Dan Erwin

Russian Trolls and the Information Wars

Surprisingly, the most powerful source of false information is neither Trump nor the Russian trolls. It’s a unique American business model that drives the false information.

With all the hullaballoo about false information, the Russian trolls and Trump's ritualized falsehoods on Twitter, I’ve been at a loss to understand the reality and the actual facts behind all that’s going on. So I was delighted to see the data and insights in an article by Vera Tolz in the December 3 issue (“Shortcuts”) of the London Review of Books. Tolz holds an endowed professorship in Russian Studies at the University of Manchester (UK). My review is indicative of a slight bias toward Brit scholarship on issues like this.

The data presented and the resulting conclusions offer a far better background for our understanding of fake information and Russia’s supposed role in it. In addition, given the Washington riots of January 6, which happened after the article was written, we now have a far richer understanding of the role of the internet.

As Tolz argues, Trump’s November 5 press conference in which he claimed he won the election and there had been massive voter fraud are indicative of the fact that we had learned nothing from the election of 2016. The left claimed the press and broadcasters were indulging the right. In contrast, the right claimed that the media hadn’t indulged them enough.

Russian trolls?
By that time, there was a strong liberal consensus that much of the internet misinformation had come from Russia. Pro-Trump Russia wants to disrupt elections, create chaos and interfere with balloting. Tolz points out that both the States and the UK have fallen into the trap of believing in this “information war” paradigm. The paradigm assumes that the main threats to both countries come from the outside. A fact the data does not support.

It’s true that a history of Russian trolls attempting to

Smart Dad with Smart Kid

"The 'State of Hockey' is. . . excessive." Anyone who reads enough to compare cultural values in the Western world is aware that we in the States are not known for our moderation. That was best illustrated by a comment of a lead character in the British espionage series, MI-5. In one episode he commented regarding the chaos in Iraq Middle East that he'd be glad when "the US Military could find no more countries to invade."

I've often been smitten by holding a similar attitude toward the complete lack of any sense of long-term priorities or moderation in the attitudes toward local sports and the public schools, whether grade school or college. So I thought the lead commentary in today's Star Tribune on the role of hockey in Minnesota was both daring and long overdue. It also elicited a huge guffaw with the final statement.

The extended comment, written by Dale Vaillancourt, a young father from the middle class suburb of Burnsville, paid attention to the fact that Minnesota is a hockey crazy state. He was quick to say that he enjoyed watching "two evenly matched teams battle it out on the ice. If there's some brutal checking or a fight. . . even better." Obviously, Vaillancourt is also a sports guru. He just completed his 12th American Birkebeiner ...

13 Spooky Web Marketing Statistics from Hubspot

The well-known web marketing firm, Hubspot.com, just sent along some very significant inbound marketing statistics with permission to publish. They're fascinating and especially illuminating.

1.    In 2012, there were 6X as many display ads shown as there were total web pages on the internet. That's 2,502 display ads per internet user.

2.    In 1998, the average consumer saw or heard 1 million marketing messages--almost 3,000 per day. That was 15 years ago--before smartphones, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn. . .

The Big Boys (BE) Talk About Social Media: Six (6) Key Dimensions

One of social-media’s most important contributions to business is the competitive advantage it offers. I’ve had the opportunity to learn from a close friend in web marketing who was responsible for a Fortune 50 company’s website—from the get-go. So when the latest McKinsey Quarterly reported on research from GE’s social media experience, I was curious to see whether their findings differed from that of my good friend and all his resources, and also see what I could learn.

GE’s rationale for social media is instructive. Fail to use social media, they say, and you’ll inhibit collaboration, knowledge sharing and the tapping of employee capabilities. That’s the basic stuff of competitive advantage in today’s economy. Their platform has already attracted more than 115,000 users. Cool!

 

Although the GE leaders are at different places in social media, the writers identified a range of six social media efforts. I’ll list the six, and then pull out what was of interest to me, whether confirming stuff or new insights.

