Combine a rapidly growing trend of social media adoption with an economy that has forced hundreds of thousands of workers to reinvent themselves as entrepreneurs, and you’ve got the perfect recipe for consultant overload.  Since nobody seems to know what the hell’s going on with Twitter anyway, nearly anyone can pass themselves off as an expert on the subject. So suddenly all those poseurs who might otherwise have bilked the hapless with offers of life coaching services or Feng Shui consulting have jumped on the social networking bandwagon. You can hardly swing a stick on the sidewalk nowadays without smacking one of these guys in the head.

While I haven’t personally been in a position to hire a social media consultant, I am ocassionally annoyed by the risible amount of self-promotion through social media channels these folks seem to require to keep their businesses going.  And I’m sure that if my livlihood depended on teaching businesses how to Twitter, I’d be pretty miffed about Mr. Strohmeyer’s article.  But then again, the term “consultant” has always been a loaded one, and I’m sure that most consultants have already come to grips with that in their own businesses.

The truth is, even at our agency, which is filled with a lot of very smart and creative people, social media has yet to be proven the panacea and/or the gold mine that a lot of marketers want you to believe.  It’s an important component to consider for some businesses and certainly valuable for individuals who want to take control of what the Internet is saying about them, but the metrics just aren’t there to support some of the radical positions I’ve heard at conferences and in the blogosphere.

But here’s my favorite part of the article:

The truth is that there are almost no rules in social networking that don’t already apply in just about any other social environment. A great many smart people have already written worthy perspectives on how to be a good citizen on Facebook and Twitter, and I hardly need to reiterate here what amounts to general common sense. Just as in life, the only rule that really matters is the Golden Rule. All the rest is either derivative, or flat-out nonsense, and you really shouldn’t be paying big bucks for either. [emphasis mine]

This is true.  Think about it.  Let’s say you went to a party where 10% of the people you knew intimately, 20% were best friends, colleagues, etc., and the remaining 70% were acquaintances, important people from another time in your life that you didn’t keep up with that often, and some people that you admire from afar as potential business connections.  I’d say that probably approximates the Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn profiles of many.  During that party, which let’s just say lasts an entire day, you update everyone you can about the fact that you’re speaking at a conference.  That’s normal, and good, right?  But here’s the thing – you probably wouldn’t tell everyone things like, “I just woke up,” or, “THESE ARE MY FIVE FAVORITE THINGS”, or “according to a survey I took, I am most like the Sex in the City character Gandalf the Orange” multiple times.

And you certainly wouldn’t want one of the people at that party to be a smooth-talking salesman for a company who’s product you might use but you don’t care much about, like soap, or paper, or maybe even an interactive agency or social media consultant!  If they had something valuable to say that was directly beneficial to you or interesting, that’s one thing, but you’d never invite a broadcaster of unwanted content to your party, at least not on purpose.  Your time is limited, and you don’t appreciate it being wasted.

Facebook recently included a “Hide” feature for removing status updates from those people that you want to stay “friends” with but are sick of hearing from.  I don’t know about you, but I welcomed the opportunity to shut out some of the noise so that I could spend my time keeping up with people who were interested in having an actual conversation.

A social media strategy for a company, or for an individual, requires the thoughtful guidance of someone who is skilled at building relationships.  And I like Robert Strohmeyer’s advice – the first rule to think about is the Golden one.

Sandisk recently launched a new campaign to boost its mini, micro, and standard size SD card sales for cell phones. And while I’d love to wax poetically about the viral nature of the flash-based site and the obviously well-researched and finely targeted campaign, I’m too busy playing around with the super cool ringtone generator.

Boasting an interface similar to that of a high-end audio editing application, but designed with stylized and easy-to-use controls for the average millenial, the ringtone generator is a lot of fun to play around with. The generator has over 30 high quality music samples that a user can mix and match on a 5 track timeline.

I’m sure that Sandisk spent a lot of money on the generator, which is a part of the site S.L.O.T – Serious Load of Thrills – site that anyone could at first glance mistake as a microsite built by MTV. The site, and the generator, are authentic and relevant enough to capture the attention of the millennial crowd. Most importantly, the site and generator offer legitimate entertainment and informational value to a generation with a lot of purchasing power and very sensitive BS detectors.

Bravo, Sandisk.

Advertisers can get such a bad rap in the name of trying to better the world, can’t we? A recent CNN article details some innovative (and presumably cost-effective) new ad placement technologies that Microsoft is developing for online applications. Of course, because it has to do with advertising and with Microsoft, all new technology must be “scary”.

What they are talking about actually sounded really cool to me. Check out this excerpt regarding the new role of advertising in streaming video going forward:

Microsoft — along with Google Inc. and other competitors — is also hard at work on new ways for companies to advertise their brands to Web surfers watching video clips.

One crunched a clip, looking for the most appropriate stretch of time and spot on the screen for an advertiser’s “bug,” or logo. For example, if a car company wanted to show its logo for 10 seconds in the bottom-right-hand corner of the screen, the computer program would find the 10 seconds in which the logo interferes least with the action in the video.

