There’s something I’ve thought about for some time, and was perpetuated by Zach Lieberman, a speaker at the PSFK Conference last week. Lieberman, who is a creative technologist, had a talk about Engaging the Human Element, and “making deeply engaging, entertaining and meaningful interactions” through art and technology. He talked about the power of individuals, and touched on a trend of the shift from DIY to DIWO (Do It With Others); an interesting notion that speaks to to the heart of social.

Joseph (Jaffe) would say that social’s purpose for brands is to Acknowledge, Incentivize, Dialogue, and Activate (AIDA as opposed to ADIA) its customers who would then act as advocates for the brand, bringing new customers into the fold. That’s one way of looking at it, and a legitimate way to use it.

Many others in the industry see social is an opportunity for brands to go to where their customers are (online), in order to listen and engage in dialogue. And if there’s a real opportunity for it, act as a unifier, bringing like-minded people together around a common idea, belief, or hobby through a branded community.

But when I had a conversation with a peer of mine, a third angle came up; one that speaks to the point Lieberman made at the conference. Is social capable of being more than just a response/support/inducement tool? What is the purpose of launching a branded community? Are we facilitating conversations for the sake of having conversations? What is the end goal? Lieberman’s work, such as the Eyewriter and Drawn, is about leaving the screen behind. He talked about the “Open Mouth Moment”, when a person drops their jaw in amazement at something they just experienced. He described this as “the pathway to someone’s heart.” How do we create these social experiences? How do we move beyond the Facebooks, Twitters, and YouTubes of the world and get people talking again?

The advent of social media did not mark the beginning of people talking to each other, or about brands. It merely facilitates conversations, but it isn’t the reason why people talk. People talked about Lieberman’s Drawn because it was an “Open Mouth Moment”. It’s about a strong message or idea that’s worth sharing. Most self-proclaimed “social media experts” are internetologists (a point I won’t contend) who rely on incentives over emotions. Dare I say it, this is something social marketers stand to learn from the Big Dumb Agencies (BDA), as George Parker would call them. Whether it sits well with you or not, before Facebook’s founders were even born, these agencies rose to prominence on the backs of people’s emotions. And even then, people talked about and recommended brands.

An "Open Mouth Moment" at the Draw art installation by Zach Lieberman

Griffin Farley, a Strategy Director at BBH and author of Propagation Planning, recently discussed something missing from social media that has long guided traditional advertising: Brand Mantras.

“Good creative briefs can do a great job of inspiring advertising but recently I have discovered that they don’t do a great job of grounding social media actions. I think Brand Mantras do a much better job of this because they describe an emotion, a theme, a writing style that can be used as the guide for the voice of the brand in social media.”

He went on to cite a Brand Mantra in the form of a poem written for CNN. Guess who wrote it. Mother New York; Creativity Magazine’s pick for 2009 Agency of the Year.

“Agency” shouldn’t be a bad word. It’s only begun to take on negative connotations, but we shouldn’t equate the term to immorality. We should instead take hold of it, reshape it, and bring it back to a point of distinction. There are many things BDAs do well, and there are many things that they do poorly, like thinking small. But that same point can be turned around and said about smaller boutiques; most especially social shops. Logistics aside, like the inability to scale, social marketers have forgotten the pathway to people’s hearts. They’ve embroiled themselves so deeply in “Activation” strategies that they’ve forgotten human strategies.

Social media is missing its soul, if it ever had one. Strong ideas and “Open Mouth Moments” are all the reason people need to propagate an idea; not free shipping offers and discount coupons. The tools are merely there to help spread the word, but they shouldn’t be the idea itself. The Obama campaign had one strong, succinct idea that used the tools simply as a way to circulate it: “Change”. It was simple; but it’s that simplicity which made it stir the collective emotions of a nation.

Lieberman said “The process of creating art is in many ways an R & D department for humanity”. I implore this industry to remember back to what made us smile and cry as humans. To capture that raw emotion, and recreate that pathway to people’s hearts.

This post is more so a raw and unrefined observation/opinion of mine, rather than a picking apart of the two services. For some time I’ve wanted to write a blog post about how Facebook has become the new mass media, or how Twitter has seemingly morphed to a medium, but I think it’s probably even smarter to discuss the ubiquity of these two services as it encompasses both topics.

I think it goes without saying that Facebook and Twitter are huge. Taking a quick glance at their usage statistics, you’ll see they’ve grown into behemoths in the social space.

As a disclaimer, I’m well aware that Twitter’s advertised user base of 75 million is grossly inflated, being as only 21% of its users are actually active, according to a brand new study by Barracuda Networks. But that’s neither here nor there, and doesn’t change the point of my argument.