•  Compelling content: Most of the discussion here, focused on the creative skills of “auteur” filmmaking--authenticity, imagination and narrative--that makes for a media product. One of the insights that was especially valuable for this blogger is the difference from traditional media. Too much perfection is actually a barrier to collaboration and cocreation, as it disinvites participation. That’s a mindset of imperfection, along with rawness and lack of polish.
• Channel dynamics: The SM (social media) dynamics master business’ traditional orientation to control in contrast to much direct intervention—lack of control. That’s scary. One of the GE execs developed this orientation by blogging for a long period of time. That was the only way to get an audience involved. Blogging made it possible for her to find her voice, become more conversational and easygoing. True. But the blog conversation also reorients my priorities, adds new priorities and sometimes, to my frustration, rejects my priorities.
• Communication overflow: We are drowning in noise, what with e-mails, tweets, Facebook updates, LinkedIn, RSS feeds and more that’s tough to navigate. For me, that’s making decisions about when and when not to reply, when to link, when copy material (like this) and mash it up with mine, and what to share. I post on four different sites, plus my own. And making decisions about what goes where requires empathy.
• Driving strategy: The GE authors recommend using the youngest generation, the digital natives’ expertise, through reverse mentoring systems. No surprise there. As a septuagenerian I’d be lost without my Gen-Y buddies and my grandson. As a consultant, I’ve always accessed my clients’ expertise, so it’s not a new strategy. But what’s important is that I continue to use their insights, even when I’m certain that I “get it” about a different technology. I’m a “user,” but I’ve found that the youngest generation is comprised of “users,” who, at the same time, are developers. It’s not only about the technology, but it’s also about the language, the differing priorities and perspectives, and their ability to critique my stuff, my brain and my generational mindsets.
• Enabling architects: Organizations constantly deal with conflict goals: free-exchange infrastructure and forced control. Social media amplifies the “informal organization,” but the leader’s task is to keep that conflict from being destructive. GE has standards of transparency and integrity that must be observed. Although an individual blogger like me has no controlling CEO, it’s an issue that I must always observe. I may not be as scrupulous regarding my priorities and choices, but when in doubt, my Gen-Y protégé and colleague, Liam O’Dea, monitors my stuff closely. This has become far more important than I would have assumed early-on. And he can be appropriately ruthless.
• Ahead of the curve: With all its resources, GE has a number of initiatives to help top execs stay ahead of Web 3.0. It understands that the next generation of connectivity, appliances, cars and all kinds of objects will be connected--and that these spawn new business models to be managed. For me, that means I must maintain my exposure to the millennial mind-set.

It takes guts and smarts to innovate in social media. Social media, unlike other technologies, are powerful forces of change. At least we know where to go to get what we need to know. That’ll give GE and Dan Erwin a different type of competitive advantage.

Flickr photo: Jeroen Steemen 

Clients to Avoid--Or Remake

The phone rings—with a potential client on the line telling you he’s interested in your services. And, he’d like you come in and make a presentation. Beware! There’s a high possibility if you’re a consultant or sales rep you’re going to be disappointed. Very disappointed.

As often as not, the client has already made a decision and he wants to use you to confirm the decision he’s already made. You’ll be giving away your time, your planning, your intellectual software--and walk away frustrated by the fact that you’ve been used.

One frustrating learning experience
Quite a few years ago, one of my long-term clients told me that his boss--a person he just happened to have little respect for--had asked about my coaching services and been given my name. Shortly afterward, I got a phone call from the VP, asking me to come in and talk about my services. I walked into a conference room with him, and a few minutes later, in came his director of human resources. She immediately sat down and asked about my services, my coaching processes, my success/failure rates, telling me also specifically what “I needed to know.”  

Being quite gullible at the time, I shared proprietary information and spent an hour answering her questions and listening to her analysis of the situation. As the meeting closed, the VP said he’d get back to me. A few days later the HR director called, saying she’d decided to work with another firm. The job was wired and I’d been screwed. It was obvious that I was used to confirm a previous decision.

I’ve learned a number of things from such experiences. For example, if a person tells me exactly what he wants without my analysis and input into the situation, there’s a high possibility he doesn’t know what the hell he really needs. Furthermore, if he knows exactly how I should go about the job, that’s another red flag. And if a client wants to know specifically and immediately how you’re going to solve the problem, there’s a high potential that you were brought in solely to gain free ideas for confirmation of decisions already made. All of these situations mean that there’s little possibility of a job--and that you’re being used.