Another used speech recognition to make a transcript of a video, then served up ads — in the demonstration, they were text links — alongside the video. As the topics discussed on screen changed, so did the ads.

The third program scanned a video for surfaces where ads or product images could be inserted later. The demo showed how the same frames could display a Coke ad one moment and a Pepsi ad the next, without having to reshoot the video.

This isn’t scary to me…it’s exciting for a couple of reasons. First, inserting bugs or other visual content into videos is already highly annoying, so any technology that reduces how obtrusive those elements are is great with me. Second, we’re all looking for ads to be more relevant to us – both advertisers and consumers. Most people are at best disinterested in an ad that is irrelevant to them, at worst they are downright offended. I remember watching an episode of “Dirty Jobs” online at Discovery.com, and every single online ad was for a “regenerating facemask”cream that I had absolutely no use for (this did, however, confirm for me that there must be a lot of middle-aged women watching Dirty Jobs, or there was a totally inept media buyer for the facemask company.).

How much better would your media consumption experience be if it were personalized to you? Every other aspect of consumerism is heading this direction, and with good reason, because we’re all unique as people. Ads finally catching up with this isn’t “scary smart” to me, it’s refreshing.

A recent study completed by the Social Science Research Network confirms another quirk of human behavior that is sure to get marketers’ attention. Evidently, if something is priced with an exact dollar amount (e.g., $1174 vs $1100), people are much less likely to debate the price. Indeed, the study found that if the price were “precise”, retailers and sellers could raise the price and people would be more likely to pay it without debating than if a round number were selected instead. People will actually pay more and ask fewer questions if the price isn’t a round number!

This, however, is my favorite part of the study (which, by the way, could benefit greatly from a table of contents and a better layout…ahh..science):

“These results have important substantive implications for buyers and sellers (and their agents). Buyers (and their agents) should be more cautious in their price magnitude judgments in light of our results. Sellers (and their agents) can strategically “precise up” their prices, i.e. choose a higher precise price rather than a lower round price.”

Behold the power of the information age. This is one case where knowing more will really pay off. I know that I certainly won’t look at a price of $150 the same way again.

High-five to these guys for bringing the study to my attention. Thanks!

Of course, this model is only truly economically viable if you are fairly confident that you already have a strong, loyal audience that will carry the majority of the financial burden.

Steve Thorson, one of my friends and a co-worker from a previous life, is a designer for Paste Magazine’s website, and he let me know that Paste is using the same model to sell a year-long magazine subscription – you pay whatever you feel the magazine is worth to you. 11 issues, plus 11 full-length CD’s full of the latest and greatest music for progressive tastes. What’s great about this promotion, is that it’s also a gauge of the loyalty of its current subscribers, as Paste is allowing renewal subscribers to get the same deal. As an added incentive, Paste is highlighting those who pay more than the $19.95 for a standard subscription rate (although Steve tells me this experiment has yielded an unexpectedly high number of subscriptions at $19.96 by those who just want to be featured in the magazine).

This is a great deal for consumer, and a great deal for Paste, as they can expand their subscriber base to uber-frugal people like me that wouldn’t normally pony up the 20 bucks for a magazine about music (yes, guilty, I paid a dollar, but I know that Paste will make it up in ad revenues). Asking people to pay what they want is the next best thing to giving it away for free, and it offers the added benefit of giving you, the marketer, a very real picture of what your value is to your customers.

>>UPDATE: Steve just let me know that the slew of subscribers at $19.96 was inaccurate (and third-hand) information. So far, only one person has done that. On the upside of things, he said the highest price someone has paid so far is $70. So now, I can officially feel less guilty about only spending a dollar.

Have you ever had the experience of working on a project or presentation, and you can’t really get any momentum until you get a draft of the document done first and can “shoot holes in it”? For me, this book has summed up what I’ve always felt but haven’t been able to express succinctly: “form follows failure”.

I’m about 3/4 through this interesting book, which as a history junkie, I initially picked up to satisfy my need to read something fairly dry before heading to bed. What I discovered is a rather entertaining essay on the evolution and science of design. Henry Petroski uses case studies on how common objects (the paper clip, zipper, fork, masking tape, etc.) have been developed over time as a background for his overall thesis, which is that form does not follow function, but rather failure.

What he means by this that rather than necessity being the “mother of invention,” failure of a product or service to perform in some way is what drives an innovator to develop a solution. In short, being annoyed with stuff that doesn’t work is what motivates us to create something new that fulfills our personal or collective expectations.

What’s exciting to me about this argument, although penned by Petroski in 1994, is that it absolutely supports the “always in beta” development model that is the current standard for progressive web sites and applications (such as Gmail, iStockphoto, etc.). You throw something out there, listen to people complain about what doesn’t work, and then you innovate, and repeat the cycle ad infinitum. What is fantastic about the internet age is that this cyclical development process can occur in real-time, and the benefits to clients and users are conveyed at the same lightning speed.

I can’t mention this topic without paying homage to David Armano and Critical Mass for their inspirational “always in beta” website and experience at the 2007 Forrester Consumer Forum (I had the privilege of being interviewed live by David at the event). The website is now evolving (who would have thought?) beyond it’s original intent of a “new idea” at the Forum into a real-time communications portal for Critical Mass.

