November 9, 2008

blue monster: why social objects are the future of marketing

BlueMonster350px.jpg

As a mar­ke­ting blog­ger, I get asked a lot, “What is the future of mar­ke­ting?“
I always ans­wer the same: “The Blue Mons­ter”.
What’s The Blue Mons­ter?
A Blue Mons­ter is a Social Object that arti­cu­la­tes a Purpose-Idea.
What’s a Social Object? What’s a Purpose-Idea?
Sit your­self down, pour your­self another glass of whisky. This might take a while to explain…

1. THE BLUE MONSTER BACKSTORY
In the late 1990’s I was living in New York, wor­king as a mid-level copyw­ri­ter at a mid-size adver­ti­sing agency, when for wha­te­ver rea­son I star­ted dra­wing car­toons exc­lu­si­vely on the back of busi­ness cards, just to give me something to do while sit­ting at the bar. Like I wrote on my blog:

All I had when I first got to Manhat­tan were 2 suit­ca­ses, a cou­ple of card­board boxes full of stuff, a reser­va­tion at the YMCA, and a 10-day free­lance copyw­ri­ting gig at a Mid­town adver­ti­sing agency.
My life for the next cou­ple of weeks was going to work, wal­king around the city, and stag­ge­ring back to the YMCA once the bars clo­sed. Lots of alcohol and cof­fee shops. Lot of weird peo­ple. Being hit five times a day by this strange desire to laugh, sing and cry simul­ta­neously. At times like these, there’s a lot to be said for an art form that fits easily inside your coat poc­ket.
The free­lance gig tur­ned into a per­ma­nent job. I sta­yed. The first month in New York for a new­co­mer has this cer­tain ama­zing magic about it that is indesc­ri­ba­ble. Incan­des­cent luci­dity. Howe­ver long you stay in New York, you pretty much spend the rest of your time there trying to recap­ture that fee­ling. Cha­sing Manhat­tan Dra­gon. I sup­pose the whole point of the cards ini­tially was to somehow get that buzz onto paper.

I star­ted my blog, gapingvoid.com in 2001. I was back living in the Uni­ted King­dom, where I grew up and where my mother and sis­ter still lived.
By this time I had accu­mu­la­ted a cou­ple of thou­sand business-card car­toons, and just star­ted pos­ting them on a semi-daily basis.
Fast For­ward to 2006. By this time my blog is pretty well known– one of the lar­gest in Europe-getting over a million uni­que visi­tors a month. My car­toons are all over the inter­net, it seems, espe­cially around the tech blog­ger scene.
It’s around this time that I meet Steve Clay­ton, at one of the many “Geek Din­ners” that have begun sprou­ting around the Lon­don tech scene.
Steve works for Mic­ro­soft, at the time he was run­ning the UK Part­ner Group [I could tell you what that actually means, but that would take too long. Suf­fice to say, he’s one very cle­ver and talen­ted chap­pie].
Steve’s not the first “Mic­ro­sof­tie” I’d met before, but he was the first one I got on really well with. Over the next few months, we start seeing each other around a lot. He’s a really super nice guy, highly inte­lli­gent, and fun to hang out with. Good times all round.
Early on, he tells me something that really struck with me: “I could be making a lot more money, and taking a lot less social grief if I wor­ked somewhere else. But I choose not to, simply because at Mic­ro­soft, you get to work on some REALLY cool stuff, soo­ner than anywhere else.”
Why was that so inte­res­ting to me? Because I had heard that very same rea­son cited to me by EVERY sin­gle Mic­ro­soft emplo­yee I had ever met up until that time. Secondly, like every other Mic­ro­soft emplo­yee I had ever met before, Steve was a really nice, open, fun guy. He did not typify the ste­reotype “Evil Borg Hive Mem­ber” that Mic­ro­sof­tees were often accu­sed of being.
I pon­de­red this for a while. Why did these folk work at Mic­ro­soft? It wasn’t the money, it wasn’t the social kudos. Something else was moti­va­ting them
So in Octo­ber, 2006 I pos­ted a car­toon on my blog that tried to express this drive, at least to myself. It went on to be called “The Blue Mons­ter”:
microsoftbizcard219border.jpg
[“The Blue Mons­ter”. First blog­ged in Octo­ber, 2006.]
I pos­ted it in high-resolution, the idea being that peo­ple at Mic­ro­soft who liked the idea, could down­load it and print it out poster-style, if they wan­ted. Like I said on my blog:

I just designed this poster for my buddies over at Microsoft [you know who you are]. Feel free to download the high-res version by clicking on the image, and print it out onto - posters, t-shirts etc.
The headline works on a lot of different levels:
Microsoft telling its potential customers to change the world or go home.
Microsoft telling its employees to change the world or go home.
Microsoft employees telling their colleagues to change the world or go home.
Everybody else telling Microsoft to change the world or go home.
Everyone else telling their colleagues to change the world or go home.
And so forth.

Microsoft has seventy thousand-odd employees, a huge percentage them very determined to change the world, and often succeeding. And millions of customers with the same idea.
Basically, Microsoft is in the world-changing business. If they ever lose that, they might as well all go home.
I chose the monster image simply because I always thought there is something wonderfully demonic about wanting to change the world. It can be a force for the good, of course, if used wisely. It's certainly a very loaded part of the human condition, but I suppose that's what makes it compelling.

What happened next was quite extraordinary. Steve saw the cartoon, and really liked it. He immediately started using the image in his e-mail signature. He stared talking about the cartoon on his blog. Next thing you know, other folk inside Microsoft start doing the same. The “idea-virus” is unleashed.
Today, if you’re ever invited onto the Microsoft campus in Redmond, Washington, if you walk around the offices, chances are you’ll see the Blue Monster poster, hanging on somebody’s wall. Or you might very well see someone with a Blue Monster sticker on their laptop, wearing a Blue Monster t-shirt, or handing you their business card with the Blue Monster on the back. Though the Blue Monster wasn’t created by Microsoft, for many people working there, it seems to articulate why they work there. It’s also been written about in the UK National Media, as well as countless tech blogs.
It's not that everybody inside Microsoft "gets" The Blue Monster. It's never been officially endorsed by them. But the ones who do get ito, REALLY get it. For them, it's a cult object. It represents the conversation they INDIVIDUALLY wish to be having with the world about their company and technology in general, not what the corporate "Brand Police" upstairs want to be having with the world. They may be loyal employees of Microsoft, but they're also individuals. Somehow The Blue Monster allows them to express both roles at the same time, allows them to navigate the blurry lines that separate the two.
I was just playing around with a cartoon idea at the time, not really expecting too much to come from it. I never expected the idea to get as big and well-known as it did. Life is full of surprises.
As the months went by and I started to see The Blue Monster story growing and growing, I had another insight: The Blue Monster wasn’t a one-off. The Blue Monster represented a fundamental shift in how marketing will be conducted in the future.
fail444456.jpg
[One of the drawings I did for Seth Godin's latest book, "The Dip".]
[UPDATE:] In order to help me order my thoughts, I decided to put all my favorite social object posts onto a single blog page below. Enjoy.]
[From "KULA": June 15th, 2007]
The Guardian's Kevin Anderson [who also attended last night's screening] has a nice synopsis of Jaiku Founder, Jyri Engstrom's "Social Objects" idea.

