Blogger Relations 101

"I'm not saying it's a bad game. It's a good game. And it should be, since they've released it twice before." - Tycho, Penny Arcade.

Marketing is over people. Which is a good thing - for everyone who isn't a marketer. Sit your product in front of me but do not for a second think you can tell me about it, beyond it's most basic feature set. Hugh McLeod has more on this.

Thankfully, and because of this, there are interesting times ahead.

Egypt's Wael Abbas

This article on Egyptian blogger Wael Abbas over at Shel Israel's Global Neighbourhoods is incredible. Makes me want to just hand in my keyboard and do something far more worthwhile with my time.

Let's see how far we've come...

I twittered this morning about how there were two books being read, one newspaper and a magazine but I was the only one reading from a BlackBerry on my way to work, a timely reminder that if you don't pop your head outside the bubble (no, not that kind of bubble...) every now and then, your perception of reality can be so far off as to be unrecognisable.


ANYWAY, cue quote: "We have built this from a brand owner’s perspective." Paul Hurley, CEO of Ideeli, quote found by way of GigaOM. No. No no no. No no no no no no no. How many times do we need to go through this? To shamelessly mis-quote Bono, the war is over, we don't need your help, the brands are waging war on themselves. I saw a great quote yesterday I wish I could remember where, it was essentially "Newsflash - we're not markets, we're people." I was somewhat disheartened to see they had raised capital while spouting utter crap like that, but $3.8 million doesn't actually get you all that far these days, so I welcome a post in the not too distant future from Mike Arrington announcing a descent into the deadpool. I don't ever wish failure on anyone, unless their thinking is so far behind that some sort of Darwinian theory for business must be invoked.

Making me feel better though is this and this. The former taking Web 2.0 enhancements with you wherever you go (equal parts crucial and awesome) and the latter an ode to the 60-year old transistor and a pondering of how long Moore's Law can hold out. Both take us closer to a mobile future, and my experience on the tram this morning will surely become a thing of the past sooner rather than later. We'll then find out if you can indeed have too much of a good thing.

Watery Weekend

Plans for a barbecue got killed by Melbourne's wonderfully unpredictable weather. So instead, breakfast, two cups of coffee and a couple beers later, my day has thus far been spent on a couch at a cafe near me with wireless and cold brews served at a reasonable price. I'm just catching up on a couple pieces I missed during the week and I have to say, my favourite, favourite blog I discovered only recently is David Armano's Logic + Emotion.

He writes with such incredible clarity of thought, it makes me just want to cease thinking altogether so the time I spend doing that can be utilised digesting more of what he is on about. Do yourself a favour and check it out if you don't already.

Right, the power is running low on the laptop, which means it is time to unplug the computer and spend some time with my much neglected guitars, this bar has been playing nothing but Hendrix and it has, if I may be so bold, got my mojo working overtime.

Have a great weekend!

The Agony and the Apathy

As an epilogue to yesterday's post, it's amazing to see the folk that come out of the woods when you surface among a section of society you stepped away from. I haven't been actively involved in games for a couple years, but as sad as yesterday's news is, it's wonderful to be back in touch with a bunch of people I hadn't spoken to in years, even if most of them were calling to offer condolences for a job I hadn't lost.

I was also reminded though of the volatility that exists within the online gaming community. It isn't hard for me to recall posts I made to a forum of comments I made when I was a hardcore gamer. To see some of that venom directed towards Auran and in some cases me, got me thinking about things I had said, comments I had made from the outside looking in, invariably through frosted glass, only able to make out faint shadows inside but still taking it upon myself to pass judgment on what I believed lay before me.

One of the things that I love about the Web 2.0 revolution that is currently sweeping across the web, marketing, communications in general, is the exposure of real people and real lives. Hardcore gamers players are among the earliest of early adopters of technology, but with that comes handles, alter-egos and a whole lot of posturing built upon an identity that gets donned only from behind the safety of a computer screen. Parts of this remained core to my presence online until recently, I only just finally changed my email address to have my actual name in it, and I'd change the address of this blog if I had a simple way to do that (anyone with an easy tip there feel free to drop me a line). Putting yourself online and moving beyond a pseudo-identity leaves you open in a way that my online experience hasn't been previously.

