Jaffe Juice

Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie...Oy Oy Oy - Part 3

I'll be in Sydney (again) in July, keynoting at the Australian Direct Marketing Association Forum on July 8th.

If you're interested in meeting up and/or having me speak to your company/clients, drop me an e-mail and let's chat: jaffe [at] crayonville [dot] com.

I <3 Australia

When to avoid the conversation

My latest Adweek column is up. It's called "Silence is Golden: when talking back is not always a brand's best bet." The original title was, "When to keep your big trap shut"

Take a gander and decide whether you want to join or avoid the conversation on this post :)

Full text:

Silence Is Golden Why talking back is not always a brand's best bet - By Joseph Jaffe

In this new "enlightened" era of joining the conversation, it appears that the ship has set sail once and for all on the debate as to whether or not brands should participate in online conversations. But today I'm going to talk about avoiding the conversation and I'll offer five diverse perspectives on when it's (arguably) better to remain on the sidelines and observe in silence.

1. Timing is everything.

Just because you've implemented an extensive "commitment-to-conversation" program and --thanks to your listening strategy-are ready to pounce the very millisecond anyone has anything to say, this doesn't mean you always should.

For starters, it's a little creepy if a big brand responds too quickly. There's a fine line between listening and spying (listening in). Secondly, always make sure a response is warranted and, if so, that it's warranted by you. Thirdly, don't discriminate between types of people and/or different levels of sentiment. While we tend to take our fans/promoters for granted-not necessarily the best play-on the flip side, we tend to jump in headfirst to counter negative or critical comments, Oftentimes (and I know it's happened to me more often than not), this comes across as defensive or contradictory.

2. Give time for the community to respond.

If you've earned the trust and affinity of a base of consumers, why not let them respond on your behalf? There's nothing more credible than when your community comes to your rescue to defend your position/perspective/actions. Premature conversation (there is a cure) negates the incredible phenomenon of customers as advocates and, in doing so, takes community out of the equation.

That said, be warned that this is not always the case and so there's always going to be a judgment call in terms of when to get in the game. At some point, you will need to act.

3. There's no etiquette when it comes to disrespect.

I used to believe that everyone, no matter what they say, deserves a respectful response. If people are spoken to in a respectful manner, with genuine empathy, they're more likely to be "turned around" and change their tone. I've since changed my tune. My take now is that rude and insulting posts or comments do not warrant or deserve a response. Frequently, we're talking about people with an axe to grind or personal agenda to advance. More likely than not, you're not going to change their minds or their position, so why bother? Why deflect your already scarce resources?

A sad by-product is that-like in many focus groups -- the active minority will overpower and ruin things for the silent majority. But once the drinking waters are muddied, it's time to move on and/or take the conversation elsewhere.

As an aside, it's important for you to run interference internally and externally to help manage expectations when it comes to filtering and internalizing these comments. Don't take these comments at face value and don't allow your management to be influenced either by overtly destructive feedback.

4. When cool becomes unkewl.

Let's face it, we've spent our entire professional lives believing our brand of deodorant, clothing, bank or vehicle represents the epitome of pop culture, coolness and aspirational magnetism. The reality is not always reflective of our idealistic perceptions. Oftentimes, when we slap our corporate logos and titles all over an otherwise organic and decentralized conversation, we create an instant downer.

Case in point: the many online polls predicting how long it will take to completely destroy Twitter based on the deluge of mainstream/established celebrities and brands joining the fray. Sorry, @oprah.

5. Response and responsiveness.

My final point is short and sweet. If you're going to respond with canned, empty, superficial and transparent (the bad kind) dialog, don't bother. A response needs to be comprehensive and it needs to be effective. If there's a problem, there needs to be some kind of resolution or, at least, a genuine attempt at its resolution. Pizza Hut is currently looking for an intern to represent an entire brand's equity, integrity and point of view in the Twitterverse. Wrong move. Dead wrong move. You don't bring a wooden sword to fight a fear-breathing dragon. Likewise, you don't bring a green, entry-level intern to represent an entire corporation in the conversation.

If they're not equipped and/or empowered to respond quickly and properly, the result can often be a backfire and/or backlash.

Those are my five "conversation avoider" conversation starters. I'd love to hear yours.

@oprah w@tch: Day 2

Oprah's on Twitter. Follow her @oprah.