Something about sites like Flickr that you will be using these sites for years to come.
The sites that work are built around social objects.

[...] MySpace. What is the real focal object? Music. Once they lose that focus, it is in trouble.
How does one build a useful service around social objects? Five key principles.
1. You should be able to define the social object your service is built around.
2. Define your verbs that your users perform on the objects. For instance, eBay has buy and sell buttons. It's clear what the site is for.
3. How can people share the objects?
4. Turn invitations into gifts.
5. Charge the publishers, not the spectators. He learned this from Joi Ito. There will be a day when people don't pay to download or consume music but the opportunity to publish their playlists online.

Besides being a web 2.0 entrepreneur, Jyri is an anthropologist. So at the London Jaiku geek dinner last Tuesday, I asked him about the connection between Social Objects and its correlation with Malinowski's "Kula" [Malinowski was the father of modern Anthropology, by the way]. Jyri repsonded that this was very much the case. So much so, in fact, that one of his great friends and mentors, the aforementioned Joi Ito bought an island in Second Life and named it "Kula".
Kula. Social Ojects. Objects of Sociability. Call it what you will, I think so much of what we're trying to understand about the web, the future, and yes, MARKETING, stems from this very profound insight from Malinowski in the early 20th Century, that good folk like Jyri and Joi are now helping to shed new light on.
[Bonus Link:] Video of Jyri's talk on Social Objects at the geek dinner. One of the best talks I've heard for a while.
[Starbuck's Coffee Cup: June, 2007]
Somewhere along the line I figured out the easiest products to market are objects with "Sociability" baked-in. Products that allow people to have "conversations" with other folk. Seth Godin calls this quality "remarkablilty".
For example: A street beggar holding out an ordinary paper cup cup won't start a conversation. A street beggar holding out a Starbucks cup will. I know this to be true, because it happened to me and a friend the other day, as we were walking down the street and a guy asked us for some spare change. Afterwards, as we were commenting about the rather sad paradox of a homeless guy plying his trade with a "luxury" coffee cup, my friend said, "Starbucks should be paying that guy."
Actually, my friend is wrong. Starbuck's doesn't need to be paying the homeless guy. Because Starbucks created a social object out of a paper cup, the homeless guy does their marketing for free, whether he knows it or not.
Although I suspect he does. I suspect somewhere along the line the poor chap figured out that holding out a Starbucks cup gets him more attention [and spare change] than an ordinary cup. And suddenly we're seeing social reciprocity between a homeless person and a large corporation, without money ever changing hands. Whatever your views are on the plight of homeless people, this is "Indirect Marketing" at its finest.
40million1235.jpg
[October, 2007:]Anyone who has heard me speak publicly lately will know that I'm currently very focused on the "Social Object" idea, which I was turned onto by Jaiku's Jyri Engestrom. Here's some more thoughts on the subject, in no particular order.
1. The term, "Social Object" can be a bit heady for some people. So often I'll use the term, "Sharing Device" instead.
2. Social Networks are built around Social Objects, not vice versa. The latter act as "nodes". The nodes appear before the network does.
3. Granted, the network is more powerful than the node. But the network needs the node, like flowers need sunlight.
4. My overall marketing thesis invariably asks the question, "If your product is not a Social Object, why are you in business?"
5. Yesterday at the Darden talk I explained why geeks have become so important to marketing. My definition of a geek is, "Somebody who socializes via objects." When you think about it, we're all geeks. Because we're all enthusiastic about something outside ourselves. For me, it's marketing and cartooning. for others, it could be cellphones or Scotch Whisky or Apple computers or NASCAR or the Boston Red Sox or Buddhism. All these act as Social Objects within a social network of people who care passionately about the stuff. Whatever industry you are in, there's somebody who is geeked out about your product category. They are using your product [or a competitor's product] as a Social Object. If you don't understand how the geeks are socializing- connecting to other people- via your product, then you don't actually have a marketing plan. Heck, you probably don't have a viable business plan.
6. The Apple iPhone is the best example of Social Object I can think of. At least, it is when I'm trying to explain it to somebody unfamiliar with the concept.
7. The Social Object idea is not rocket science.
8. How do you turn a product into a Social Object? Answer: Social Gestures. And lots of them.
9. Products, and the ideas that spawn them, go viral when people can share them like gifts. Example: gmail invites in the early days.
10. Social Object can be abstract, digital, molecular etc.
11. The interesting thing about the Social Object is the not the object itself, but the conversations that happen around them. The Blue Monster is a good example of this. It's not the cartoon that's interesting, it's the conversatuons that happen around it that's interesting.
12. Ditto with a bottle of wine.
13. Once I get talking about marketing, it's hard for me to go more than 3 minutes without saying the words, "Social Object".
14. The most important word on the internet is not "Search". The most important word on the internet is "Share". Sharing is the driver. Sharing is the DNA. We use Social Objects to share ourselves with other people. We're primates. we like to groom each other. It's in our nature.
15. I believe Social Objects are the future of marketing.
["Social Gestures beget Social Objects": Novemeber, 2007]
0711thankyouthankyou.jpg
Chris Schroeder riffs on my whole "Social Object" marketing schtick with this very salient thought:

If your company wants to succeed, it needs to have a social object marketing plan.

Amen to that. But note what Chris also says:

I don't know about you, but when somebody walks by with an iPhone, I notice. If I see a kid stroll by me in some limited edition Nikes, that registers with me too.

