It’s true. I’m bugged by TEDWomen. I don’t want to be. I’m a massive fan of the speakers. I just don’t understand why the world thinks we need a TEDWomen. Every time I have this conversation with people they have two ‘buts’:

“BUT Inequality and gender discrimination still exists“

I get it. And I know this is true. Thing is though, I don’t see this as a women’s issue. I think it’s an issue for all of us. Conversations about what it’s like to have a career and a family (for men and women) would be far more interesting to hear at TED. I’d be willing to bet it would also result in more change in the workplace too. Half the people can’t make all the difference.

“BUT it’s affirmative action, men have had the chance for years“

I always think that a good test for the ‘rightness’ of things relating to minority discrimination is to turn it round. A TEDMen would have us infuriated. I can’t help but believe that we’re perpetuating gender stereotypes instead of tackling them.

What do you think?

Yesterday’s opportunities are tomorrow’s hygiene factors

Consumers, citizens, employees and shareholders are demanding more than ever before. It is no longer an opportunity for their employers, governments and companies to be transparent, honest, sustainable and engaging. It is the only path to survival. For companies who haven’t taken employee engagement seriously, or sustainable business practises, this decade, will demand you step up. The same goes for social media, it might have added a layer of charm for a business to respond to a negative tweet a couple of years ago, now, listening to all of the channels your customers are active on should be core to your customer relations strategy.

The future of social media isn’t marketing.

The future of social media is marketing, PR, customer relations, employee engagement and product development. The wise marketers will be collaborating with their peers to start shaping this new, exciting, holistic thing. Remember, brands only break apart according our disciplines. A customer forms and opinion of  a brand through their entire experience. Isn’t it time we did too?

The future of marketing is embedded

Every aspect of our experience with a brand either sells to us or lets us down. There are countless opportunities for us to use what Mart Neumeier calls FREE MEDIA. On behalf of the clients I work with this year, I will be thinking about how they can reinvest their marketing budgets into something more permanent and meaningful than a fleeting campaign. How can we turn their packaging, call centre experience and everything in between into something that naturally markets and embodies them at their best?

The most digitally native people I know never say hello or goodbye. Instead, we have one long conversation. And it doesn’t matter if that conversation is on Twitter, Skype, Text or otherwise, we just pick up where we left off.

Why is this important?

When you work in the same room as someone you ask them a question that’s popped into your head, or share something that you’ve written without committing to an hour-long conversation. Often, the pleasantries we introduce because of distance prevents  us from talking to each other. We just don’t have time to have those empty pleasant exchanges EVERY TIME we want to touch base on something. If you, like me, work remotely with a lot of different people, the sum of those hellos and goodbyes make a rather significant time-sponge.

Picture by Mark Sardella

The few people I know who buy sheep for their virtual farm are annoying, but I just ‘hide’ them, so that’s all good. And sure, the ads are awful, especially for women – I laughed when a female friend of mine recently changed her gender to male and with it, changed her ads on Facebook from utterly dull, get-thinner type ads to some far more interesting technology related ones (so much for knowing everything about us eh?).

Lately it feels almost uncool to like Facebook, I mean, there’s even an ‘I hate Facebook’ page on Facebook. And I get why they seem to constantly find themselves up against harsh criticism. They get it wrong, a lot. It angers people. If it angered me half as much, I’d just leave and return smugly to my angry mob. Or would I?

Seriously. If Facebook sucks so hard, why is anybody still on there? Lately, I got to thinking about Stockholm Syndrome and whether we have some kind of love/loathe thing with Facebook so that even if we want to leave, we’re unable to do so.

Luckily for me I have Sharon, a friend who is an actual forensic psychologist*. She straightened out my thinking and drew some interesting parallels between our relationship with Facebook and, y’know, criminal pathology:

FACEBOOK IS A BIT LIKE PRISON – AND GUESS WHAT, LEAVING AIN’T EASY

It may feel counter-intuitive, but in Sharon’s experience, inmates struggle with leaving prison, even though they’ve long yearned for freedom. Within the prison walls they are taken care of, part of a community, have a social circle and by all accounts, a life. Often there is no job, no home, money or opportunity for them outside of prison. Leaving is often unappealing as inmates find themselves out, with nowhere to go.