But it falls inline with the person I am when I'm offline, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

The Long Road To Ruin

I remember hearing a long time ago (couldn't possibly remember the source) that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You can see it play out with major corporations who don't alter their strategies with changing markets, flying in the face of all the evidence presented to them, watching their consumer bases shrink in slow motion before them, unable or unwilling to make the turn before the iceberg collides.

I've just finished watching it play out at a company I used to work at, Auran, a game developer based in Brisbane, Australia. Those who played strategy games in the mid-90's probably came across their biggest hit, Dark Reign, which set the company up and garnered worldwide acclaim. Of course then the publisher Activision bank-rolled a start-up and took pretty much the entire development team away; it's safe to say things never really quite got back on track.

I spent two and a half years working at Auran as a game designer and producer, and I have never spent so many good, good days around a group of nicer, more intelligent people. I was blessed with teams that were passionate and inspired by the work they were doing. Leaving to chase other dreams in other cities was a hard if correct decision, but I have stayed in touch with a number of the people I worked with, and their Operations Director is my best friend.

So it is with a very heavy heart that I say the administrators have just walked into the building and the process of dismantling what was one of the great development houses in Australia begins. Thankfully the scene in Brisbane is booming and the staff will all have jobs to go to. Their publishing arm, N3v3rfa1l is likely to continue which is good news for its staff, with the continued involvement of Graham Edelsten and Tony Hilliam, the latter of who has invested a fortune over the years into a truly capable company that never quite managed to live up to its promise.

Auran never lived in the shadow of previous successes, it was always looking to break new ground and refused to rest on its laurels. Other companies grew past it in terms of size and projects, but to its credit it took on unusual and interesting projects, even when the direct ROI wasn't as clear as would have been nice. It bet the farm on a unique idea for an MMO, a game that I was involved in as a Producer on the initial pitch that won a significant piece of funding from Korean publisher Hanbitsoft. That relationship soured over time, but the companies parted ways and Auran continued to innovate and push the title down a completely new direction instead of taking the me-too approach of so many MMOs. A variety of suitors would come and go in that time, but the vision was steadfast, and thanks to Tony Hilliam's generosity, it meant they could forge a path that was all their own, not beholden to anyone else's ideas.

The game, Fury, was released to mediocre reviews on October 16th, and while many of them acknowledged a good idea and solid game at the core of it, the technical issues proved insurmountable. The game has failed to garner a large enough following to make it viable, and Auran's directors decided that the water was coming into the boat much faster than they had the capacity to bail it out. They can't be blamed, though I'm sure in the fallout fingers will be pointed in all directions. It's like the break down of a good relationship; in the end maybe nobody is to blame, and it simply ran its inevitable course.

I don't know that I'll ever go back to games, but if I did, I would seek out the culture that Auran created. Compassionate directors that valued innovation over a safe bet, the best and brightest staff from all over the world, a willingness to go against the odds even if failure means you don't exist anymore. Auran went down with a corporate philosophy focussed on leaping towards the sun; you may not reach it, but at least, for a little while, you can get off the ground.

It is a really sad day.

N.B. I appear to have been linked back to from all over the web as the "Ex-Fury" Producer. While I worked on the game initially, they were very early days and I cannot claim any sort of stake in the title it became. Many people much smarter and more talented than me devoted themselves to it for a number of years, and despite the end result, they deserve the highest of acclaim. Also thanks to Bloody for the kind words, they have been passed on to the team.