When you get a new client and they want to go social, what’s the first thing you think of? Odds are, most of you raised your hand for Facebook. I’ll give it to you that Twitter isn’t for everyone, but let’s focus on Facebook for right now, a name that has basically become everyday diction for us. Do you realize that we all seem to immediately snap to Facebook? As if you’re retarded if you’re not on it.

I’m not saying that it’s not without good reason. It’s a stellar social network. It’s got everything from profiles, to photos and videos, to status updates, to corporate fan pages and groups. And it’s only getting better. The mobile site is brilliantly designed, and has grown to become the most visited mobile social network . So, I’m not here to say shame on you for looking to Facebook, but I do want to challenge you with the question: Why? Is it because all your other clients ended up with a Facebook Fan Page? Do you have a genuine argument as to why it’s the first thing that comes to mind, or is it because that’s just “what we do” nowadays?

Twitter, on the other hand, has reached a status that to me is quite different from Facebook. Because of the nature of the two services, I feel that Twitter took a different path, one towards channelization. Facebook is a social networking site. Twitter is a medium. I could be getting ahead of myself here, but the fashion in which Twitter has grown and is used, has led me to believe that we could be thinking about it all wrong. I don’t think Twitter is a social networking platform anymore; it’s transformed (not transcended) into something instrumental.

I think on some level it’s become as ordinary and unremarkable as the telephone, or email. We talk about not focusing on the tools, and I wholeheartedly agree. But isn’t that argument used to make the point of putting strategy ahead of tactics. What if Twitter really is just a tool. A tool like my iPhone, or my Samsung/TiVo combo. What is Twitter used for? Communication. It’s only a communication, and sometimes entertainment, tool; no different from the telephone or television. And the way we’ve instructed clients to use it, reflects that.

We measure our clients’ customer relationships in Facebook fans. We measure their “address book” in Twitter followers.

Sure it’s because of their mammoth size, but does anyone else realize that we’ve turned these two sites into the “Break Glass In Case of Emergency” social media services. They’ve become ubiquitous with the term Social Media. When you explain your job to your relatives, what do you say? I’d be surprised if neither Facebook nor Twitter came out of your mouth. When did “social media” become synonymous with these two sites/services/tools?

It’s a hackneyed term, and the vast majority of us don’t deserve the title, but why aren’t we called Digital Anthropologist or Ethnographers? Regardless of how many people may hate the usage of that title (and rightfully so), those same people (I’d hope) also understand that at the end of the day our job is about human beings connecting with human beings. Aren’t we all just digital social workers, hopefully making some kind of difference in peoples’ lives through smiles, laughter, or tears?

When did Facebook and Twitter become the masters of the universe, which have come to define our professional existences? And when did we become tools ourselves?

This is something I’ve noticed with a number of marketers who have had difficulty in understanding social media, whether that means getting a grip on its value, or simply how to use it beyond what they read on random marketing blogs like this one. The key to truly understanding and getting a handle on social media is very simple: Don’t stop using it when you punch out for the day.

Don’t treat your work in social media like you treat your work on a TV spot. They’re not the same. In many ways, social media is a living, breathing creature. If you really want to “get it,” incorporate it into your everyday life. Don’t just keep a “business account” on Facebook. Really dive in. Put yourself out there. Make a personal account and share videos of your family, or photos from poker night with your real friends. Stare awkwardly into your mirror with your camera phone in an attempt to capture your next profile photo. Get on Twitter and find your friends and co-workers. Trust me, you’ll look cooler for doing so.

The reason why my generation has taken to social media like a fish to water while you flounder on the shore, isn’t because we’re cleverer than you. Not by any means whatsoever. It’s because it’s not a side-dish in our lives. We don’t see it as a obligation because Seth Godin says we should be doing it, or because it’s what our clients want. It has become the centerpiece of our social experience, for better or worse. We keep in touch with our family, friends, and acquaintances through these mediums. We’re on them all the time because they’ve become instrumental in facilitating our relationships with one another.

If you want to understand social media, beyond what you read online and in books, adopt it the way we have. If you want to understand social media, you have to EXPERIENCE it. Don’t just read about it and fumble trying to apply what you’ve read to practice.

It’s a lot easier than it sounds. You can start by friending me:

Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
YouTube
MySpace
Lala

I’m going to take a quick break from writing about marketing to discuss something somewhat dear to me. I was watching CNN’s Black In America 2 last night and a particular segment of the 2-hour special struck me: the segment on what some twitterers are calling bourgie blacks. A quick look at the conversations swirling around #BIA2, and you’ll see a mixture of opinions. Some people complain that CNN has gone from one extreme to another, without touching on middle-class blacks (a notion I agree with). Others are proud of the “well-to-do” blacks who were being highlighted, believing that they stand as a testament that there are well-educated black people. And finally, there are those who believe that the “elite” blacks are just as alienating as anyone else.