To tie this all together, offline projects, and really all design challenges that an agency tackles, are subject to the rule of “form follows failure”. At an agency, we listen, we create, our internal reviews and client feedback tell us what’s wrong with our creation, and we continue to hone and refine until the final design accomplishes all that it can. I guess adding “routinely and adeptly fails on all initiatives” is a great line to my resume after all.

Sure, as a photographer this image makes me cringe, but my trusty Treo was all I had on hand. While on a client pitch in NYC earlier this week, I spent a few minutes in a lobby with a DHL drop-off box. I was inspired by the simplicity of the answer for a very important question that anyone about to drop a package in the box may have, “Have they picked up packages here yet, or not?”.

The large, block letters in all caps that indicate if a package has been picked up or not are not sexy, or even all that interesting, but they are 100% functional. I think that can be a hallmark of great design. DHL could have gone with a really slick system of lighted buttons, color-coded tabs, or whatever, but instead they chose the direct route. If I can walk up to the drop-off and see immediately that the packages for the day are “NOT PICKED UP”, I can drop my package with confidence and not have a second thought, which I would bet is exactly what the drop-off box designers were going for. Bravo DHL.

An interesting thing that happens when you run a route regularly at 6:30 in the morning; you tend to notice the rhythm of everyone around you. Since most people work jobs or attend classes that have fairly consistent schedules, you tend to see the same people doing the same things. You see the same people driving the same cars, including the guy that really needs to have his exhaust system serviced. You get to know who will have their lights on, who will still be asleep, and who will have already left. You also get to know the personalities and quirks of those around you that are out doing the same thing. Some will smile and greet you enthusiastically, some will be guarded and stare at the ground, while others will be somewhere in between. Even though you only get a few seconds in their presence, you can learn a lot from them.

I find that I rarely make time for that level of immersion with my clients, or better still, with my client’s clients that I market to on their behalf. Like most agency folk that have been in the business for a number of years, I’m well versed in marketing best practices and I feel as if I do a good job of understanding my clients. But I wonder about how much more effective I could be if I were to take a walk through my client’s customer’s environment, be that a manufacturing facility, home office, or boardroom. With a few consistent visits, I’m sure that I could pick up some very, very valuable information.

It’s good to be back!

However, I was totally shocked to see that the number 1 “site to avoid” (also the number 1 worst site on the web) was eHarmony.com. From a design and functionality standpoint, eHarmony isn’t anything to write home about, and it’s probably not going to be at the top of the buzz lists for Web 2.0 applications. It is, however, a solidly designed and functioning site. According to Time magazine, the reason that everyone should avoid eHarmony is:

“Our main beef with this online dating site is its power to cause utter despair. eHarmony claims its more “scientific” approach to matchmaking differentiates it from competitors — its users complete extensive personality questionnaires, in order to connect them to others based on compatibility. In early 2006, eHarmony announced that more than 16,000 couples had married during the previous year as a result of meeting on the site, citing a 2005 Harris Interactive poll. That’s about 90 people finding love every day, a track record bound to inflate expectations. On a more typical dating site, where users are prone to making snap judgments based on photos and sketchy profiles, if you don’t find that special someone you’re less likely to take it personally. It’s easier to shake off because, after all, that’s hardly the real you up there on that site. But if you’ve taken the time to answer eHarmony’s 436 compatibility survey questions and paid its premium charges ($21 to $60 a month, depending on how many months you prepay), and the site then delivers terrible recommendations — or worse, rejects you as unmatchable — what do you tell yourself then? The company’s advice, to stick with it for several months to improve your odds of finding a soul mate, sounds all too self-serving (the longer you use the site the more you pay). The site also discriminates against gays.”

If you read the “discriminates against gays” article, you’ll see the real backbone of Time’s issue with eHarmony and how utterly absurd of an argument it is. The author even acknowledges at the end of his rant that’s it’s perfectly within eHarmoy’s rights as an independent company to choose not to provide services for men seeking men or for women seeking women. The author is gay himself, and he does a thorough job of pointing out that there are many sites that provide dating services for gays only that do not include services for straight people.

Time, normally a trusted source of objective news about what’s going on around the world, has really let their readership down by choosing to publish this article. To be clear – I’d just as quickly blast Time if they were saying that a site for gays was discriminating against straight people by now providing services for them. It’s not like eHarmony is a public institution, or holding back vital services from a particular community…it’s a dating service! People generally want something that is tailored to their particular tastes when it comes to a dating service. It’s no secret that eHarmony is a more conservative site for people who are trying to find that special someone. But so what? Imagine a dating service that did nothing to be selective – how would that do anything to increase the odds of like-minded people getting together?

Rather reviewing eHarmony using objective criteria (or even subjective criteria that is somewhat rational and consistent), some disgruntled writer at Time who evidently has had some bad luck in the dating arena has chosen to take out their personal frustrations on eHarmony.com. The review has nothing to do with site functionality, its impact on the online movement, or anything else. I’m very interested to see if there is any public backlash, as well as how eHarmony will respond.

Thanks for braving my rant!