LinkedIn - Increasingly relevant, struggle with "cool"

Just checked out the latest entry on the LinkedIn blog which I stay ontop of due to working in the online job space. There is a video showing them chilling out and relaxing by playing a game called Four Square. What I don't understand is why they have all donned LinkedIn polo shirts for the video. IT IS ON YOUR BLOG GUYS! We see the logo at the beginning of the clip! For a company trying to be at the forefront of Web 2.0, you should be treating our audience with a little more grace; seeing you in a LinkedIn t-shirt on a cheesy PR piece doesn't make me want to buy one, it makes me want to use LinkedIn less.

This is a conversation I have very regularly with folk who want to PR the hell out of every little development. There was a great post on TechCrunch a few days ago with 10 tips from Loic Le Meur on start-up success. One that really stood out for me was "Don’t plan a big marketing effort. It’s much more important and powerful that your community loves the product." So, so true, and something I am trying to incorporate into the DNA of the people I work with. People, just let your work speak for itself; nobody believes the LinkedIn guys wear those every day, and if they do, why? I'm a big believer that the conversations happen without you, so all you should be doing is focussing on giving people positive things to talk about.

...one day at a time...

So maybe we're not the centre of the universe after all...

In 1543, a book called "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres)" was published, authored by Nicolaus Copernicus. He died with the first copy in his hands, having set in motion what would come to be known as the Copernican Revolution, the notion that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe.

I'm working on a comprehensive digital strategy for my company, funnily enough because that's a big part of what I was hired to do. I've just drawn up a large diagram on the white board next to my desk (you guys remember white boards, right?) which had started by me writing the word "site" in a box in the corner and then putting things around it, with arrows going in all sorts of directions.

I did a core dump of ideas then stepped back to assess what was there, and see what I'd missed. The thing that leapt out at me though was purely accidental, yet hammered home something I had read plenty of but hadn't actually understood until now. By putting my company's site in the corner and expanding diagonally to the right, I had wound up with a white board full of scribbles, and at the core was a large box, inside it written "social media".

As I looked at the diagram, I realised that only a handful of things had arrows pointing back to the site, but everything flowed to and from the social media box. And at that point I suddenly understood the notion of a de-centralised web, what that means for my company, other companies, and how that fits together. Makes me wonder if one day in the not too distant future companies will cease to have websites and will instead just have web-based applications that promote their services...food for thought.

For more on this, check out Jeremiah Owyang's Web Strategy blog, it is a great piece of work.

Talking to the hand that feeds...

My company has two very distinct audiences that we talk to. One we can talk to in a highly irreverent fashion and it doesn't matter too much, in fact it is encouraged.

The other audience though is actually the one that keeps us in business. There is a significant premium on their time and as a result I am extraordinarily cautious when we talk to them and in the way we talk to them. I'm trying to put myself in their shoes, feel their pressures and think about what would be relevant to their day to day life. I think I'm more empathetic than most (thank you many years as a struggling actor) and can usually put myself inside a situation fairly easily. What I find when I'm there though is I don't know if I really want to hear from my company; if I'm even remotely right, then that has serious ramifications for more than just a semi-regular newsletter.

Do you receive news from people you spend money with? If so, do they make it worth your while? If not, how could they?

They call it bleeding edge for a reason...

I just watched a fantastic interview with a guy I've mentioned a couple times in as many days, Avinash Kaushik. The interview was done by Simon Chen who heads up the Eight Black group (Disclaimer: my company does a lot of work with Eight Black, they're great people) over at the Blogworld expo in Las Vegas. When Simon first said he was headed over there, I kinda giggled in his general direction, even though I've been blogging since before they called it that.

If you head over however to Simon's own blog, you'll see that it has turned out to be a great collection of people really at the forefront of how companies talk to their customers, and people talk to each other. He has a range of discussions up with different practitioners, along with some video of talks he attended. I don't have time to sit trhough them all, but invariably if Simon puts something up there is some sort of insight to be gleaned from it; of course I get to do that by having him in my office once a week.