Can that be said of Facebook? Perhaps to an extent. Your friends, news, invitations and pictures of long lost cousin’s babies are all on Facebook. How do you get that stuff without it? And does that keep us trapped there?

COPING MECHANISMS NEED TO BE REPLACED TO BE OVERCOME

Prison becomes part of the inmates coping strategy. It’s how they deal with the basic necessities of life. And just like methadone replaces heroine in the case of that coping mechanism, so there are provisions in place to help former inmates assimilate into the outside world.

What advice does Sharon have for those who really want to leave Facebook and find it tough to make the break?

• Figure out what role is has in your life as a coping mechanism (procrastination, nosiness, connectedness, sharing)
• Replace it (Twitter, blogging, Flickr) and then get the hell out of there.

What do you think? Think we’re Facebook inmates? Should we be on the hunt for Facebook methadone? I’d love to know your thoughts.

*Sharon is not just a forensic psyhychologist, she is also the entrepreneur behind tete-a-tea, the pop up afternoon tea experience. You can visit her Facebook page for more info (which fills me with mild amusement).

Seriously. Google can’t be legal.

Let’s not even delve too deeply into book archiving hoo hahs or pretty obvious antitrust infringement. The very premise of Google’s fundamental service to us (giving us the ability to search the entire internet)  is only possible through web scraping – which is illegal.

Now, I don’t give two hoots about Google’s illegality. I don’t care if they’re building apps right now to ensure the smoother running of all small drug dealing operations. The thing that interests me, is that nobody else seems to give a hoot either.

What does this mean?

• Does it mean that if you do something everyone wants society at large will turn a blind eye as to whether it’s legal or not?
• Is the legal system such an inherently slow-moving beast that it’s waiting to catch up with Google before suing its ass?
• Is it just because its competitors, who would usually be the finger-pointers are, by definition, engaged in the same activities and so therefore have to just keep schtum and carry on?
• Does digital usefulness democratise the law?

I think it’s mostly the first thing and the last thing. Digital innovation happens so quickly that it’s nimble compared to the law that holds it back. And that’s no bad thing, because the law was built in an old world.

I recently read a great post over on Asi Sharabi’s blog. Asi wants to avoid one trend in 2010: killing things. He reckons there’s a sick amount of sensationalism surrounding new technologies. He says: “Our response to the overwhelming pace of change made us believe that emerging platforms and technologies will categorically and dramatically kill everything that was before them.”

He’s right you know. I think that new stuff killing the old stuff is nonsense. In fact, I think the opposite is true and far more significant: old stuff kills new stuff all the time.

In my daily life I encounter this most in two areas of thinking: the law and digital marketing measurement.

The law:

The legal system is so hell-bent on finding a way to give copyright owners (for instance) the same rights they’ve always had in a newly digital world that they’re missing the really exciting, meaty bits in open source. They should be building new models, not trying to shoehorn the old stuff that they’re comfortable with into the news stuff that scares them. Part of the resolution is about reframing the way you look at competitors, which I’ve written about before.

Digital marketing measurement:

Everything that happens in the world of digital measurement still feels like it’s mainly focussed on gauging the ‘effectiveness of digital stuff’. All that does is reconcile a traditional comms mindset with newfangled ideas. It’s just not interesting.

As a strategist, I’d like to find a way to watch people interact with messaging and brand behaviour – in real time. Not to play big brother or present successful-nonsense figures to clients, but to be better. To offer them more of what they want and give them more of what works. And, just like in life itself, I suspect we’d learn shedloads more from what they dislike and/or ignore.

How do we break out of this cycle and recognise that there’s a new brief in town?

What do you think? Are there other areas of innovation and awesomeness being killed by old ways of thinking? What can we do to overcome this bad habit?