Therein lies the rub. The Social Object idea is easy to get if your product is highly remarkable, highly sociable. An iPhone or the latest pair of Nike's are both fine examples of this.
But I can already hear your inner MBA saying, "Yeah, but what if you don't work for Nike or Apple? What if your product is boring home loans, auto insurance or... [the list of boring products is pretty long].
My standard answer to that is, "Social Gestures beget Social Objects."
Which is another way of saying, maybe the way you relate to somebody as a human being plays a part in all this. Maybe describing the product as "boring" is just one more bullshit lie we tell ourselves in order to make the world seem less complicated and scary. Hey, my product is inherently dull and boring, therefore I get to be inherently dull and boring, too. Hooray!
Nowadays, thanks to folk like Nike, we think of sneakers as "non-boring" brands. This wasn't true when I was a kid. Back then sneakers were those bloody awful $3 plim­solls we wore in Phys Ed. But it took com­pa­nies like Nike and Adi­das to come along and by shear force of will, raise the level of con­ver­sa­tion in the snea­ker depart­ment, before snea­kers became bona fide glo­bal social objects, bona fide glo­bal powerhouse brands.
The deci­sion to raise the level of con­ver­sa­tion isn’t eco­no­mic. Nor is it an inte­llec­tual deci­sion. It’s a moral deci­sion. But whether you have the sto­mach for it is up to you.
Like I told Tho­mas almost 3 years ago re. English bes­poke tai­lo­ring, “Own the con­ver­sa­tion by impro­ving the con­ver­sa­tion.” And hey, it wor­ked. His sales went up 300% in 6 months.
It wasn’t the change in pro­duct that made Tho­mas’ suits Social Objects. It was chan­ging the way he tal­ked to peo­ple. The same applies to Stormhoek, which 3 years ago was an $8 bottle of South Afri­can wine nobody had ever heard of. Con­ver­sa­tion. Mat­ters.
So all you cor­po­rate MBAs out there, here’s a little tip. When you plan­ning on how to embrace the brave new world of Web 2.0, the first ques­tion you ask your­self should not be “What tools do I use?“
Blogs, RSS, You­Tube, Twit­ter, Face­book– it doesn’t mat­ter.
The first ques­tion you should REALLY ask your­self is:
“How do I want to change the way I talk to peo­ple?“
And hope­fully the rest should follow.
Think about it.
[Bonus Link: For a more aca­de­mic take on social objects, check out this post from Anth­ro­po­lo­gist, Jyri Enges­trom.]