The last 1:30 of his discussion with Avinash really struck a chord with me. His key message to corporates and CEOs who are scared of engaging with their customers via blogging was if you're not doing it, then you're not at the cutting edge of blogging. He talks enthusiastically about the upcoming generation (Disclaimer: I am Gen-Y, therefore predisposed to liking nice things said about me) and their disdain for traditional media (TV, radio, magazines etc.) and the messages contained therein. He says we're not influenced by those things, and for the most part, he is right.

When I think about the sites I like, the writers I like, the people I respond to, the level of candour is always paramount to how I engage with them and how what they say resonates with me. I said in my very first post here that the second you say "We're cool", you're not, and the same applies. You can't tell someone your content or message is relevant, you can only sit it in front of them and say "I dig this, and if you give a shit about the things I give a shit about, then maybe you'll dig it too." The power comes in stepping away and leaving that choice in the consumer's hands, in essentially acknowledging you are power-less to force the outcome you desire. The great thing about that though is when you do get voluntarily chosen by your customer, you have empowered them, you have engaged in the age old paradigm of "the customer is always right", which was always about sitting your customer on a pedestal. Them choosing you brings you up to their level; whether you stay there or not depends entirely on you convincing them there is value in having you around.

Avinash concludes the short interview with the following missive, which I like so mch I have printed out and stuck on my wall: "If businesses want to convert their customers into evangelists...the only way to do it is to put yourself out there, participate in the social environment, have a blog, show your passion, contribute something of value and then you don't have to talk about yourself, you can get your customers to go talk and spread your gospel, (they) will become your marketing machine."

Amen to that!

Convincing the Hippos

That title means more than I care to let on, suffice to say it is apt for me and what I do. It was just introduced to me as an acronym via an excellent talk on web analytics by Avinash Kaushik. The video is just under an hour and well worth your time.

In his video, Avinash used the word Hippo as an acronym; HIghest Paid Person's Opinion. No matter what you did in the room argued Avinash, it would be the opinion of the Hippo that provided the action. Too bad if you fail to convince them!

This thinking of course is nothing new; most of us spent time at university figuring out what our lecturers liked reading in order to get the best marks from them; however artificially inflated that number might have been, the song remains the same; your proposal for a piece of work doesn't need to make all the arguments, just the right ones.

Avinash is an absolute evangelist for analytics, consumed with the intelligent interpretation of data, which it turns out is all about context. Context informs the why in your visitor's behaviour as opposed to simply the "what", which is derived from clicks. He also espouses the virtues of having goals on your site, a line you're running towards, and after hearing him talk I can't help but feel some of the things he said should be (in hindsight) as plain as day. Sitting around watching numbers is one thing, setting a direction for them (at least something more informed than "up") is another.

I've been thinking a lot recently about the HIPPOs I deal with, how I can make compelling cases for improving our product in the ways I believe it needs to. I've been spoiled in the past with CEOs who, bizarrely now it would seem, took me at my word when I said something was a good idea. As much as my current situation is a pain in the ass, it's also a great lesson in justifying my arguments and making sure I have done my homework properly and am not just operating on a (possibly VERY incorrect) assumption.

I highly recommend anyone involved in working online to check out Avinash's video. I'm beginning to work through his book, and while I'm not a stats person and ceased doing maths first chance I got, I'm strangely excited about what lies ahead and the information I can glean from the site to make our company stand out from the pack. Turns out HIPPOs like numbers, and that's what analytics is all about.

Just to be seen

I was talking with one of our marketing people the other day about radio, web, and what power (if any) there is in simply "being seen". Is a campaign successful purely if it, on paper, reaches the target audience? Or is some sort of interaction mandatory before raising your brand's flag and claiming victory?

Being purely online, I see a level of engagement as the only measure of success, however I forget that traditional media have never had this luxury. The marketing person I was discussing this with was running through a radio campaign that had, on paper, "reached 35%" of our target demographic. I asked for proof, of which none could be provided because it is all based on a sample of 2000 people in the radio network's broadcast area. 2000 people whose data is extrapolated to the n &supth; degree, whose choices, likes and dislikes are then sold to advertisers as the habits of the nation. All the while nobody talking about the elephant in the corner, nobody being willing to say our demo doesn't actually listen to radio anymore.