Picture by Rob Dupuis

I remember having a chat with the orgainisers of Ecotopia a few months ago. The three of us were drinking mint tea and lamenting the state of the sustainability conversation. In particular, we lamented how the conversation is mostly around dystopia and all the stuff that’s bound to happen if we don’t make the change.

The guys were sharing their thoughts for a project that would focus on the opposite and give time instead to our visions for a better world. It would be called Ecotopia and it would be a collaborative vision from people in business, government, culture and the arts.

Now, many weeks of hard work later, they’ve done it. They’ve organised an event to make this possible.

The day will be split into five paradigm shifts, the journey of those shifts will be charted through a series of conversations, workshops and debates. And the final results will be turned into a film, which will be screened during COP15.

I will be one of the hosts for the conversations around communities and communication. The content is shaping up really well and it looks hot already with contributions from the likes of the team behind the Tibetan Film Festival.

If you’d like to help us design ecotopia, book your tickets here. If you’d like to attend the screening in Copenhagen, get your tickets here.

The social media strategy echo chamber is something I’ve lamented before.

Every time there’s a social media conference taking place anywhere in the world, all the lovely strategists I follow on Twitter share the wisdom they hear. Thanks guys! Because of you, I don’t have to attend those sessions. Instead, I can sit somewhere comfortable, within easy reach of a plug-socket and enjoy the echo chamber from afar.

I thought it was high time I passed it forward.

Ultimately, every conference or gathering of the social media kind can be reduced to five bullet points, and they’re all right here for your reading pleasure. Glorious little nuggets of oft’ touted social media quasi-wisdom, read this and you too, never have to attend another social media do.

1. It’s about social ideas, NOT social media

2. Be Nice

3. Be transparent

4. Always in beta

5. Social is TWO way

So now you know.

Have I missed one? Is there another piece of echo that’s missing from the list? Send it forth yon planner.

Thanks to Asi for his help in pulling this final list together.

The acronym, Umair informed me, is the way media bankers are now referring to books, music and video. I stared at it for a while, a wry smile stretching across my face. There is something so beautifully dismissive about this acronym and the way it clumps together three very different products and industries around the one thing they have in common: they haven’t really cracked digital yet.

I work in digital, so naturally I think about this kinda shiz all the time. If I worked in BMV I would be thinking about this shiz all the time too – and I’d be seriously excited.

It’s not the first time progress and innovation has changed the face of industries. Recently, digital photography changed the way we took pictures. And famously, Polaroid was late to the party. Like Polaroid it’s understandable that digital progress can be seen as a threat, a competitor and for many in BMV, the end of the line. I don’t think it has to be this way, for me it comes down to three things: being open to the possibility, reframing the way you see competitors and remembering that human behaviour is human behaviour.

Being open to the possibility

No matter how hard you squeeze your eyes shut you can’t imagine a world in which someone will curl up in bed with a digital tablet covered in the words of a book. “It’s just not the same”, you say, “there’s something special about flicking through actual pages”. Try to remember that your grandparents probably thought ATMs were barmy too. A few months ago I met a shopkeeper who confidently informed me that the internet wouldn’t take off.  If you think that people will always want actual things like CDs in their lives with the actual booklet that it comes with or real, live DVDs and books with proper pages, you may very well be right. That said, I’d highly recommend  you entertain the possibility that the opposite may be true. Just sayin’.

Reframing the way you see competitors

Polaroid stubbornly denied digital photography had a future because they saw it as a competitor and threat instead of what it really was: an opportunity. BMV should try reframe threats as opportunities. Consider what you can learn from those things considered to be threats – and I mean everything from illegal downloaders, to leaked copies of books, what insight does it provide? And how can you use these behaviours to gain invaluable insight to progress your industry?

Human behaviour is human behaviour

The interesting thing about technological advancements is that it’s simply given us more opportunities to do the same things. People are still doing the same thing with photography that they’ve always done. The average Joe is still taking pictures of his kids and family on holiday to share with friends. People who enjoy photography are still fiddling with their shots and trying to capture landscapes at the right light. Only the format has changed. Same goes with BMV, people are still fans of artistes, be they novelists or musicians. They still want to support them, find out more about them, have access to as much information about them as possible. Except today, a music fan isn’t limited to the booklet in a CD, they’re on MySpace and wikipedia. How can you use technology to mimic behaviour that is commonplace for traditional BMV? What would a digital library look like? How can people lend each other films online?