Avoiding customers not ready to buy  
As a result of these experiences, I’ve taken a number of steps to make certain that I never fall for them. Here are my strategies:

• Do a brief interview of the customer on the phone. Take the time then and there to start assessing the potential of the situation. Ask questions and get the person to detail his needs and objectives. Even ask who else he’s talked with about the service you offer. Pay close attention to how the client prioritizes his need. It can be a very long time from contact to contract. Depending on the size of the potential contract, the conversation may not be worth your time.  
• Tell them you charge for the interview. Sometimes you’ll get a monetary offer for an interview without asking. Recently a marketing firm wanted to talk with me over the phone about a number of issues regarding senior clients, promising a $50,000 job with one of their customers and offering me $200 for my hour-and-a-half conversation. I knew very well that the promise of a contract is worthless, but I said I’d think about it. So they sent me a list of the information they wanted. I turned them down flat. The manager called me back, asking if I’d give them an hour for $200 and help them analyze a proposal they were making. First of all, I told them, I don’t work for $200 an hour and secondly, what you’re asking for is exceedingly valuable information. So unless you’re willing to sweeten the pot, thanks, but no thanks.

 Problem solving for clients in an interview inevitably involves my proprietary, intellectual software. Let the client know he’ll be charged up front for the interview. Physicians do it all the time. Unless the client is one with which you’ve had a long-term working relationship, up front charges are fair game. I’ve never had that expectation dashed. Furthermore, the surprising consequence is that the majority of the 20 to 25 times in which I made the demand, I also received the job. I think, without looking at related research, that most business people appreciate a consultant who knows what he’s worth and will agree to the contract without discussion.

• Briefly discuss the client objectives and talk about tentative parameters before you commit to a presentation.
  You may find it useful to talk about tentative solutions and objectives. But be certain the client understands they’re tentative.
• Be ready to undo the client’s decisions
  Very often clients think they know what they need. However, you should always approach the first meeting as an opportunity to remake the client’s problem, solution and even objectives rather than merely respond to them. You’re brought into a situation because you have a product or service that a client needs and can’t handle with his staff. By seeking to undo the decisions the client has already made, you will find needs the client may be unaware of—and, of course, offer solutions you can provide.
• Plan for contractual revisions.
  In some situations, the client will definitely want your services, but won’t like the intitial proposal. You may need to make several revisions, plan for several meetings and do quite a bit of joint thinking before you and your client reach agreement. Again, make certain that your client understands that an interview fee will be paid up front separately, and/or be included in the final contract.
• Be ready to walk away. Don’t be a wuss. If the conversation has gone nowhere by 30 minutes, get up and walk away. Otherwise you’re going to be the loser.

 The more proactive your approach to the client’s phone call, the better the results for you. The passive consultant or sales rep who permits the client to make the bulk of the decisions, will find himself on the short end of the stick. You want seriously relevant information before you get into a decision mode. Clients who are resistant to these approaches are not worth your time. I’m aware that a great number of consultants, even sales reps, might find some of these protective steps gutsy. However, they’re quite realistic and very much to your advantage.

Flickr photo: by angusmci

"Demystifying Social Media"

Everybody knows what social media is, but few know how to take advantage of its potency. In a highly illuminating update, the McKinsey Quarterly lays out social media’s core functions. Since General Motors made news today by its decision to stop paid advertising on Facebook perhaps it needs some McKinsey help.  A GM official decided that paid ads have little impact on consumer’s car purchases. General Motors’ paid advertising commitments are among the highest in the world. Although the investment in Facebook was not huge, the decision is liable to have profound implications for both Facebook and General Motors.

So how can you best use social media?
The McKinsey study enables targeted marketing responses at 10 touch points along what it calls the “consumer decision journey.” One of the ten—monitoring what people do and say—is so important that McKinsey says it’s the core function of social media. The other nine uses of social media easily fit into three categories. 