I set about de-constructing the numbers, trying to get a solid idea on what our CPA (cost-per-acquisition) was. I'm not going to go ito too much detail, but broadly speaking, I could have wandered university campuses around the country and handed out six-packs of beer and achieved a similar outcome; this does not get chalked up as a win in my book.

I forget though that the accountability inherent in an online platform can be frightening to people from traditional media backgrounds; putting a price tag on each person reached by that campaign is scary for the folk I work with as it only serves to highlight inefficiencies in our marketing practices. And because it so quickly reveals the flaws, people are quick to judge, become defensive, and bury their heads even further into the sand while the digital steamroller edges ever closer.

As marketers we should be embracing hard numbers, even if most people went into marketing so they could avoid math. We should be taking closer, more scrutinised looks at ourselves and learning from our mistakes. That's easy for me to say when my preferred medium lays it all bare anyway, but to run from our ability to know more about our audience, their habits and how they think and transfer that into flawlessly executed campaigns is tantamount to admitting defeat, hanging up our BlackBerrys and going off to work at an organic farm, longing for simpler, easier times.

I've never thought it enough just to be seen, but there's an increasingly short shelf life looming for anyone who does.

Candid Conversations

It has been the week for breakfast meetings, I had another one today. Now, I am to mornings as Superman is to kryptonite, but the company I can keep over a morning cup of coffee makes it worth my while to get out of bed a little earlier, despite having crashed out at 2am the night before. I can recall being 22 and getting no more than 6 hours sleep every night, and somehow this was always fine. These days I can barely get out of bed after 9 hours, which says more about poor lifestyle choices and particularly a penchant for that extra glass of wine I imagine. Regardless, I found, to my utter astonishment, that not only did I arrive on time for the 8am meeting, but that there was actually some fantastic dialogue to be had.

I'm a firm believer in there being no monopoly on good ideas; indeed it can often be the people least savvy with a particular medium who arrive at the best outcomes; they're not bound in any way by what has gone before them. That statement has nothing to do with breakfast however, as across the table from me sat a good friend whose ability to think critically and objectively about a given situation I really admire. He hit upon a very interesting point, and one that particularly resonates with work I'm doing right now: much less does my company's brand resonate with its intended audience, but does my audience, frankly, really care? The site exists to provide a particular service. And, provided this happens for the people who come to use it, what impact if any can the brand then have on the individual? More to the point, does it need to?

We talked about Google and how they are so intrinsically linked with search that the noun has also become a verb. We now google using Google; I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever heard of someone saying they googled using a competitor such as Yahoo or MSN. But I digress, the question was asked: does Google's brand actually resonate with its users? Do people feel an affinity for it? I'm not so sure. I think people have feelings towards Google as a company, which is based on their admiration of either an ethical approach to business, or the appreciation they have for a core function (search), which in turn spurs their core product (advertising). I certainly wouldn't wear a Google t-shirt, but then I don't wear any clothes with overt branding on them, which speaks volumes about me and nothing about Google's brand.

It begs the question though, if a brand fails to resonate with its audience but still delivers on a core service, will people still use it? What does that say about traditional marketing and branding? How does that change the rules online? If I want to book a flight, I go to WebJet and find the best price on any airline. Qantas resonates with me as a brand, but JetStar and Virgin resonate with my hip pocket, and that speaks far louder. The point at which the value of the company's service eclipses the power of the brand is an interesting thought - does that then mean, as I mention in a post below, a company can no longer affect mass change in the way a brand is perceived without alienating the people who use it?

Or in simpler terms and to touch back on a comment I made earlier, there is no monopoly on good ideas. But once that idea gains mass acceptance, perhaps you forfeit the ability to affect change in that idea; that is left to the users.

