stereotypes.

NBC is at the forefront of utilizing Indians, with The Office, 30 Rock, Parks & Rec and Community all tapping the minority du jour. In NBC’s defense, most of the characters on those shows (regardless of background) are charactertures. Glee features an actor of Pakistani descent in a supporting (and that’s being generous) role. Many of these shows are audience and critical favorites so it’s not just junk and schlock that are featuring these minorities. But this progress needs to be tempered. A deeper dive into these examples shows there’s a long way to go:

Aziz Ansari from NBC's Parks & Rec

On The Office, actress Mindy Kaling’s character, Kelly Kapoor, is a bit player at best – despite the fact that Kaling is a writer and producer of the show.  On 30 Rock, Maulik Pancholy plays Alec Baldwin’s assistant – he probably gets three lines per every two episodes. Parks & Rec features the talented stand up comedian Aziz Ansari as part of the ensemble cast (Ansari is this year’s host for the MTV Movie Awards). On Community, Danny Pudi, like Ansari, is a member of an ensemble cast. On Glee, Iqbal Theba plays the school principal who is usually the butt of jokes. So, no real opportunities as featured stars.

Kal Penn from the Harold and Kumar films is probably the only, or at least the leading, example of an Indian actor having had a lead role in a major Hollywood production. This leads us to the issues surrounding the film The Last Airbender (based on the truly excellent Nickelodeon cartoon, Avatar). The source material features all Asians (predominantly if not totally of the Far Eastern variety) but the movie has shifted things a bit. Notably, the heroes were originally to be played by Caucasian actors and several of the villain roles are scheduled to be played by actors of Indian descent. Read the terrific website Racebending.com for more on this.

Neil Sadhu is a first generation Indian-American as well as screenwriter and actor in Hollywood. His credits include writing for Smallville and a role in front of the camera in the award-winning student film, Diwali. Neil provides a unique, first-person insight on the situation:

If you think about it, South Asians are still a very young community in the United States.  Indian immigrants didn’t come here in the masses until the 80′s and 90′s.  So it’s not surprising that the roles out there are most often stereotypical and possibly degrading. However, I consider it the growing pains of this generation of American-born Indians.  By and large, we want to hold onto our cultural identity, but at the same time, assimilate as any other minority would.  The subtext of what’s being depicted on movie screens and on television is that struggle.  I believe that as long as the exposure continues, it’s only a matter of time before harmony is reached.

The new emerging use of Southern Asians on television isn’t limited to programming. Advertisers, especially here in New York, are (guilty of) doing it as well.  Take a look at this Metro PCS ad:

They talk and dress funny. Ha ha. The two characters, Ranjit and Chad, have a Facebook page as well (looks fan created). Not to be outdone, New York sports cable network SNY has the following:

It’s as if the creative team who put this ad together were channeling a scene from Do The Right Thing.

For further insights I turn to Michael Hastings-Black, creative strategist at Desedo. MHB and Desedo are steeped in the Desi culture, I strong recommend you read his remarkable presentation on American-Muslim Consumer Identity. Here’s Michael’s take:

In the last 3 years, TV has reached a new norm in which Desis are regularly part of ensemble casts. Within this space, it is important to note the distinction between authorship and objectification.

On shows like Community or Parks and Recreation, actors Danny Pudi and Aziz Ansari are able to play with the layers and nuances of being both American and Desi, and the accompanying identity politics therein.

This is a stark contrast to commercials like the recent SNY or Metro PCS spots that mine the idea of Desi ‘otherness’ as a source of humor, something to be laughed at, not laughed with.

As a contrast, check out this Fiber One spot:

And read this from Pete Johnson, creative director at Saatchi & Saatchi New York, the agency for General Mills cereals (via Stuart Elliott):

Mr. [Ajay] Mehta “is indeed of Indian descent,” Mr. Johnson says, and for more information, you can visit his Web site.

Mr. Mehta “was our first choice throughout casting” for the Fiber One spot, Mr. Johnson says, because “his diction, his poise and his gravitas allow him to deliver a lot of information in an entertaining and engaging way.”

By the way, Mr. Mehta is playing not merely the manager of a single store, Mr. Johnson says, but the regional manager — “an important distinction if you ask him.”

Reflect on those two approaches to portraying people from Southern Asia, then read this [source Wikipedia]:

[A]ccording to the census report on Asian Americans issued in 2004 by the U.S. census bureau, 64% of Indian Americans had a Bachelor’s degree or higher, the highest for all national origin groups. In the same census, 60% of Indian-Americans had management or professional jobs, compared with a national average of 33%. Indian Americans, along with Japanese and Filipino Americans, have some of the lowest poverty rates for all communities, as well as one of the lowest rates of single parent households (7% versus the national average of 15%). Indian Americans also earn the highest average income out of all national origin groups. This has resulted in several stereotypes such as that of the “Indian Doctor”.^[9]

Not only is the representation of Indians by Metro PCS and SNY cheap and easy, it’s also pretty poor from a branding perspective. As a general rule using

Metro PCS characters Ranjit & Chad - Off the hizzee!

base stereotypes doesn’t impress highly educated people, it insults them.