0712ifyoutalkedtopeople.jpg
[From “So What’s All This New Mar­ke­ting Stuff, Any­way?”: Decem­ber, 2007] Some peo­ple call it “The New Mar­ke­ting”. Some peo­ple call it “Mar­ke­ting 2.0″. Wha­te­ver name you care to give it, I get asked about it a lot. Here are some ran­dom thoughts, in no par­ti­cu­lar order.
1. “The New Mar­ke­ting” came about because of two uns­top­pa­ble for­ces: [A] The inven­tion of the inter­net and [B] the begin­ning of the demise of what Seth Godin calls the “TV-Industrial Com­plex”. Thanks to the inter­net, as Clay Shirky famously sta­ted in 2004, “the cost and dif­fi­culty of publishing abso­lu­tely anything, by anyone, into a glo­bal medium, just got a whole lot lower. And the effects of that inc­rea­sed pool of poten­tial pro­du­cers is going to be vast.” While this was going on, large com­pa­nies found out that peo­ple were star­ting to ignore their ads. We have too many choi­ces, too many good choi­ces, and we’ve got­ten too good at igno­ring mes­sa­ges.
2. Seth Godin is quite rightly the world’s most res­pec­ted wri­ter on mar­ke­ting. That being said, a lot of peo­ple haven’t heard of Mark Earls yet. They’re both friends of mine, so I don’t want to com­pare them too much. Seth is a mas­ter of taking com­pli­ca­ted ideas and pre­sen­ting them in a way that any Ave­rage Joe can unders­tand. Mark is more of a Mar­ke­ting Geek’s geek. His stuff makes uncom­for­ta­ble rea­ding for anyone in mar­ke­ting who hasn’t been stretching him­self lately.
3. The most impor­tant asset in The New Mar­ke­ting is “having something worth tal­king about”. This makes cer­tain mar­ke­ting peo­ple squea­mish. A lot of us grew up in an era of flashy com­mer­cials for rather unins­pi­ring pro­ducts, and something in our DNA makes us believe that’s the pro­per way to go about things.
4. If I had one big insight from the last year, is how The New Mar­ke­ting has everything to do with how your pro­duct or ser­vice acts as a “Social Object”. Kudos to Jyri Enges­trom for tur­ning me on to it.
5. My second big insight from this year was lear­ning that, even with a fairly every­day pro­duct, you can create social objects simply by using your pro­ducts to make social ges­tu­res. That’s what we did with Stormhoek. The mes­sage wasn’t, “Here’s why you should buy our wine”. The mes­sage was, “We think you’re kinda cool, and we like what you’re doing. We’d like to be part of it, somehow.” And much to everyone’s sur­prise, it wor­ked rather well.
6. Blogs were the big story for 2005. You­Tube for 2006. Face­book for 2007. What’s the big story for 2008? I have no idea. Nor do I think it mat­ters. For the big story, really, is always going to be the same. Web­si­tes comes and go, but “Cheap, Easy, Glo­bal, Hyper­lin­ked Media” will be with us fore­ver, save for Nuc­lear Holo­caust.
7. A lot of what fuels The New Mar­ke­ting is quite simply, the most impor­tant word in the English Lan­guage: “Love”. It’s hard to get someone to read your web­site if you’re not pas­sio­nate about your sub­ject mat­ter.
8. I’m trying to train myself to avoid “Mic­ros­mo­sis” i.e. mis­ta­king of a mic­ro­cosm for the entire cos­mos. If you got all your news from blogs, you’d be for­gi­ven for thin­king that there are just two phone com­pa­nies– Apple and Nokia. But Sony, Moto­rola, LG and Sam­sung sell a lot of pho­nes, too. Just not to our friends.
9. My Defi­ni­tion of “Web 3.0″: Lear­ning how to use the web pro­perly without it taking over your life. I’m not hol­ding my breath.
10. Why is it so hard to explain The New Mar­ke­ting to large com­pa­nies? Because the peo­ple who work there are simply not pre­pa­red to relin­quish the idea of con­trol. Live by metrics, die by metrics etc.
11. I find all this more inte­res­ting when I don’t take it too seriously. Like all things inter­net, it’s far too easy to get carried away.
0712cartoonsas.jpg
zzzbambam04.jpg
[From
“Social Objects For Begin­ners”: Decem­ber, 2007] As y’all will know, I’m fond of tal­king about “Social Objects” and how they per­tain to “Mar­ke­ting 2.0″. Even so, some peo­ple still get con­fu­sed by what a Social Object actually is. So I wrote the follo­wing to cla­rify some more:
The Social Object, in a nutshell, is the rea­son two peo­ple are tal­king to each other, as oppo­sed to tal­king to some­body else. Human beings are social ani­mals. We like to socia­lize. But if think about it, there needs to be a rea­son for it to hap­pen in the first place. That rea­son, that “node” in the social net­work, is what we call the Social Object.
Exam­ple A. You and your friend, Joe like to go bow­ling every Tues­day. The bow­ling is the Social Object.
Exam­ple B. You and your friend, Lee are huge Star Wars fans. Even though you never plan to do so, you two tend to geek out about Darth Vader and X-Wing figh­ters every time you meet. Star Wars is the Social Object.
Exam­ple C. You’ve pop­ped into your local bar for a drink after work. At the bar there’s some ran­dom dude, sen­ding a text on this neat-looking cellphone you’ve never seen before. So you go up to him and ask him about the phone. The ran­dom dude just LOVES his new phone, so has no trou­ble with telling a stran­ger about his new phone for hours on end. Next thing you know, you two are hit­ting it off and you offer to buy him a beer. You spend the rest of the next hour gee­king out about the new phone, till it’s time for you to leave and go dine with your wife. The cellphone was the social object.
Exam­ple D. You’re a horny young guy at a party, in search of a mate. You see a hot young woman across the room. You go up and intro­duce your­self. You do not start the con­ver­sa­tion by saying, “Here’s a list of all the girls I’ve gone to bed with, and some recent bank sta­te­ments sho­wing you how much money I make. Would you like to go to bed with me?” No, something more subtle hap­pens. Basi­cally, like all sin­gle men with an agenda, you ram­ble on like a yutz for ten minu­tes, making small talk. Until she men­tions the name of her favo­rite author, Saul Bellow. Halle­luiah! As it turns out, Saul Bellow hap­pens to be YOUR FAVORITE AUTHOR as well [No, seriously. He really is. You’re not making it up just to look good.]. Next thing you know, you two are totally enve­lo­ped in this deep and mea­ning­ful con­ver­sa­tion about Saul Bellow. “Seize The Day”, “Her­zog”, “Him With His Foot In His Mouth” and “Humbolt’s Gift”, eat your heart out. And as you two share a late-night cab back to her place, you’re thin­king about how Saul Bellow is the Social Object here.
Exam­ple E. You’re an attrac­tive young woman, married to a very suc­cess­ful Hedge Fund Mana­ger in New York’s Upper East Side. Because your hus­band does so well, you don’t actually have to hold down a job for a living. But you still ear­ned a Cum Laude from Dart­mouth, so you need to keep your brain occu­pied. So you and your other Hedge Fund Wife friends get together and orga­nise this very swish Cha­rity Ball at the Ritz Car­le­ton. You’ve gues­sed it; the Cha­rity Ball is the Social Object.
Exam­ple F. After a year of per­so­nal trauma, you decide that yes, indeed, Jesus Christ is your Per­so­nal Saviour. You’ve already joi­ned a Bible rea­ding class and star­ted atten­ding church every Sun­day. Next thing you know, you’ve made a lot of new friends in your new con­gre­ga­tion. Sud­denly you are awash with a whole new pile of Social Objects. Jesus, Church, The Bible, the Church Pic­nics, the choir rehear­sals, the Christ­mas fund drive, the coo­kies and cof­fee after the 11 o’clock ser­vice, yes, all of them are Social Objects for you and new friends to share.
Exam­ple G. You’ve been married for less than a year, and already your first child is born. In the last year, you and your spouse have acqui­red three beau­ti­ful new Social Objects: The marriage, the first­born, and your own new family. It’s what life’s all about.
There. I’ve given you seven exam­ples. But I could give THOUSANDS more. But there’s no need to. The thing to remem­ber is, Human beings do not socia­lize in a com­ple­tely ran­dom way. There’s a tan­gi­ble rea­son for us being together, that ties us together. Again, that rea­son is called the Social Object. Social Net­works form around Social Objects, not the other way around.
Another thing to remem­ber is the world of Social Objects can have many layers. As with any com­plex crea­ture, there can be more than one rea­son for us to be together. So any­body currently dating a cute girl who’s into not just Saul Bellow, but also into bow­ling and cellpho­nes and Star Wars and swish Cha­rity Balls as well, will know what I mean.
The final thing to remem­ber is that, Social Objects by them­sel­ves don’t mat­ter in the grand scheme of things. Sure, it’s nice han­ging out with Lee tal­king about Star Wars. But if Star Wars had never exis­ted, you’d pro­bably still enjoy each other’s com­pany for other rea­sons, if they hap­pe­ned to pre­sent them­sel­ves. Human beings mat­ter. Being with other human beings mat­ter. And since the dawn of time until the end of time, we use wha­te­ver tools we have at hand to make it hap­pen.
[Afterthought:] As I’m fond of saying, nothing about Social Objects is roc­ket science. Then again, there’s nothing about “Love” that is roc­ket science, either. That doesn’t mean it can’t mess with your head. Rock on.
[Link:] Mark Earls has some nice thoughts on this, as well. “Things change because of peo­ple inte­rac­ting with other peo­ple, rather than tech­no­logy or design really doing things to peo­ple.“
[N.B. “Social Objects” is a term I did not coin myself, but was tur­ned onto by the anth­ro­pol­gist and Jaiku foun­der, Jyri Enges­trom.]
zzzzzz7654237.jpg
[From “Why The Social Object Is The Future Of Mar­ke­ting”: January, 2008]From my pre­vious post:

The Social Object, in a nutshell, is the rea­son two peo­ple are tal­king to each other, as oppo­sed to tal­king to some­body else. Human beings are social ani­mals. We like to socia­lize. But if think about it, there needs to be a rea­son for it to hap­pen in the first place. That rea­son, that “node” in the social net­work, is what we call the Social Object.