Oprah is a media maven second to none. She's conquered every single medium, with the possible exceptions of digital and "virtual" (I believe "social" fits between 3 planes: physical, digital and virtual), but she'll do that soon enough.

It's inevitable.

I'm actually wondering if she should purchase www.twitter.com/o from Oliver Thylmann in Cologne.

Anyway, I'm testing my theory that Oprah is awesome by tweeting her every weekday to see when she'll respond (not IF but WHEN) and more importantly, what she'll say. Right now Oprah is only interacting with a small personal network and celebs, but of course that's not what Twitter is about...and nor is it what Oprah's about.

• Here's Day 1's Tweet

• Here's today's Tweet

I actually have a few show ideas for Oprah (one of them is what I call "weight loss by community") and the more I think about it, the more I'd like to invest some of my time with more ideas for her. She's done amazing things for the world...and for my home country, South Africa. I should return the favor.

Think she'll respond? I do. Let's see what happens.

Why charging a digital or PR agency with social media is a flawed strategy

My latest Adweek column is up and it's already getting its fair share of comments - with some particularly negative ones leveled at me.

The piece is about where I think "social" media really fits and why - based on this assessment - I think it's a flawed strategy to charge a digital or PR agency with the AOR responsibilities associated with this imperative.

PS If you're going to be a hater, please indicate if you work for a digital or PR agency :)

Full text here:

Who Owns Social Media?

A clue: don't look to digital agencies or PR shops

March 15, 2009

-By Joseph Jaffe

There are three worlds. Or perhaps I should say three environments. And whether you know it or not, you're living in all three right now.

Let's start off with the physical world, also known as the real world (and I'm not talking about an MTV program). The physical world, from a media standpoint, is the one governed by television, radio and print. It's also the world in which most word-of-mouth conversations happen. Face to face.

Then there's the digital world. Web 1.0. The world of Web sites. Of big, Flash-based, SEO-unfriendly "skip intro" edifices built to glorify brands. This is the world of e-mails, banners and buttons. It's a world of advergames and gargantuan portals. And it's become synonymous with "traditional interactive" -- a sterile wasteland devoid of life, creativity and innovation.

Finally, there's the virtual world. Yes, it includes the obvious virtual reality, the maligned Second Life, MMORPG experiences like World of Warcraft and more kid-friendly environments like Club Penguin or Webkinz. But, I would argue, it also includes blogs, podcasts, presence applications like Twitter and social networks. My definition of a virtual world is any environment that utilizes avatar and/or profile-based participation, with the option of anonymity. In short, it's a place or space where people can interact with other people in ways they could never do in the "real" or digital worlds.

So where does social media fall? The obvious answer is right in the middle of these three worlds, which is exactly why neither a digital agency nor the PR industry is equipped to deliver against the three-pronged imperative of community, dialogue and partnership.

Digital agencies today are stuck somewhere between scalability hell (tasked with automating and compartmentalizing the lowly impression) and storytelling schlock (replicating obtuse and detached hyperbole in an advertising-unfriendly environment). It's a world governed by performance-based pricing and ad networks on the one side and pre-roll advertising and clunky Web builds on the other.

Exactly where and when did the digital space earn the stripes and credentials to tackle the high roads of authenticity, transparency or peer-to-peer collaboration (just to name a few of conversational marketing's core tenets)?

The PR business is really no better and no worse than the digital one when it comes to social credentials. With its claim of being champions of "earned media," it tacked the word "relations" onto blogger, lumped it together with "media relations" and "journalist relations," and somehow went unchallenged.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying PR shouldn't be at the table. I'm just questioning how "relations" between corporations and journalists equate with real people hanging out with other real people.

Whereas the digital space has very little claim to the "physical" world and hasn't proven itself in the virtual space, the PR industry resides more comfortably in the physical world, with a superficial grasp of the digital space and an anemic understanding of the virtual one.

In both cases, the ability to connect the dots among the three environments, find the commonalities and establish obvious synergies is barely practiced.

I've seen client after client duped into charging a digital or PR agency with-arguably-the most transformational opportunity we've been given in our professional lifetimes and the result is almost always a shambolic disappointment. From Sony or Wal-Mart's fake blogs to the recent Skittles.com mess, the culprits are almost always digital or PR agencies.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying every digital and/or every PR agency is ill-equipped to deliver against "social." What I am suggesting, however, is there's an acute and fundamental flaw in equating "social" with "digital" or "social" with "earned media."

So what's the solution?