One twitterer went so far as to respond to another who was asking if there were any darker skinned black people, with: “Yes they were serving folks at the Tuxedo Ball!”

And another made the extreme statement: “…and Tyler Perry will tell us how cooning is the quickest avenue to Black wealth, tomorrow on Black in America 2.”

Conversations like these make some people uncomfortable, and I personally have found myself in the crossfire. Being a mixed minority myself (Black & Hispanic), but not fitting the typical stereotype of what a black person in America is thought to be, I’ve felt the same ire as the kid the segment was about. I didn’t grow up nearly as privileged as he did, but the identity crisis is much of the same. When blacks say you don’t “act” black enough, or that you’re not the “typical” black person, it begs asking the question: “How am I supposed to act? How does one ‘act’ more black?” Is a suburban white kid who wears baggy jeans and fitted caps “more” black than I?

Racial divides haven’t dissolved. It’s ridiculous to say they have. But I will say that a new form of segregation has formed, and going into an industry that’s all about segmentation, it’s clear to see that socioeconomics have overtaken skin color as the most important demographic. Who has the money? The haves and the have-nots has largely become the ruling principle; and it has divided those within my own race.

I’m going from “not being black enough” into an industry where minorities make up a small fraction of the population. Does that make me bourgie as well? I don’t consider myself elite. I’ve never lived in a house, I went to a school district where undercover cops monitored the cafeteria for gang activity, and I’ve never had the luxury of jetsetting around the world (the furthest I’ve been out of the country is Canada).

The point I’m trying to make is that within the community there is a divide between blacks and “real blacks,” and that’s a serious problem. Unfortunately, like in any culture, there are simply different “classes” (for lack of a better term). I think the problem is that CNN failed to shed any light on the middle class blacks in America; they’re just as important as everyone else. As one twitterer aptly put it: “Maybe they aren’t showing the Black Middle Class becuz we aren’t part of the ‘problem’.”

All I can hope for is that the underprivileged get a chance to shine, and the privileged remain humble while remembering to reach back and help others who were not born with the same opportunities. I plan to do the same for any minorities hoping to break into this industry after me. And that’s why I applaud the AdColor coalition, and hope to one day do some work with them.

And with that, I’ll close with a tweet that I found particularly entertaining: “At the end of this they should have the Huxtable family come on and say “See, we ain’t that bad”.

I love Twitter. Don’t get it twisted. I find it to be a very useful resource when it comes to discovering interesting gems around the internet. So, I’ll be first in line to say that it has provided me with real-world value, and have fervently defended it against friends of mine who don’t see a use for it.

However, I will say that I think there’s just too many people (read marketers) who have clung to it like it is the second coming. Last week, Morgan Stanley’s 15-year old intern, Matthew Robson, wrote a report that shook up the marketing world. Why? Because in it he said that teens just aren’t into Twitter. First off, it wasn’t a real, full-fledged research report in the traditional sense, so, why people acted as though the apocalypse was upon us is beyond me. Even with that aside, however, why is this news? This kid wasn’t the first to look into the massively overhyped impact of Twitter.

You have Robson saying this, but if you go back not so long ago, The Harvard Business Review did a study that showed that more than half of all Twitter users visit the site less than once a month. And even though nearly half of all Twitter activity comes from the various desktop/mobile applications available, I think it’s safe to say we all send at least one tweet out a month using the site. Furthermore, the study found that the median number of lifetime tweets per user was only one.

Taking another step, Participatory Marketing Network conducted a survey on 200 18-24 year olds and found that only 22% of them use Twitter. And iMedia Connection’s Jason Clark published a piece that did a great job of calling Twitter out. He pointed out the 30% retention rate, which translates to 7 out of 10 users who use it once and stop.

Above and beyond all that, what really upsets me is how some people will defend Twitter to the death, as if it is their child. Why is it so outrageous that not everyone is into Twitter? Is it because it proves that the tremendous amount of hype surrounding it is just that: hype?

Social media platforms will come and go. Yes, Twitter is one of the big ones right now, but who’s to say that it’ll still be around in 5 years. We need to remember that it isn’t the tools that are important, it’s the philosophy behind them. And the underlying theme for all of these sites is social interaction. At the end of the day that’s what it’s all about. Biz Stone and Mark Zuckerberg didn’t start Twitter and Facebook, respectively, for the sake of starting them. They did it to facilitate what we naturally do as human beings: communicate. And just as human communication evolved from carrier pigeons, to morse code, to telephones, to email, and now to Twitter, it will continue to evolve. They’re all just tools ultimately serving the same purpose: connecting people.