I’ve often gone on record with the sta­te­ment, “Social Objects are the future of mar­ke­ting”. This post will attempt to explain further why i believe that.
THE BAD OLD DAYS: MARKETING IN THE AGE OF HYPER-CLUTTER.
We have just come through a hundred-year long era, called the “Mass Era”.
Mass Media and Mass Pro­duc­tion came of age at the same time. We try to sepa­rate the two, and we can­not.
A few deca­des ago, the local car dea­lers in town gave you a choice of four or five models. Now your choice is in the many dozens. There are well over a dozen varie­ties of Coca Cola. And thou­sands of dif­fe­rent drink com­bos you can buy at any Star­bucks on any given day.
I can sing you jin­gles for Nestle cho­co­late bars, from com­mer­cials I haven’t seen in over twenty years. That’s how clut­te­red my mind is. And yours is pro­bably not that dif­fe­rent.
Why would any sane per­son think that swim­ming in a pollu­ted sea of com­mer­cial mes­sa­ges was fun for peo­ple? Mes­sa­ges are not infor­ma­tion.
In this hyper-cluttered lands­cape the mediocre mar­ke­ter will say, “I know! Let’s add another item of clut­ter to the cul­tu­ral land­fill! Lets inc­rease the noise-to-signal ratio!!!”
And then he won­ders why it doesn’t work.
It doesn’t work because we’re igno­ring you now. You had our atten­tion for a while, but as you know, it was more a cul­tu­ral acci­dent than anything you really had any true con­trol over.
The world has moved on, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. Your boss also sus­pects this may be the case, but thank­fully for your career, he hasn’t brought it up in a mee­ting. Yet.
THEN ALONG CAME THE INTERNET…
I can’t help won­de­ring if the inter­net coming along at the same time as the Hyper-Clutter Era reaching cri­ti­cal mass was a his­to­ri­cal acci­dent, or did the inter­net evolve as fast as it did in order to cir­cum­vent the Hyper-Clutter? I’m gues­sing the lat­ter. If the pur­ve­yors of one-way con­ver­sa­tions had offe­red something more sus­tai­na­ble and satisf­ying, maybe our need to “talk to real human beings” again would not have been so pro­noun­ced.
Now, when you buy something, you don’t phone up the com­pany and order a brochure. You go onto Goo­gle and check out what other peo­ple– peo­ple like your­self– are saying about the pro­duct. In terms of com­mu­ni­ca­tion, the com­pany no lon­ger has first-mover advan­tage. They don’t ask your com­pany for the brochure until your pro­duct has already jum­ped through a series of hoops that SIMPLY WERE NOT there twenty years ago.
YOU NO LONGER CONTROL THE CONVERSATION. THEN AGAIN, MAYBE YOU NEVER DID.
Human beings are much bet­ter at recog­ni­zing the linear, rather than recog­ni­zing the ran­dom and expo­nen­tial.
1 Oh No! There’s a sabre-tooth tiger hea­ding my way!
2. Run!
That is linear. Our cave­man ances­tors found it a most use­ful qua­lity.
We run an ad. Sales go up. So taking the Cave­man cue, we frame it in a linear fashion to explain to our­sel­ves the cause and effect.
“Peo­ple liked our ad so much, they drop­ped what they were doing, sped down to Wal-Mart and bought our pro­duct!”
If only.
What hap­pe­ned was pro­bably more ran­dom. You saw an ad for Brand X. A few days later you’re having cof­fee over at your friend, Pam’s house. She has Brand X on her kitchen coun­ter.
“I saw that ad for it the other day,” you say. “Is the stuff any good?”
“Yeah,” she says. “It’s not bad.”
So the next time you’re in the super­mar­ket, you see the pro­duct, and buy it. Ker-chiing.
The ad didn’t make the sale. Your friend made the sale, not the ad. The ad merely star­ted a con­ver­sa­tion.
This is what they call “Word-Of-Mouth”. When it works, it works very, very well. The main pro­blem is, it rarely does. The mar­ke­ter has little con­trol of the out­come.
But the marketer’s boss doesn’t want to hear it. The mar­ke­ter wants to tell his boss this, even less. So we cons­truct mytho­lo­gies to dis­guise the fear. Dis­guise the unk­nown. Dis­guise the ran­dom, in the world where UNCERTAINTY AND RANDOMNESS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE OVER THE MATRIX. EVER.
YOU AND PAM, HAVING COFFEE.
Pam just sold you a box of Brand X. Pam doesn’t work for Brand X, Pam gets no com­mis­sion from Brand X, so why did she make the sale, inad­ver­tently, or other­wise?
Go back to what I said in my last post about Social Objects:

The final thing to remem­ber is that, Social Objects by them­sel­ves don’t mat­ter in the grand scheme of things. Sure, it’s nice han­ging out with Lee tal­king about Star Wars. But if Star Wars had never exis­ted, you’d pro­bably still enjoy each other’s com­pany for other rea­sons, if they hap­pe­ned to pre­sent them­sel­ves. Human beings mat­ter. Being with other human beings mat­ter. And since the dawn of time until the end of time, we use wha­te­ver tools we have at hand to make it happen.