Perhaps the solution is to return to the clichéd "integration" drawing board and figure out how to ensure that all three sides of the equation are equally represented around the table. In this scenario, there's a definite and defined role for an "integrator" -- an independent third party (internal or external) that is the generalist to the physical, digital and virtual specialist verticals, with less interest in ensuring success in any one world than in simply ensuring your success, period.

Having said this, it may also turn out that there is no such thing as a social AOR.

But don't take my word for it. Continue to vest your future in companies that build elaborate destination Web sites, construct parties that nobody shows up to and deliver ostensibly social solutions that reek of control, manipulation and fakery.

Hey, at least people will talk about you, right?

To pay or not to pay, is THAT the question?

Forrester just released a report titled "Add Sponsored Conversations To Your Toolbox," authored by Sean Corcoran.

Kmart gave some bloggers a free shopping spree in exchange for a blog post about the experience — a practice we call sponsored conversation. With appropriate protections for disclosure and authenticity, this practice will take its place alongside public relations and advertising activities in the blogosphere. Marketers should take advantage of sponsored conversation as an entrée into the online conversation. To succeed, you should get to know the bloggers you plan to work with and set expectations across your organization.

What's interesting is how Forrester is pretty deliberately putting this approach into a category of its own, alongside it's predecessors or cohorts (depending on your position), advertising and P.R. and in doing so, plays a part in terms of legitimizing or formalizing an emerging practice.

His colleague Jeremiah Owyang covers it here and Brian Morrissey at Adweek covers it here. Marshall Kirkpatrick from ReadWriteWeb takes a strong counterposition here.

I was interviewed for this piece by Sean, as was Chris Brogan, who participated in the aforementioned Kmart program, sits on the board of IZEA - the company behind the program (and the one formally known as PayPerPost). Chris responds specifically to Marshall with this post.

Here's the thing. In my time in this space thus far in a formal capacity (i.e. crayon), I've worked on two pretty public and well received programs: My ooVoo Day and the Panasonic CES program. In the former example, both Marshall and Chris were participants; in the latter one, Chris was one of the bloggers. I'm not sure I would call either of these programs "sponsored conversations". In fact, crayon calls them "tactical hooks" - a mash-up of the best (practices) of the advertising and social media worlds. Put differently, we believe that influencer outreach should be treated with the same consideration, commitment and investment as a traditional communications program from both a planning and production standpoint.

It's imperative to give influencers both a reason to believe and a reason to behave. Too often, we are lazy, greedy and gratuitous in terms of what we expect from bloggers and the like and essentially what we expect back from them, relative to what we put in, in the first place.

In a personal capacity, I've participated in both the Nikon D80 giveaway and the Sears program (part 2 of IZEA's Kmart 1-2 punch). In both cases, I wouldn't say this remotely smacked of PayPerPost; nor would I say my conversation was sponsored. In some respects,this is no different than a "celebrity" (TRUST me, I'm using that loosely) sponsorship - from loaning a star diamonds on Oscar night to adorning Tiger Woods with a cacophany of swooshes in exchange for mega moolah.

I guess the point is where on the continuum does blogger or influencer outreach fall. Personally, I believe we should be calling this "blogger/influencer outreach" and not "sponsored conversation". Let me also be very clear (and you can see from the definition), that I don't think Sean meant this to be taken in a negative light. I spoke with him and we had a great conversation. I think the real ambiguity and problem lies with us (i.e. the readers of the report; the commentators and so called social media experts etc).

Part of the problem lies with the fact "sponsored conversation" sounds a bit like "paid search" does it not? Putting two terms which seemingly mean exact opposites together and in doing so, creates a rather jarring disconnect.

Part of the problem as well lies in the endless, boring and inaccurate comparison between the new class of content creators (bloggers if you wish) and journalists. They're not...at least for the most part.

And so we come back to the two core issues:

1. Should bloggers be compensated in any way, shape or form for their time, effort, energy, passion and contribution. The answer can only be a resounding YES, with standard terms and conditions (disclosure, transparency etc) which make both common sense and business sense.
2. Is expecting bloggers (in return for aforementioned compensation) to write, talk, post, create etc about their experiences, reflections, ideas, participation crossing a line? The answer here is a resounding NO, provided there is adequate disclosure and transparency.

