Thinking about the Roman crypt of the Capuchin monks and social "media"

While traveling in Rome I took some time to visit the crypt of the Capuchin monks at the Church of Santa Maria della Concezione. My companion was the producer of Mediabytes, Shelly Palmer -- neither of us knew were about to have a very unusual experience.

The Capuchin monks conceived the idea of using the bones of their late colleagues and a few other Romans as a medium of expression. The result is a series of rooms in which the walls are decorated with human bones. I found viewing this creation very strange, quite moving, and more than little creepy.

I guess you would have to call the artist a "sculptor," but what sort of mind can conceive building structures, arches, and even lighting fixtures out of leg bones, pelvises and skulls? There are over 4000 skeletons represented here.

Even as you marvel at the clever decorations on the walls and ceiling, including abstract patterns drawn in vertebrae and a grim reaper whose scythe and scales are made of shoulder blades and skull fragments, part of you is realizing that these were people -- that the art you art seeing was once living, speaking, interacting human being. The art has a purpose, and the purpose is clear, with a placard at the end that says:

What you are now we used to be; what we are now you will be

Emerging from this strange crypt, I realized that the artists who created it were creating media -- art with a message -- and that this media was made of people. And thinking on this, I realized it holds a strange parallel with what we call "social media," which is also media that's made of people.

The monks could craft their media in whatever form they liked, because the people who became that medium could no longer object. If you want to treat people as media and you have a fixed idea of your message, it's easier if the people are dead. The owners of the skeletons presumably agreed to turn their remains over to the unnamed sculptor to do with as he pleased.

In the social world, the people are as far from dead as you can get. They go their own way, they do their own thing. Sure, you can think of them as a form of media, but there is no editor, no artist, no sculptor that determines the form they take. And any attempt to control that expression will fail, since the media itself will rebel and take what shape it pleases.

That's why "social media" doesn't feel like media to me, and why I don't like the term.

Unlike the bones of the Capuchin monks, the people in social media are available to communicate. Talk to them. Listen to them. Immerse yourself in their needs, wants, desires, and connections. This may not be media, but it is social, and it's far more effective.

Photos: postcards from the church, via Johnny Söderberg on Flickr.

Polishing up the Groundswell site

I've enjoyed watched so many of you linking to and twittering about our little Groundswell microsite, because it means people are finding the site useful. Now that Groundswell's been out more than a year and has become a business including 18 analysts, we've got new goals for the Web site. The blog you are reading will continue, but we've added some new features to the site for you.

• There's a Consulting page which has details on how to work with us (speeches, workshops, projects, and data, for example). This also includes the long overdue Team page, so you can see all the analysts who work on Groundswell and our individual specialties. Go team!
• The Book tab still includes our graphics, videos, audio snippets, and other goodies, including the author bios (which used to be their own tab).
• The Calendar tab will include Groundswell speeches by the whole team, not just me.
• The Profile Tool tab includes something new -- a link to our widget with B2B users' Social Technographics Profiles. That new tool is embeddable --  you can put it on your own site. (That functionality is coming to the Consumer profile widget soon, too.)
• The Discussion Forum is just the same except for one thing  . . . we have a moderator, Zach Hofer-Shall, who is a researcher on our team. Zach's doing two things for us. First, he's clearing out the spam, so if you visited the forum and found it full of spam, we've fixed that. (And spammers, don't bother trying, Zach is vigilant against slime like you.) And second, he'll alert me and other analysts if there are posts there that ought to get a response from us.
• Finally, the big news -- the Forrester Groundswell Awards are starting up again for 2009. See the next post for details.

Could Microsoft's "Bing" take share from Google?

(From my Advertising Age Digital Next blog.)

Advertising Age reports that Microsoft will spend $80 million to get us to try its new search engine, to be called "Bing." Could that possibly work? (Well, at least it's not caught in the confusing branding world of "Windows Live" . . .)

Consider.

We all used to use Yahoo or AltaVista until we switched to Google. We stayed with Google because it was better.

Now Google is more than just habit. Google has our IDs, customizes our searches, searches our desktops and our email and delivers neatly integrated Maps, reviews, and video searches. It works. There is every reason to stay and no reason to leave.

But $80 million buys enough impressions to get people to try something new.