When you and Pam met for cof­fee, you inte­rac­ted with each other in the con­text of what anth­ro­po­lo­gists call “Object-Centerd Socia­lity”. In other words, you did not socia­lize in a vacuum, you socia­li­zed around objects, you socia­li­zed around things. You tal­ked about the Cubs game last week. You tal­ked about how Billy was doing in Third Grade. You tal­ked about this great movie you just saw. You tal­ked about great Pam’s cof­fee was. And yes, you tal­ked, howe­ver briefly, about Brand X. All these things you tal­ked about, an anth­ro­po­lo­gist would call “Social Objects”. And the thing is, you came over just to chew the fat with Pam. Tal­king about Billy or the movie or the Cubs game was not part of any pre-agenda. You could’ve tal­ked about other things– books, records, home fur­nishings, it doesn’t mat­ter– and you would’ve enjo­yed your cof­fee with Pam just as much.
Yes, a lot of socia­li­zing is ran­dom. Ergo, yes, a lot of mar­ke­ting is also ran­dom.
SO WHERE DOES SOCIAL OBJECTS FIT IN, FROM NOW ON?
From now on you won’t have the TV Com­mer­cials to rely on to start your con­ver­sa­tions. Peo­ple are igno­ring you. Mass media has simply got­ten too expen­sive. The only way your pro­duct is going to spread is by word of mouth. The only way it’s going to get word of mouth is if there is something in it for the per­son tal­king about it.
The per­son you want tal­king about is not doing it for the money. She’ll only talk about it if it ser­ves as a Social Object. A “hook” to move the con­ver­sa­tion along. A hook she can use it as a way to relate to her fellow human beings.
THE BAD NEWS IS, MOST PRODUCTS ARE BORING. THE GOOD NEWS IS, MOST WORD-OF-MOUTH IS BORING.
If you’re an ave­rage mar­ke­ter, chan­ces are that Alas! you don’t sell Mer­ce­des’ or Apple iPods for a living. You pro­bably sell some fairly pro­saic, uti­li­ta­rian pro­duct. Like Brand X.
Obviously, if your pro­duct is more conversation-worthy, like a Mer­ce­des or an iPod, your job will be easier. Nice work if you can get it.
But let’s face it, ave­rage peo­ple are never going to sit down and have a deep and mea­ning­ful con­ver­sa­tion about Brand X. But hey, maybe over cof­fee, a cou­ple of little soon-forgotten sen­ten­ces from some­body like Pam, is enough to make the sale.
I’m fond of saying, “If your pro­duct is not a Social Object, why are you in busi­ness?”
But of course, as Pam just pro­ved, your pro­duct, Brand X, IS INDEED a social object. Just maybe your team needs to hone its thin­king a little bit.
[Bonus Link from Jyri Enges­trom:] “Why some social net­work ser­vi­ces work and others don’t — Or: the case for object-centered socia­lity.“
aaa123457000.jpg
[From “The Social Mar­ker– The Social Object on Ste­roids etc.” January, 2008] You all will be fami­liar with my wri­tings on Social Objects by now.

The Social Object, in a nutshell, is the rea­son two peo­ple are tal­king to each other, as oppo­sed to tal­king to some­body else. Human beings are social ani­mals. We like to socia­lize. But if think about it, there needs to be a rea­son for it to hap­pen in the first place. That rea­son, that “node” in the social net­work, is what we call the Social Object.

Inc­rea­singly I’ve been using a term, “Social Mar­ker” to desc­ribe a cer­tain type of Social Object. I’ve found it espe­cially use­ful for explai­ning cer­tain ideas to mar­ke­ting folk.
When two peo­ple meet, the first thing they try to do is place each other in con­text. A social con­text. So they insert some hints into the con­ver­sa­tion:

“I used to know your Uncle Bob.“
“I work at Saatchi & Saatchi’s.
“I’ve been rea­ding Mal­colm Glad­well for years.“
“I’m a mem­ber of Soho House.“
“I was rea­ding Doc Searls’ blog the other day.“
“I was college room­ma­tes with your ex-girlfriend.“
“I was sam­pling some fine Islay sin­gle malts the other eve­ning.“
“I bought some Ver­sace shirts from Barney’s last week.“
“You’re a Red Sox fan too?“
“I think Andy Warhol is ove­rra­ted.“
“I think Led Zep­pe­lin is unde­rra­ted.“
“I was having din­ner with some guys from Gold­man Sachs.“
“My wife thinks the Upper West Side is really good for schools.“
“San Tro­pez is too expen­sive in February.”

Let’s say, for sake of argu­ment, that you never heard of me before, but I knew all about you. And let’s say, for exam­ple, you were also the world’s grea­test Bos­ton Red Sox fan. And let’s say I saw you in a cof­fee shop. And let’s say I went over to your table, like a stal­ker [You don’t know me from Adam, remem­ber].
And let’s say the first thing out of mouth was a short list of five names:
“Carl Yastr­zemski. Carl­ton Fisk. Rico Petro­ce­lli. Fred Lynn. Dwight Evans.“
Yes, gran­ted, that would be pretty strange beha­vior. That being said, because you knew every sin­gle fac­toid about the 1975 World Series there was to know, you would know exactly who and what I was tal­king about. Right away, you would know that we sha­red a con­text, even though I had only given you five names and nothing else. Which would make you more likely to invite me to sit down at your table and start a con­ver­sa­tion.
Every ecosys­tem has its own, uni­que set of social mar­kers– nouns that serve as social shorthand, stuff you use to let other peo­ple know ASAP that you know what you’re tal­king about, that you are a fellow “citi­zen” in a cer­tain space.
When I visit San Fran­cisco I am always sur­pri­sed how often the name of my friend, Robert Sco­ble comes up in ran­dom con­ver­sa­tion, unpromp­ted by myself. Why is that? Why is he so well known? Is his blog REALLY that good? Is he REALLY that smart and inte­res­ting?
Well, I could give a whole stack of rea­sons to explain why I think Robert’s suc­cess is well-deserved. But one major rea­son that his blog’s traf­fic is so high, and his name so well-known, is that his per­so­nal brand has somehow mana­ged to become a Social Mar­ker inside the Sili­con Valley ecosys­tem. The same could also be said for Mike Arring­ton, Loic Le Meur or Mark Zuc­ker­berg. Drop­ping their names into ran­dom con­ver­sa­tions allows peo­ple to quickly and effi­ciently con­tex­tua­lize them­sel­ves.
Something simi­lar hap­pe­ned to me a cou­ple of years ago. A artist friend of mine was hit­ting on a girl, another artist, in a bar in New York’s Lower East Side. For wha­te­ver rea­son, the sub­ject of “Art and the Inter­net” came up. So my friend star­ted telling the girl about this other friend of his, this guy living over in England, who drew these weird little car­toons on the back of busi­ness cards…
“That is SO uno­ri­gi­nal,” the girl inte­rrupts, rolling her eye­balls. “Who does he think he is, Hugh Mac­Leod?“
Heh. Small world. Yes. She was using me as a Social Mar­ker.
Social Mar­kers are a prime form of social shorthand, that peo­ple use to STAKE OUT the ecosys­tem they’re occup­ying. So why do I find this such a use­ful term for mar­ke­ters? Because obviously, if your pro­duct is a Social Mar­ker in your industry ecosys­tem [the way the iPhone is in the mobile world, or Star­bucks is in the cof­fee world, or Ama­zon is the book world, or Goo­gle is in the search world, or Whole Foods is in the super­mar­ket world, or Vir­gin is in the air­line world, or English Cut in the bes­poke world etc etc] you will have an AMAZING com­pe­ti­tive advan­tage to call your own.
And if the pro­duct your com­pany makes is not a Social Mar­ker, I guess the first ques­tion would be, “Why the hell not?” Quit your job and start over.
[Update:] Neal makes a really good point in the com­ments: Really inte­res­ting thought, Hugh, but bad pro­ducts could also be a social mar­ker — “ah, yes, I was rip­ped off by that buil­ding com­pany too” or “oh — you’ll be disap­poin­ted by that mobile phone as well”. I’d sug­gest there’s also a varia­ble here about posi­tive v nega­tive that you should think about before quit­ting that job :)
[Bonus Link] US News & World Report: “Selling in a Post-Meatball Era– The quest for ‘social objects’ that create their own Web buzz.” Seth Godin in a great inter­view to plug his new book, Meat­ball Sun­dae. “Social Object” given a small men­tion etc.