So, after the Jews and African-Americans; after the Hispanics and Asians, we now have the era of the Indians and Gays as the go-to minorities on television. Progress? Perhaps not, but maybe so. It reminds me a bit of the famous quote from Mohandas K. Ghandi:

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

No longer ignored, Southern Asians may be in the “ridicule” stage right now. Perhaps soon will come the time when they win.

Next up is Dennis Deery in out continuing look at Age of Conversation 3 authors.

Rick Liebling: Give us a brief overview of what you wrote about.

Dennis Deery: My essay gave a brief oversight of a typical day in my social-media life, at the end bringing the focus back to the human and social aspects of the media we use.

Rick Liebling: What drew you to the Age of Conversation project?

Dennis Deery: I’d read the previous two books and found them to be a fantastic example of large-scale collaboration bringing a lot of really talented people together to discuss the important issues surrounding the new world of online conversation. I jumped at the chance to offer my two cents in such great company.

Rick Liebling: What aspect of marketing / Social Media is being overblown right now? I think the whole social media thing is being largely overblown right now.

Dennis Deery: Folks have a lot of trouble understanding new things in technology, so there’s a tendency to try to simplify, and then everyone jumps on that simplified bandwagon. People need to remember that the social is all that matters. The media will change and evolve over the years, but the social connections have to remain central.

Rick Liebling: Where are the real opportunities in marketing / Social Media right now?

Dennis Deery: With the focus on conversations, the world is beginning to rediscover the importance of stories in how we build communities. This leaves the world wide open for small businesses and organizations to make an impact.

Human-scale organizations, almost by definition, have better stories to tell than do mega-corporations. Those who focus on storytelling and community will be the winners in the coming years.

Rick Liebling: Predictions are cliche, instead, tell me one thing you are going to make happen this year?

Dennis Deery: I’m doing far more speaking this year, to wider audiences than just tech audiences. People are more curious about tech developments than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years in business. This is a great chance to get out and evangelize the use of technology to help improve conversations and communities. We’re creating new communities online as never before, and with some intentional thought we can make these communities better than ever before.

Bio:

Dennis Deery is the founder and principal consultant at Irish Rose Consulting, based in Menomonie, Wisconsin. He specializes in helping non-traditional technology users to put technology to work in their business or non-profit organization. He has a background in software development, web site development, technology planning and community development. His company web site is at http://irose.com, and his personal blog is at http://www.dennisdeery.com.

I first met Gaurav back in 2008. I was helping put together the Interesting New York Conference and he was a speaker. I was impressed with his honesty and authenticity.  Gaurav is a thought-leader and someone worth listening to so I’m pleased to include him in these Age of Conversation 3 author interviews.

Rick Liebling: Give us a brief overview of what you wrote about.

Gaurav Mishra: My chapter is actually a fictional story about a young brand manager in India, who has an epiphany about how marketing is changing and decides to build a community for young mothers to connect with them and convert them into brand evangelists.

Rick Liebling: What drew you to the Age of Conversation project?

Gaurav Mishra: When Drew and Gavin announced the first Age of Conversation book, I was attracted to the idea of writing a collaborative book on social media. Since then, the Age of Conversation community has matured into a vibrant network of marketing and technology thought leaders, so being a part of the community is as much of a draw now as contributing to the books themselves.

Rick Liebling: What aspect of marketing / Social Media is being overblown right now?

Gaurav Mishra: I think we focus far too much on the social networking tools themselves and not enough on what we will do with them. So, we tend to equate social media strategy with being on Facebook and Twitter, instead of building and nurturing online communities for the long term.

Rick Liebling: Where are the real opportunities in marketing / Social Media right now?

Gaurav Mishra: I think that brands are beginning to realize that 21st century marketing is really about organizing and energizing their evangelists. So, instead of adding social media to their marketing campaigns as an afterthought, they will choose to build their entire marketing programs around long-term online communities that come together around a big social object.

Rick Liebling: Predictions are cliche, instead, tell me one thing you are going to make happen this year?

Gaurav Mishra: This year, I’ll focus my energy on evangelizing the idea that social media marketing works best when it’s outside-in instead of inside-out. So, the right approach is to start with a big social object — a lifestyle, a cause or an interest — and build a community around it, instead of trying to generate buzz for your latest TVC. It’s a counter-intuitive idea in a TVC-centric marketing world, but it’s an idea whose time has come.

To read and learn more from Gaurav, follow his blog, Gauravonomics.