For this to make the slightest dent, here's what has to happen.

First, the search has to be better.

Second, the search has to be qualitatively different. Not just better search, but "holy cow this is different." Like it was when you first tried an iPhone, or first saw TiVo. This could be a better way to organize different media. It could mean connecting with social applications. It could mean searches that get better at understanding meaning so we all don't have to think in Boolean logic. Frankly, if I can imagine it, it's not different enough. So it has to blow all of us away.

Third, it has to integrate with everything else, better than Google does.

And finally, it has to work equally well on all browsers, all devices, and all PCs, even Apples and Linux machines.

That's a lot to do. But it could work. All it would take is a level of technology none of us have ever seen before.

When & How To Pay A Blogger

by Josh Bernoff

(Also published on Advertising Age's DigitalNext blog).

In what is easily the most contentious issue I've dealt with recently, the question of whether it's ever ok to pay a blogger has reared its ungainly head. The recent stir started last holiday season when Sears/Kmart paid startup Izea to to send bloggers on shopping sprees. Ford loaned Fiestas to bloggers to get coverage. The FTC weighed in with guidelines. Andy Sernovitz, author of Word Of Mouth Marketing, is having fits. Business Week stirred the pot by labeling it "Blogola".

When my colleague Sean Corcoran and I researched this topic, we realized that this practice, which we call "Sponsored Conversation," is here to stay. Some bloggers are journalists, and some others act like journalists -- those will adhere to tight ethical standards on gifts. Other bloggers will take money to write anything, and have no credibility -- you don't want to pay them, since no one believes them.

But there's a whole class of people now with a following, bloggers who just write what they believe. Mommy bloggers like Jessica Smith, for example. These bloggers are already reviewing products in exchange for loans or donations of sample products. Bloggers gotta eat, too. Should they take cash to write about products? Should you pay them?

If you don't want to lose your job -- and if you want to retain any credibility -- you should move forward very carefully here. We strongly recommend that you heed these key elements of the FTC rules:

• Advertisers must disclose “material connections” between themselves and their endorsers that might “affect the weight of credibility of the endorsement (i.e. if you compensate or pay in any way, you must disclose)
• Endorsements by bloggers must “reflect honest opinions, findings, beliefs or experience” of the endorser
• Both the marketer and the blogger can be held liable for misleading or false statements made by the blogger about the brand.

But do it right, and you can get people with a following writing about you in their own voice -- a powerful persuasive force. As Sean noted in his recent post, the key here is transparency and authenticity. Here's an excerpt of our recommendations:

Know the rules and educate everyone involved. Before you even think of dipping your toe in the water you will need to familiarize yourself with all of the necessary rules including the existing FTC guidelines, the proposed updates to those guidelines and Google’s policy on the use of no-follow links. Also take note that other countries such as the U.K. have have stringent policies on this subject as well. Get legal involved upfront and make sure anyone working on it is educated on the subject.

Mandate absolute disclosure and transparency. We have preached this from the beginning as it is by far the most important rule. The FTC’s guidelines are clearly about deterring deceptive advertising, a practice you shouldn’t be involved in anyway. Make sure any and all bloggers you work with make it VERY clear to their audience that your brand is involved in the development of the content. If you fail to do this you will put yourself at risk for not only a bad PR mess but legal trouble as well.

Ensure authenticity. You must allow bloggers to speak freely and authentically – not just because the FTC requires it but because credible reviews are better for your business. Just as consumers find product reviews on e-commerce sites more credible when negative reviews are included, consumers will find reviews about your products more credible when the reviewer is allowed to speak about it in their own voice. This is the real power of working with bloggers – to get them to talk freely about your brand with their community, not to use them as a megaphone to spin your message. If you’re not comfortable of letting go of your brand then sponsored conversations aren’t for you (and you may want to revisit your overall social media strategy).

I don't expect all you gentle readers to agree with this -- it's too controversial a topic. But paying bloggers is here to say. So if you do it, do it right.

Let's talk about tampons

by Josh Bernoff

If you've been to any of my Groundswell speeches you've heard my riff that begins "Let's talk about tampons." I love this since it's a phrase that gets everyone's attention -- and since it carries a payload. The payload is that as P&G's feminine care products realized -- and you should too -- you should focus on your customers' problems, not on your products.