Come on people. Grow up and wisen up. This is a nascent industry and space which is learning and maturing all the time. What we have here is in many respects no different to how the world was, but in many respects is also incredibly and completely different. It's time to get off our high horses and open our minds, instead of stubbornly holding on to and exhibiting self-righteous, hypocritical and close-minded positions.

Whatever you call them, "sponsored conversations" are here to stay. And just like the vast differences between crap and mediocre creative (lumped together) and inspiring/breakthrough creative, so too will there be a marked difference between influencer programs that stand out from the crowd or get trampled by it.

Snow filled Linkety-Link

About a foot of snow outside which translates into about 10 links of things I discovered but had no time to elaborate on over the last week or so:

• Skittles homepage getting a lot of buzz. Seemingly positive. "Brave marketing" Here's my problem? What the buttons (or perhaps I should say "where") is the strategy? How is this different to Modernista did (note recent recession influenced bungle) with their homepage? And exactly how do you reconcile gems like, "bunnieblog: RT @califmom: skittles skittle skittles skittles capitalist whore skittles skittles skittles skittlesskittles capitalist whore skittles"
• "TV ads still effective - if not more" - ARF study released too early, somehow missing it's scheduled publishing date of April 1st.
• Skip, Scan, Stop, Save and/or Spread? Elevator pitch worth taking to heart re: content creation.
• I participated in the Great Word of Mouth Marketing Experiment recently, along with Andy Sernovitz. The catch was that this took place in Auckland, New Zealand and I was in Atlantis in the Bahamas. The original plan was to use video, but in the end we had to settle for audio only. What you'll "see" is a headshot of me as you listen, but thank your lucky stars you never saw the real me...sitting on the floor of an empty hotel room in nothing but a towel!
• Hard to describe this example of brand idiocy, but for sure RyanAir has a genuine shot of being included in the Hall of Shame for their lack of blogger relations (assuming this is accurate)
• Ad Age piece on how events are suffering the effects of the economy. Ultimately it's one of the many ironies and contradictions we're currently facing: we stop investing in learning, networking, and lead gen when arguably, we need it most.
• I know, I know...the last thing we need is YET another list of corporate Twitter accounts worth following, which is why I won't share this one. Oops I did it again.
• Twanalysis Paralysis. Whilst I appreciate the need to create new metrics in order to understand the social world we now live in, when is too much, too much? Here's a new service called Twitalyzer that introduces, Influence, Signal, Generosity, Velocity and Clout. I've given you my scores which as you'll see rate high on signal to noise (???) but low on velocity (read: I have better things to do) and clout (read: ass kissers). Not sure I'm buying...
• Just to show you that I'm not obsessed with Twitter, Robin Grant gives another thoughtful post on "brands and Twitter"
• Working the room through social media. Interesting post which references Gary Vaynerchuk comparing social media to "working a room" versus broadcast media as "giving a presentation". It's an interesting perspective, although I do see several challenges associated with this argument, particularly when equating "cost" (of doing business) on an apples to apples basis...but hey, it's all part of the conversation, right?

Sun drenched linkety-link

Back from a week long (delayed...long story) vacation in the Bahamas and catching up on how the world turned (any stories I missed? put them in the comment thread and I'll upgrade 'em):

• Chris Wilson over at Fresh Peel has a great series on the Future of Work, in which I was included. I recorded my responses via audio and you can check them out (plus the others of course) here
• Jet Blue gets it right with the context I referred to in "Sins of the Super Bowl Marketer"
• I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal Lotame. OK, so that should have read lobotamy and has nothing to do with the fine folks at Lotame who put together a pharma conference in NYC. Also check out this comparison of Second Life and the DTC/Pharma industry. From the sublime to the ridiculous...
• Speaking of which, apparently Second Life is making a comeback. Hey, if it worked for Mickey Rourke, it can work for pink dragons as well. I'd better dust of the cobwebs in the crayonville Diner.
• What do you think of the term, "mommyblogger?" I'll tell you but only if you promise to withhold unleashing the chaos of a Mommy scorned on me in the process...
• I'm still not entirely sure about this (resume? brown-nose? true love?) but it's a gem nonetheless. The subject in question is Adweek creative editor, Eleftheria Parpis. Sigh, if only someone would put out a "I heart Jaffe" video (Verdino doesn't count)
• Joel. The Success of Marketing. Yum.
• Message to blogosphere. Don't give up your side jobs (unless your name is Steve)
• They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery or something like that, unless of course if your name is Microsoft, in which case it's just lame.
• Just in case you thought "social media" was too narrow a focus, enter (fanfare please): THE TWITTER AGENCY,

Sins of the Super Bowl Marketer

My latest Adweek column is up. I wanted to write about this year's Super Bowl crop (or should I say crap) of commercials from both a digital and conversational (community, dialogue, partnership) standpoint. Here's the full text:

The last thing you probably need right now is more Super Bowl redux, but bear with me as I outline a few things related to this year's Big Game that hopefully offer a unique perspective. And hopefully doing so now will save you from making the same mistakes next year.