1. Monitoring.  Brand monitoring—awareness of what’s being said about your products and services—makes an appropriate default social-media function. This is the kind of information that should reach the relevant organizational functions such as marketing, public relations, research and development and public relations. 
2. Responding. Although it’s valuable to learn how the medium is doing and what to improve, this kind of response can uncover sales leads and provide customer service. Responding to counter negative comments and reinforcing positive ones is of vital significance to brand management. Recently a hoax photograph claimed that McDonald’s was charging African-Americans an addition service fee. McDonald’s social-media team released a statement declaring the photograph a hoax, asking key influencers to let their “followers know.” The company even responded personally to a number of people who believed the image was authentic. Within just a few days, the firm had resolved the problem and its stock shares went back up.
3. Amplifying.  Amplification means designing the medium with a social motivator that encourages broader engagement and sharing. It means that the campaign provides for experiences that invite customers to broaden or extend the relationship with the brand, product or fellow users. Groupon, for example, provides consumers with credit for referrals.
4. Leading. The medium can be used to lead the customer toward long-term behavioral changes by driving Web traffic to content about a firm’s other products or services. It can, for example, provide time-sensitive targeted deals. American Express created shopping promotions for the weekend following Thanksgiving. 

Although the McKinsey study is oriented to organizational marketing, I’ve found by means of Analytics that the same insights are applicable to my own personal blogging. By regularly posting on four different websites with slightly varying niches, I’m able to gain very useful marketing insight. I’ve been able to identify issues, language, and approaches that, over time, clarify potential consulting and writing objectives. 

Analytics and Quantcast provide me with much free insight. Although conventional knowledge, for example, says that blogs should be kept below 500 words, I’ve found that content is truly king. Three of my top five blogs, by reader stats, are more than 1,000 words in length.  Surprisingly, average time spent on blogs does not necessarily correlate with the length of the blog. I take that info as a means of identifying exceptionally relevant content to my readers. Quantcast is especially useful in that it provides free information regarding income, education, age and categories of interest to my readers. Currently, my blogs reflect readership identical to my strategic objectives. As a result of the marketing information, I’ve been able to fine tune my readership and better reach both the educational and income levels on which I’m focusing. I spend a great deal of time monitoring and responding to the marketing data, blogging to achieve my desired objectives.

Fm: Divol, R., Edelman, D., and H. Sarrazin, "Demystifying Social Media." McKinsey Quarterly, April 2012.

Quotation of the Week: Steve Jobs on Innovation

Shortly after Steve Jobs showed off the IPad tablet last year, he was asked what consumer and market research guided its creation.  His  response was telling:

    --None.  It isn't the consumer's job to know what they want.

Although that may seem an arrogant response, I take a different orientation to it.  In many cases it's very appropriate.  One of my long term clients, 3M Corporation, usually operates out of the same model.  The famous and highly profitable Post-Its came into being on that basis.  To a significant degree, many, perhaps most of their products are developed by their research people with little input from their clients.  And, as most know, they've been highly profitable. Still, even though it sounds like Jobs and 3M totally ignore the consumer, that's not at all the case.  They are very familiar with the larger consumer context, but the consumer never "guides" the innovation.  The innovation goes several beyond consumer knowledge and expectations.

As a management consultant, I've also found the same model highly useful.  Here's how I go about it.  When a client contacts me for work, typically they have an idea of what they need.  I develop an in-depth understanding of their need, then come back and double-check to see whether I've understood their needs correctly.  With their affirmation, I'm ready with a much more creative, more effective program.  It's rare for them to reject my unique contribution.  Furthermore, the quality of that innovation often means that I'll have return business.

Suffering From a State of Wall Street Journal Shock

This bit of news can't wait.  I'm suffering from a serious state of shock and indigestion.  The Wall Street Journal, that paragon of flagrant capitalism, suggests that Ayn Rand is bad for the market.

Hmmmm.  You don't know who Ayn Rand is?  Or. . . was?  The WSJ used these niceties: "Many conservatives shrank from what they saw as her toxic blend of atheism, absolutism and ruthless individualism."  The NYTimes does it better: To be an Ayn Rander is to be "angry" and "vulgar" about those who loot and mooch and consume public funds.