zzzzsteak20A.jpg
[From “Free Car­toons As Social Objects”: May, 2008] When I first star­ted put­ting up car­toons onto gaping­void in 2001, they were in a small, 400-pixel-wide for­mat, just like the “Love Let­ter” car­toon you see above.
Then about 2 years ago, I star­ted pos­ting them in high-resolution, like the “Dino­saur” car­toon below [Click on the image and the high-res ver­sion will pop up].
dinosaur001A.jpg
This meant peo­ple could actually down­load the ima­ges and start using them for their own stuff. Like I said in my licen­sing terms,

Hey, if you want to put the work up on your web­site, blog, or stick it on paper, t-shirts, busi­ness cards, stic­kers, home­made gree­ting cards, Power­point sli­des, or wha­te­ver, as far as I’m con­cer­ned, as long as it’s just for your own per­so­nal use, as long as you’re not trying to make money off it directly, and you’re giving me due attri­bu­tion, I’m totally cool with the idea.

As a “Social Object”, a car­toon that one can actually print out and hang on their cube wall, or put on a t-shirt, a busi­ness card etc is far more power­ful and use­ful than say, YET ONE MORE IMAGE you can find on the inter­net and e-mail en masse to your friends.
i.e. The car­toon itself hasn’t chan­ged, but the inte­rac­tion bet­ween it and the “End User” is sud­denly far more mea­ning­ful.
So of course, the next layman’s ques­tion is, “Yes, but… how do you mone­tize it?“
And of course, the ans­wer is, “Indi­rectly”.
For exam­ple, in Octo­ber, 2006 I post the Mic­ro­soft Blue Mons­ter car­toon. Within a few months Mic­ro­soft is somehow paying me a lot of money to do other dra­wings for them. Without the for­mer, the lat­ter would never have hap­pe­ned. And without the lat­ter, Sun Mic­rosys­tems would never have approached me. Everything feeds into everything else. Exactly.
In other words, I don’t create the online car­toons as “pro­ducts” to be sold. I create the car­toons as “Social Objects”, i.e. “Sha­ring Devi­ces” that help me to build rela­tionships with.
As with all things, the REAL value comes from the human rela­tionships that are built AROUND the social object, not the object in itself.

I’ll quote my friend, Mark Earls one more time. This is from his second book, “Herd”:

“Cova is surely right to sug­gest that much of modern con­su­mer beha­viour is social in nature. We do it not just in a social con­text (tan­gi­ble and imme­dia­tely pre­sent or over dis­tan­ces) but for social rea­sons — that is the object or acti­vity is the means for a group or tribe to form or inte­ract. This also echoes a lot of what Dou­glas Atkin desc­ri­bes in his study of cult brands — brands which have deve­lo­ped a cult sta­tus (like Apple, and Ford’s bes­tse­lling pic­kup) seem to serve an underl­ying social need within each indi­vi­dual (just as reli­gious cults do): a need to belong. The real draw is pro­bably not the brand but… other people.”

And I’ll also ask my favo­rite ques­tion, one more time: If your pro­duct is not a “Social Object”, how on earth do you manage to stay in business?

zzzzzz7654122.jpg
(Car­toon taken from The Hugh­train etc.)
Like I said in my inter­view with Mark Earls, The Blue Mons­ter is a “Purpose-Idea”. As Mark, the man who first coi­ned the term explains it:

Put really simply, the Purpose-Idea is the “What For?” of a busi­ness, or any kind of com­mu­nity. What exists to change (or pro­tect) in the world, why emplo­yees get out of bed in the mor­ning, what dif­fe­rence the busi­ness seeks to make on behalf of cus­to­mers and emplo­yees and ever­yone else? BTW this is not “mis­sion, vision, values” terri­tory — it’s about real dri­ves, pas­sions and beliefs. The stuff that men in suits tend to get emba­rras­sed about because it’s per­so­nal. But it’s the stuff that makes the dif­fe­rence bet­ween suc­cess and fai­lure, because this kind of stuff brings folk together in all aspects of human life.

Real dri­ves, pas­sions and beliefs. Exactly.
The Blue Mons­ter line, “Change The World Or Go Home” is not roc­ket science or lite­rary bri­lliance. It just arti­cu­la­tes a sim­ple belief, a sim­ple pas­sion, a sim­ple drive THAT ALREADY EXISTED, long before The Blue Mons­ter ever came on to the scene. That’s all it was ever meant to do.
msbizcard999aaa.jpg
[The Mic­ro­soft Blue Mons­ter etc.]
Whether you agree or disa­gree with it doesn’t mat­ter, the impor­tant bit is that peo­ple within Mic­ro­soft believe it. Unlike a con­ven­tio­nal ad cam­paign, it’s not about you. It’s about them.
Why is something like this poten­tially valua­ble to a busi­ness? Simply put, if you believe something pas­sio­na­tely enough, for long enough, arti­cu­late it well enough, and your actions are alig­ned, cre­di­ble and con­sis­tent with your belief for long enough, it’s just a mat­ter of time before other peo­ple start belie­ving it, too. And next thing you know, you have an inte­res­ting con­ver­sa­tion going on, both inside and outside the com­pany. And as Doc Searls famously said, “Mar­kets are con­ver­sa­tions”. Ker-Chiing.
Again, none of this is roc­ket science. Tal­king to peo­ple never is.
When peo­ple ask me what exactly is a Blue Mons­ter, I tell them, it’s not neces­sa­rily a car­toon. It’s simply a social object that allows one to more easily arti­cu­late the Purpose-Idea. No more, no less.
I’ve been asking myself for years, what comes after con­ven­tio­nal, Madison-Avenue-style adver­ti­sing, now that we live in a post-TV, post-advertising, post-message world? “Crea­ting Blue Mons­ters” is the clo­sest I’ve ever come to fin­ding an actual ans­wer.
Besi­des dra­wing the car­toons, hel­ping other com­pa­nies create Blue Mons­ters is how I intend to spend the remain­der of my career.
Car­toons and Blue Mons­ters. I really do have the world’s grea­test job. Rock on.
[To Be Continued.…]

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

28 Responses to “blue monster: why social objects are the future of marketing”

  1. siliconchris says:

    Ok,
    this is my second … ah maybe third glass of whis­key and I hang on.
    So bless me,
    chris

  2. juliejulie says:

    Chris, pass me the bottle.

