Category: cluetrain

TEDtalks Ten Commandments for Presenters

Paper notes from #cebitweb

my notes for #cebitweb panel.

Please read, take note and follow. There are a variety of web published sources for these commandments; Laurel Papworth and Tim Longhurst.

Sent to presenters at the TEDTalks conferences, it has much to say to all panelists and presenters.

  1. Thou Shalt Not Simply Trot Out thy Usual Shtick.
  2. Thou Shalt Dream a Great Dream, or Show Forth a Wondrous New Thing, Or Share Something Thou Hast Never Shared Before.
  3. Thou Shalt Reveal thy Curiosity and Thy Passion.
  4. Thou Shalt Tell a Story.
  5. Thou Shalt Freely Comment on the Utterances of Other Speakers for the Sake of Blessed Connection and Exquisite Controversy.
  6. Thou Shalt Not Flaunt thine Ego. Be Thou Vulnerable. Speak of thy Failure as well as thy Success.
  7. Thou Shalt Not Sell from the Stage: Neither thy Company, thy Goods, thy Writings, nor thy Desperate need for Funding; Lest Thou be Cast Aside into Outer Darkness.
  8. Thou Shalt Remember all the while: Laughter is Good.
  9. Thou Shalt Not Read thy Speech.
  10. Thou Shalt Not Steal the Time of Them that Follow Thee.

Thanks to the pink pixie on twitter for posting this list. Very precient. Oh, and I do note the irony of copying and pasting the commandments. I LOL’d too.

Please be respectful of the collective time your audience is investing by listening to you. Think deeply. Listen and learn from others before you copy-and-paste present.

How do you make money from your presentation? Here is a hint. Speak to people after your session, individually. One on one is where the real opportunity for solving a prospect’s problem really lies. And I suggest that more than 80% of any audience you have are not there to buy you, or your products. They want to learn, or just copy-and-paste your ideas.

Time to board the Presentation Cluetrain. And when I fall off, I fully expect you to help put me back aboard.

atNickHodge Episode 10: Theology of the Cluetrain with Stephen Collins (@trib)

Show plan for Episode 10, 7th May 2009 #atNickHodge “Theology of the Cluetrain” 
  1. [at 8:35pm] Theology of the Cluetrain 
    1. Introducing our Special Guest this evening, Stephen Collins from AcidLabs (@trib) 
      1. (ask Stephen his background)
      2. long experience in web, html, ux, ia…
      3. which/what event put you onto cluetrain?
    2. Today: #publicsphere
      1. How is the Govt going with this internet/social thing?
      2. are they doing anything at all?
        1. vs. controlled message of previous+current govt
      3. Is @piawaugh‘s addition of Senator Kate Lundy — indicates what; is it an ACT electorate thing? purely political?
      4. “a brave move Minister, open government” / Yes, Minister (first episode)
    3. The Cluetrain Manifesto
      1. 95 theses as a call-to-action / manifesto : business in the internet age
        1. vs. 95 theses of Martin Luther 1517; start of the Protestant Heritage in Europe (vs. Lollards) fighting against the power of the Holy Roman Catholic Church
      2. The manifesto was written in 1999 by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger. 
        1. Pre-dates Web 1.0 (dot-com boom) Web 2.0 (R/W) and Social Media!
          1. Around David Winer, scripting.com (early blogging in 1996/7)
          2. I first met Dave in 1993.
          3. many of these, IT industry specific; aimed at Apple and Microsoft
      3. 8 “sections”
        1. Theses 1 – 6: Markets are Conversations
          – mass media subverted the “village market” .. internet returns us to this concept. Information in markets drives to better stability
          Thesis 7: Hyperlinks Subvert Hierarchy
          – SM: anyone can reach out, outside PR
          Theses 8-13: Connection between the new markets and companies
          – SM: example, mini-microsoft on recent rounds
          Theses 14 – 25: Organizations entering the marketplace
          – ‘voice’ is the culture, fitting in; not attempting to dominate/control
          Theses 26 – 40: Marketing & Organizational Response
          – authenticity
          Theses 41 – 52: Intranets and the impact to organization control and structure
          – fails to understand flow of responsibility; tied to risk/reward
          Theses 53 – 71: Connecting the Internet marketplace with corporate Intranets
          – voice, again in SM context
          Theses 72 – 95: New Market Expectations
          – expectation change
      4. (John C Dvorak) Is it just a Circle-jerk of Burning Man attendees
        1. and left-wing wingnuts?
      5. OK, voices: the voice of government, plainly sucks. PR speak etc. Messages in 15 seconds
      6. where does the need for transparency come from?
    4. what other books/people have you read?
    5. Current “marketing” oriented approach and “p0wnership” needs to be stopped!
      1. Cultural change
        “connected oriented” <———————————-> “conversation oriented”
        platform of “social media” as a replacement to “msm” (traditional media)
      2. Connection oriented is characterised by the number of people that see a viral ad; inserting this into the high end of the SM world, and watching it expand due to the network effect. Getting as many views as possible. No care as to the actual content of the conversation.
         
        Conversation oriented is people oriented; genuine people, conversation .. Cluetrain

        This has its place, but its not “social media” >> cf “Television department” in Mad Men
         
        I am concerned that the “digitial marketing industry” is too much on the left of the above scale as they do not understand customers or employees.         

It is a whole-of-organisation cultural change.

The disconnect is here.
 

  • It is all “vendors spruiking their wares”?   

  • what is transparency? 100% transparent is impossible; where is the bounds 
    1. concept of reflective transparency: transparency exists outside the organisation, whether you like it or not
  • how does this apply to a non-commercial organisation?
  • http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/01/1533216  
    1. Sun employee documenting top 10 reasons for Sun #fail vs. SEC implications
    2. @wacom @msretail argument vs. MS policy on blogging (vs. SM)
  • Fundamentalist person-oriented social media
    1. partly due to my own success and persona, personality and cult thereof
  • approach to POSM within large organisations
    1. personal brand vs. corporate brand?
  • finding the middle ground
  • [9:24pm] Ending thoughts
    1. Here is the elevator pitch: For as long as an organisation’s products and or services have existed, constituents have been talking. About the products, the price, the service they get; value, ease of dealing with you. Their personal association with the company.And these conversations are across the range from positive or negative. Traditional marketing aims and claims to penetrate the mind, and have influence over these utterances. Sales people argue and negotiate around them, or to reinforce them. PR works with the influencers to influence.
       
      Citizens, constituents and customers are, or have, moved online. Their utterances, or conversations, about you are now visible to millions, if not billions. A search engine search away. We are hyperconnected and hypershare our experiences. Photos, videos or snippets of life compressed into 140 characters. Literally and Instantly. And they are permanent. And they are findable.Of course there are independent voices; voices traditionally called journalists. There are subjective voices in cacophony: SM from the organisation out. A traditional market, if you have visited one, is noisy.
       
      As a representative of your organisation, can choose to listen, or be a part of this conversation, actively choose to block it out. Ignore it. This choice is ultimately yours to make. Like all business decisions, you will need more information to make a rational choice.  Are your constituents online? Is the effort worth the investment?  Can you risk to your reputation by ignoring it?And here is the most frightening question of all: are they talking about you at all?

      The schoolyard and tea kitchen in our officespaces are online, in the clouds of the internet.

      The voices? Can you hear them?