Of course when your share price heads north of $700, I imagine you have other things on your mind...

We're cool. No, we're not.

I was chatting with my CEO the other day about our brand; what is inherent in it, where we want it to go. Any time I ask him what we are, he says "We're cool!", and I just shake my head. Perhaps it's a crucial aspect of the GenX/Y divide, but I see this problem with so many brands, shouting from the roof top how relevant and interesting they are. The crux of the matter is you're only interesting if other people say you are; otherwise you're just conceited and out of touch.

By way of demonstrating relevant corporate culture, I showed him Vimeo's Harvey Danger lip-synch. A great video rife with the culture of the office it stems from, they apparently started receiving CV's from people saying "I don't know what you do but I'd like a job". To inspire people in that fashion, to get them excited about what your company stands for can drought-proof you against times when your offering falls flat. Your products might not always meet the needs (or even wants) or the market, but if your core culture remains appealing to your audience, it means you'll get another shot with the next thing you do - provided you're still in business of course.

I had breakfast with a great, great man this morning who works for another company we kinda compete with (I say kinda because it's not black and white but I don't want to get into semantics right now). He was talking about how his company has spent quite a bit of time trying to position themselves in a certain way, but at the end of the day they are perceived how they are perceived and they're not convinced they can change that in a dramatic fashion without alienating their core users. Fortunately for them, they're the market leader by a long way, so it doesn't really matter; an entirely different position to being a start-up.

Getting back to the Vimeo clip though, I imagine that would intimidate as many people as it turned on. But with the nature of even the most staid professions changing (I call several accountants "friend" who are not remotely stereotypical), I'm excited by a time in the not too distant future where big corporations find a way to redefine the way they do business while still delivering on their core offerings. Could Ernst & Young get away with injecting the life that exists inside the four walls into their external communications and retain its market position? I don't know, but it would be exciting to find out.

I want it 'cause I want it 'cause I...

I have sometimes enviable, sometimes not enviable position of being THE digital guy in a small start-up dominated by traditional media folk. The ridiculous thing about the situation is it is a web-based business, and as such you would think the place should be flooded with people who live and breathe this stuff; the reality is the CEO, from a traditional media background has mixed feelings about online, even if he himself can't deny that it is the future, the whole future (and nothing but the future).

Being the Lone Ranger though does have its advantages. For example, I'm always the guy who finds the cool new thing to show. I run our weekly WIPs each Monday morning and always make sure to show people something they haven't seen before. The role is part educator, part evangelist, and if I wasn't the guy who people stared at when there were site errors, it would be perfect. They haven't quite gotten their heads around the fact that you can be the digital guy and still not know how the code actually works; telling them it's about understanding the philosophy behind coding more than knowing the code itself is an exercise in futility. Plus, I have guys who are good at that, and there's no room for doubling up.

This morning I showed them a great video titled "The Machine is Us" (found via Ian Tait's CrackUnit). This lead immediately into a conversation about YouTube and the web and how we should be more involved. Now, this should excite me, the fact that the company I'm trying to inspire to do things differently gets animated and discusses the medium's potential.

But it doesn't.

And it doesn't because instead of talking about how our company can get more involved, how we can talk to our audience and even what we want to say to our audience, people get bogged down on the medium. My company wants to be on YouTube, FaceBook, MySpace etc. because it is web 2.0 and we should be doing it. Not because they're excited about the conversation, they're excited about the medium. And if we have learned anything, it's that mediums are the least important part of the conversation.

Or, as was stated much more eloquently on Gaping Void, "The main thesis is that it's not the wine per se that is interesting, it's the conversations that happen around the wine that is interesting. And that is true for all social objects. People matter. Objects don't."

Until my company figures that out, the conversation is going to be decidedly Web 1.0. Of course having said that, that's why it's also an enviable position that I have. I get to focus that conversation, it's my job to make people excited about that. I have the good fortune to make a living by getting people turned on to possibilities they weren't aware of before; I don't know too many people who can say that.