  3. Bertil Hatt says:

    OK, let me guess: Mic­ro­soft, unhappy with the reac­tion to its cloud ini­tia­tive, loo­ked for wide, recession-proof busi­ness where they could keep coo­king stuff in a sec­ret cave, where mar­ke­ting wows were impor­tant and they age (deca­des now) woudn’t sound like an oxy­mo­ron with “high-tech inno­va­tion”…
    And lan­ded on a Whisky-based busi­ness model (with flask-add-ons and ice-servers). Trus­ting your pre­vious expe­rience at a winery (that’s liquor-related) they named you chief mar­ke­ter for Mic­ro­soft Beve­ra­ges?
    Not even close? I tried.

  4. Morgan Warstler says:

    so, you aren’t about to announce you now work for Cris­pin Por­ter, right?

  5. emmet says:

    ever­yone thinks they are special…once ever­yone has a blue mons­ter, or lis­tens to Brit­tany Spears, or watches Oprah, they aren’t spe­cial any­more, mar­ke­ting dies. Blue mons­ter makes them feel in a spe­cial club but be care­ful, mons­ters get big.

  6. Rasul Sha'ir says:

    Ok…I don’t drink whis­key… But allow me to subs­ti­tute with a glass of gin­ger ale and con­ti­nue to read as you rock on…

  7. Tim Clague says:

    Hugh,
    Been thin­king about this for a while. And have a new take on it called “I went home“
    Check it
    http://projectorfilms.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-went-home.html
    Inc­lu­des a great video inter­view too which I think you’ll like.

  8. Tim Clague says:

    Hugh,
    Been thin­king about this for a while. And have a new take on it called “I went home“
    Check it
    http://projectorfilms.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-went-home.html
    Inc­lu­des a great video inter­view too which I think you’ll like.

  9. Good stuff … read this a while ago (I think?), but glad you brought me back to it.
    @chasers

  10. Aha. Light­bulb moment. So when I was crea­ting artis­tamps, when I was having laughs with them & far before I desig­ned them for clients etc, they were social mar­kers that ope­ned con­ver­sa­tions about mar­ke­ting and design and fun.
    And when Con­nie Reece & Cath­leen Rit­te­rei­ser star­ted the Fro­zen Pea Fund, that bag of peas I’d stuck in my clea­vage after my biopsy marathon became a social mar­ker. And it seems perhaps my boobs are as well?
    This takes some get­ting my head around but your exam­ples are killer right on, even at mid­night. If only I had not read this my mind might not be cran­king out ideas left and right. Thanks Hugh.

  11. Aaron says:

    Maybe you didn’t come up with the word Social Object, but in this post you are a cura­tor. Thanks. Quick ques­tion: If Social Object is the Social Object here, what’s the Pur­pose Idea?

  12. ewan says:

    great post hugh. you’re so right about the first month in nyc and then trying to repli­cate it…i’m off to beersphere to create some blue mons­ters. cheers

  13. Harry Joiner says:

    I’m pretty sure that was the sin­gle best blog post I have ever read. No, wait … Yep. Con­gra­tu­la­tions, and THANKS for sharing.

  14. Roy Morejon says:

    One of the most inte­res­ting reads I’ve had in a while. Great post, cheers!

  15. juliejulie says:

    Ah — so nice to see the rest of it. Way to put your fin­ger on all the stuff that’s floa­ting around and name it.
    I’m going to pass this on to this guy I know, Scott Bed­bury. He hel­ped make that Star­bucks cup what it is.
    Thanks Hugh, good job.

  16. Ming says:

    I like you, you’re human. And you draw car­toons. and they are popu­lar… and, where’s my glass!
    Would love to do the new york thing..
    (i won­der if i will ever)

  17. Roy Morejon says:

    One of the most inte­res­ting reads I’ve had in a while. Great post, cheers!

  18. shira says:

    ok, from what I read from the post it was good. but why so bloody long? I’m going to have to print the thing out and read it over seve­ral days to get all of the points men­tio­ned here. Gran­ted, this is the first time I’ve ever seen your blog (or heard of it) so perhaps I just don’t get your style. But kee­ping things sim­ple is a good art form as well, no?
    –s

  19. Ben Tremblay says:

    Won­der­ful … so Mic­ro­soft can maxi­mize their pro­fits from Vista.
    Now … what was it I was sup­po­sed to celebrate?

  20. Kiran says:

    Neat Article. Was won­de­ring WTF for quite some­time in the begin­ning and then it all made com­plete sense towards the middle.
    Social Objects it is — yes sir!

  21. Jefferson says:

    Enjo­yed the rea­ding. It comes at a very apro­pos time merely because I have been tas­ked with star­ting a natio­nal move­ment to change the lives of at-risk (admit­tedly ove­ru­sed and over­broad) kids. a lot to con­si­der. Appre­ciate the perspectives.

  22. […] Simi­larly, asso­ciate your­self with things your audience likes – trends, phi­lo­sophies, social objects, etc. Even before they get to know you, they’ll like you because you care about similar […]

  23. […] To build a com­mu­nity you must do it around a Social Object: Why Social Objects are the Future of Mar­ke­ting by Hugh MacLeod […]

  24. […] Tal­king Brand is tal­king Crap. Social objects are the future of mar­ke­ting, here’s why: Hugh Macleod […]

  25. […] To make up your mind, read one of the most che­rished web mar­ke­ter on the www right now : Hugh McLeod’s Gaping­void with his busi­ness cards dra­wing, cube gre­na­des and social objects. […]

  26. […] Simi­larly, asso­ciate your­self with things your audience likes – trends, phi­lo­sophies, social objects, etc. Even before they get to know you, they’ll like you because you care about similar […]

  27. […] rhe­to­ric. Hugh blogs about mar­ke­ting, car­toons and more (they are exce­llent car­toons), you can read Hugh’s full post here or search his blog for more and he gives lots of cre­dit to others who hel­ped shape his theory of […]