When I gave this speech at the IAB Marketplace: Social Media Conference on Monday, Ad Age recorded bits of it and made a nice video podcast out of it.

To hear more about beinggirl.com, have a look.

Meet you (and Tweet you) in Madrid and Rome in June

by Josh Bernoff.

Thanks to clients, I will be in Europe the week of June 1. I’ve blocked off some time to meet with you, if you’re interested. We’re also celebrating the publication of the Spanish edition of Groundswell (El Mundo Groundswell) and the Italian edition (L’onda Anomala). I’d like to show my publishers the power of the groundswell in Spain and Italy.

I’m looking for people who can organize Groundswell events in the evening on Tuesday 2 June in Madrid and Friday 5 June in Rome. What kind of event? A speech (if you have a good space) or a Tweetup in a restaurant come to mind. I’d just like to spend time with some Spaniards and Italians who are interested in the power of social technologies – and in connecting with one another.

You can reach me with comments on this post, through Twitter (@jbernoff), or by email (jbernoff at forrester dotcom). I look forward to seeing you in Europe!

An author's perspective on the surge in Kindle sales (35% of units)

by Josh Bernoff

In the midst of Jeff Bezos' announcement of the new large-format (newspaper-ready) Kindle was an amazing number.

Amazon says that for books available in both formats (275,000 titles including nearly all the bestseller) Kindle units account for 35% of unit sales.

Kindle is good for the books that people like you, the readers of this blog, like. Right now Groundswell is ranked #475 on the Kindle store while the print edition is #612 on Amazon. The bestseller list on Kindle looks a lot like the print bestsellers, but there are anomalies. For example, Jeff Jarvis' "What Would Google Do" is at #896 on Kindle, and #1352 in Amazon print. David Meerman Scott's "The New Rules of Marketing & PR" is #305 on Kindle; the print paperback is #373.

How do Amazon's numbers look to an author? There was a big spike in March when Kindle 2 shipped. Year to date for 2009, we have sold almost as many copies on Kindle as we did in all of 2008 -- sales are accelerating on Kindle when they have slowed in print. But for 2009, Kindle accounts for only 7% of our unit sales at Amazon, a lot less than the 35% they are quoting (see the chart at TechCrunch). Even in the peak month of March, when Kindle 2 shipped, Groundswell on Kindle was only 12% of total Amazon sales. I can only assume things are picking up rapidly in the Kindle store, and that new titles account for a lot of that volume.

Due to the lower list prices I make a lot less money for each Kindle unit sold. But the price-volume equation on Kindle can be far more elastic due to the fact that my publisher doesn't have to pay for printing, shipping, and taking inventory. And people with Kindles buy an awful lot of books -- probably more since they're cheaper. Since we (my Forrester colleagues and I) estimate that there are 800,000 Kindles out there and rapidly growing, I like this market. When my next book comes out, I bet that Kindle will be a big part of igniting the sales.

What should NBC and Subway do about the "Save Chuck" campaign?

by Josh Bernoff

From my Ad Age DigitalNext blog post.

Thousands of fans of the NBC series "Chuck" are rallying around the show with campaigns on Facebook and Television Without Pity. What makes this campaign different from the many other "save our show" campaigns is the suggestion that fans buy footlong sandwiches at Subway, since Subway was recently  a featured advertiser in the show. Star Zachary Levi and Subway are actively participating in the campaign (check out the video below of hundreds of fans following Levi and buying subs in Birmingham, England).

Since this happened with the show Jericho (remember the 20 tons of nuts?) we can learn from the past. In that case, CBS un-cancelled the show in part because of the deluge of nuts from a groundswell of loyal viewers. CBS asked the viewers to recruit their friends to watch the show. But the ratings didn't reflect much enthusiasm, and they cancelled the show again.

Moral: thousands of visible, loyal viewers does not equal millions of actual viewers. Objects in the groundswell may be smaller than they appear. People who congregate online are not a representative sample.

So, what should NBC do?