What do you think the future of BMV is? What do you recommend people working in BMV should do to make the most of the times we’re living in? What’s your challenge for them?

A couple of weeks ago a raggedy looking thespian walked through the streets of Covent Garden wearing a sign offering me the chance to buy shares in the South Sea Company. What I didn’t realise at the time – and what Danvers told me all about at last night’s Bootlaw – was that the South Sea Company and infamous South Sea Bubble of 1720 is the very thing that established the fundamental principles of our share trading laws. Thanks guys.

Last night’s chat started with a nod to history and Danvers regaled us with text from ancient legal scripts. I couldn’t write fast enough to get them down, but Danvers if you’re reading this, stick a couple in the comments please. Ta.

Anyway, the result of those rather amusing laws and The South Sea bubble was The Bubble Act, which was followed by the Joint Stock Act in 1844 and then Ltd. Companies in 1856.

So there’s the rather sketchy, seriously abridged history. Moving on, we were taken through three broad subjects last night: Private vs. Public companies, Prospectus, and financial promotion rules

Private companies vs. Public companies

The difference between a private and public company is not rocket science. One is private, with private investors, the other is public with shares available to be purchased by the public at large. If you’re a private company and you try to sell shares to the general public you are most certainly a fool, but the good news is, you’re not a criminal. This wrong-stepping has just recently been decriminalised. Relief.

Prospectus

Unless you’re raising finance into the tens of millions you don’t want a prospectus. Why? Because they’re about ‘this big’ and need an even bigger pile of money to be created in the first place. Your prospectus for the offer to the public (which offers anyone in the public the opportunity to buy shares in your company) will then live with the FSA and the United Kingdom Listing Authority. Basically, the point of the prospectus is to offer securities to those who choose to invest in your business. And naturally, it’s all regulated within an inch of its life. Again, time to hit the rule book.  Numerous exemptions apply and its worth making sure one applies.  Do you really want to write a full blown prosectus?

The Financial Promotions Rules

The FSA are ‘the police’ of this regime, but instead of policing the actual act of investment, they have instead wisely chosen to focus on the advertisement of the offer of shares.
Broadly the rules say that unless you are a person authorized by the FSA then you cannot make a financial promotion (unless an exemption applies; read on for info). How do they police these promotions? In various ways, including a hotline that anyone can use to draw their attention to such things.

So what happens if you put an offer out into the world inviting people to buy shares in your company, no exemption applies and it isn’t sent by an FSA authorised person?

• You can go to prison for 2 years (unpleasant)
• You could be liable to pay the investors damages which would be based on a calculation as if they’d invested in the next BIG thing.
• But wait, there’s more, if you think that the liability will be limited to the company, you’re wrong, all the people involved in, or responsible for, the Financial Promotion.

If you’re wondering how the heck any business gets any investors with all this stuffy stuff, then wonder no more. The ability to make financial promotions in the venture backed emerging growth company sector is really less focused on getting an authorised person to send it for you but instead relying on the exemptions. Basically after some checks you can send your investment opportunity note to the following people (think Dragon’s Den):

• A sophisticated individual – Someone who’s invested in a private company within the past two years
• A high net-worth individual – Someone who earns more than £100k a year and have investable assets of about £250k.

There are other exemptions. For example, there is a journalists exemption. Generally, if a journalist writes about your company and an interested investor comes to you with an offer the original story won’t count as a Financial Promotion.  How do you get the journalist interested in your story in the first place.  Some clever PR maybe!
Takeway, remember selling shares in your company is heavy on rules the result of hundreds of years company law. If you’re offering shares you need to think about them rules and make sure your complying with them. Mostly this will mean falling within an exemption.
I’d like to end this post by saying Happy Birthday to Bootlaw. Hip hip guys, thanks for a year of legal brilliance, beer, pizza and chat. Here’s to many more.