In contrast, the more thoughtful conservative organizations note that free markets are ultimately the best way to "help the poor and disadvantaged.  Rand's insistence on the folly of altruism, however, tends to overshadow and even invalidate this message."

Those who regularly read my blog occasionally see bits and pieces of moderate libertarianism seeping out.  I tend to move more in the direction of David Brooks' libertarianism, but occasionally my perspective on  human community and altruism holds me back.  I've never seen a completely unified, philosophical (or theological) and cogent approach to the meaning and purpose of life.  And I've struggled philosophically and theologically and sociologically with those issues most of my adult life.  I lost my need for great certainty half a century ago.  Inconsistencies are part and parcel of being human.  I'm OK with that.

'Nuff said.  Here's the article:  Ayn Rand.

SECOND THOUGHTS ON PERSONAL BRANDING

One of the competencies I've noticed, even been beat over the head with, during my six month blogging novitiate is that there is a terrific amount of blogging on personal branding.  Everyone and his brother is jumping on the personal branding bandwagon.  I find that a bit strange.  I can't really believe that self-packaging--personal branding--is the panacea for our sins or for our vocation.  Still, when you google personal branding there are 84 pages of stuff on the subject.  I assume there will be redundancy on those pages but I lacked the interest to check it out.

 

It's obvious that Tom Peters had his finger in all this, dating from an article he wrote in 1997.  Many people don't know how to read that marvelous guru.  I have a great deal of admiration for Peters.  He's the greatest business popularizer of the 20th century, able to get the attention that Peter Drucker, the master, couldn't get.  (In many ways, he's much like the great New York Times popularizer, Thomas Friedman.)  Peters also has a big heart for the underdog, blue collar and hard working, many who regularly get screwed by business.  That's why you occasionally get a rant about Wal-Mart and other businesses from Peters. 

 

The key to reading and understanding Peters is to never take him literally, about nearly anything.  He writes and speaks to get the attention of closed ears, using hyperbole and exaggeration, all done to create a strong impression and evoke strong feelings.  He is what one of my former Southern colleagues called a "yeller:" an outrageous personality needed to get the attention of the establishment when they're way off track.  Peters' first blockbuster did precisely that.  It refocused business on the customer, although not all business got the message. 

 

FYI:  The American auto business never did get Peters’ customer-centric point which is a major reason why it faces bankruptcy today.

 

With that frame of reference in front of you, let me redefine personal branding in its most basic form.  Hopefully, that will enable you to analyze the stuff on personal branding to make some useful decisions about the process.

1. There is only one purpose for a personal brand and that's to evoke a response from a potential customer.  It may make you feel good about yourself, give you something to put on your website or business card, or even some new language for Twitter, but if what you're creating isn't for the purpose of evoking a response from a  potential customer, forget it.
2. Your personal brand only matters if it results in sales.  Whether you’re an independent consultant or an internal organizational professional, you want clients to have awareness, favorability and purchase of your expertise.  The expertise that you’re selling may take the form of products, services or even ideas, but it’s those results that you’re concerned about.  You can create rather simple metrics to measure the results of your brand, even mere revenue figures, statements of value from your clients or requests for your service.  What all that implies, though, is if there are no sales, your personal brand is a waste of time. 
3. Customers only buy what they perceive to be relevant.  If your personal brand doesn't offer something that customers perceive to be relevant, you're screwed.  If your claims are hollow, then it's impossible for you to seem relevant for very long.  That means that I'm always listening to what my customers have to say about my service, both those on the web and those that I meet face-to-face.  And boy, they'll let me know whether or not I'm relevant to them.  
4. Ultimately, your customers define your brand, not you.  That's why smart firms and smart people are always listening, observing, questioning and measuring their customers.  Inevitably, they're adjusting their brand to their customers' definition.  I'll happily confess that it took me ten years into my business to understand my brand with some clarity.  I was very fortunate.  Some of the smartest people in some of the best companies told me exactly what I bring to the party and what they want from me. 

I have to believe that there's some agreement and a lot of disagreement with this definition, so I'd like your input. 

 

P. S.  Tom Peters has a recent blog in which he declaims on what is NOT personal branding.