1. Acknowledge the enthusiasm by wading into fan forums and commenting directly with an identified NBC spokesperson. (Why do companies have so much trouble doing this?) Ask them to prove their loyalty by recruiting viewers for summer reruns, online stream viewing, etc. Buying footlongs is transient -- recruiting viewers is proof they have influence.
2. If an insufficient number of viewers show up, take the show and its small but loyal following to an NBC cable network like USA.

What should Subway do?

1. Continue to provide places and encouragement for viewers regardless of where the show goes. This sort of affinity group is hard to find. But . . .
2. Acknowledge that while this may generate a new set of Subway customers, they may not be permanent. Subway needs its own affinity group, borrowing one from "Chuck" is a just a short-term boost. (There are hundreds of thousands of Subway fans on Facebook -- but I don't see the company doing much with these fans.)

UPDATE: (5/21): Not only was Chuck renewed, but Subway's sponsorship was a key part of the process. So contrary to what I said above, this campaign has influenced the network through the sponsor. Now Chuck's viewers must motivate others to watch or it'll just get cancelled again as Jericho did.

The future of the Social Web, according to Forrester

by Josh Bernoff

Today we published our report about the future of the Social Web. Jeremiah Owyang did the research here, I was the editor (which means it was my job to make him think harder). As usual, the abstract is free, the report is available to clients. And see Jeremiah's post on the new report.

If you're preparing to participate in the Social Web, you need these ideas your mind. First, that with a common ID developing, the social experience is about to get a lot more frictionless. And second, that not just social networks, but every brand site will become social -- whether you include these features, or visitors bring them along.

So what should you do to prepare? First, get started with you social applications now, or you will be completely overmatched as social technology gets woven into the fabric of the Internet. And beyond that, focus more on finding your fans, since they and their friends and friends of friends will be your most important asset in this new world.

Additional Note: Facebook announced today it is further opening up its interface to outside developers. This reinforces the ideas in the report about how the social networks are becoming more deeply embedded into the total Web experience.

How to create a social application for life sciences without getting fired

by Josh Bernoff

That's the title of my latest report, and it's not a joke. All your social application instincts here will get you in trouble. In the topsy-turvy world of regulated medical products and devices, the FDA calls the shots -- and it hasn't made clear what's allowed. In fact, one person I interviewed for this report called back extremely worried about getting fired if I spoke about the company's application, even though it's right out there on the Internet for everyone to see. The level of concern and paranoia here is breathtaking.

To conduct this report I conducted 25 interviews, including 10 pharma companies. All the pharma company interviews were confidential for obvious reasons. (As usual, the report is available for clients only or for a fee. Or you can get the slides from my presentation at HealthCampBoston for free.)

Because of the regulation, I structured the report around risk. Since every company in the pharma industry tells me "we are the most conservative company in the pharma industry", I decided to focus on who has the most to gain from social applications. Because if you don't have a lot to gain, the regulatory issues mean you may have a lot at risk, and it's not worth it. Among the important risks are companies violating rules on adverse events reporting, off-label usage, and fair balance.

This led me to the following chart:

In this chart we plot all the medical conditions we analyze on two scales. On the horizontal scale we locate points based on the question "Do the people with this condition participate in social media?" On the vertical, we use our judgment on how much those people could benefit from social applications.

For example, Depression is in the upper right quadrant ("Misery Loves Company") because it has socially active sufferers and because those people can benefit from helping each other out with support and information. At the other extreme, people with osteoporosis don't participate much (because they're older) and wouldn't get all that much out of it if they did.

The report lays out strategies based on which quadrant you're in. Upper right quadrant, you want to look at less conservative, more effective strategies like pre-moderated communities, like alli circles and sponsored communities like the type 1 diabetes community Juvenation, sponsored by Novo Nordisk.

If you're in "Connectors Who Don't Care" or "Lonely Fellow Sufferers," consider more conservative strategies like restricting open text fields, as AstraZeneca did with its Celebration Chain application for Arimidex, or vetted contests, like Fight HIV Your Way for BMS' Reyataz.

The safest strategies, like Listening Platforms, Communispace private communities, or working with the doctor community Sermo, are appropriate for all life sciences companies.

There's lot of other advice, but probably the most important is to involve the regulatory staff in your company early. Otherwise they'll shut you down before you launch. Get 'em in on the planning.

Looking forward to your reactions. And it sure would be great if the FDA would set some clear policies on this.