While I might be the person who authored Life After the 30-Second Spot I've often said my ideal assignment would be to work on a Super Bowl commercial. Why? Simply put, everything's a conversation starter. Given a platform of 90 million viewers, why wouldn't you want to seize the moment to begin and/or extend a dialogue with your consumers?

And yet we seem to be regressing in our understanding of how to do this. Is it indulgence? Denial? Laziness? Desperation? All of the above? I'm stumped at this industry's inability to take advantage of a golden opportunity like this one.

Here are a few pieces of advice which you can choose to follow -- or not -- next year. But seriously ... I don't care how unsexy this might sound, it's absolutely necessary if you want to be responsible and accountable to your shareholders.

1. You need a URL. This is not an optional extra, and any agency that thinks it is should pretty much be fired on the spot.
2. You need a reason to visit the URL. Not just a call to action but a tangible benefit of visiting. Take a few precious seconds to drive this home.
3. I'd go so far as to display this URL the entire time.
4. This advice is even more important for the handful of advertisers this year that chose to use SMS/text messaging (although you would have been forgiven for thinking this was a subliminal attempt due to the unbelievably short time this information was displayed).
5. Remember that people are often watching the Super Bowl with the sound turned down and/or with a noise level above that of the TV volume. If you think people are hushing each other and turning up the volume when commercials come on, you are delusional. Consider text overlays/supers that drive home key messaging.

The buzz you hear is the sound of crickets

Almost as bad as the lack of Web integration this year was the abysmal influencer outreach and blogger activation this year. How hard is it to realize you're going to need to rely on these gown-wearing, disheveled, basement-dwelling loudmouths living at their mom and pop's homes?

And yet, this year there was virtually zero pre- or post-game hype or buzz when it came to the blogosphere. I even blogged myself that with less than a week to go I had barely been contacted by a single company to peddle their wares.

Anheuser-Busch was one company that did reach out within a few days of the Super Bowl. I respected the fact that they gave me a password-protected URL in advance and that they trusted me enough not to share this publicly. I still didn't check them out. Why would I? If I had, I would have found out that they were just teasers...so much for trust and the number one spot on USA Today's Ad meter.

I was also impressed that the folks over at Hulu sent me an e-mail, seconds after their commercial aired containing embeddable HTML code, downloads, widgets and other "shareable" assets.

But what I'm talking about is a lot more strategic and profound than a tactical Hail Mary. Next year, think about reaching out to influencers or content creators months in advance in order to put into place innovative partnership initiatives that involve them in the entire process from start to finish.

Context is king

We always hear about the two "M's," medium and message. But here's a third "M": mind-set. Put them all together and doesn't it become just a little pathetic to have CareerBuilder and Monster advertising during this painful recession with preposterous messages including gems like, "Do you cry just a little at your job?"

"No, dumbass, I cry because I lost my job and can't figure out how to pay the damn mortgage."

It's astounding to me how few advertisers this year had the decency to acknowledge the fact that both the economy and the environment are in turmoil. And with the exceptions of Hyundai (with its "lose your job, return the car" promise) and FedEx (by virtue of pulling out), we were left to the devices of Coca-Cola pouring its syrup all over the countryside.

In recent times it would appear that the winner of the Super Bowl is the ad that either sucks the least or, by default, the one that is so outrageously bad that it stands out a mile from the crowd.

This year it was Cash4Gold that slobbered its direct response message on unsuspecting viewers across America, desperately looking at their jewelry as makeshift payroll.

A yardstick or benchmark for the future

This year's Super Bowl lived up to its expectation of being another nail the coffin of the beleaguered 30-second spot, but rather than belabor its demise, let me repeat the central messages from this piece.

1. Make the most of your $3 million plus production investment. For goodness sake, don't waste the opportunity any more than you already have.
2. Don't think about your spot as an end unto itself, but a means to an end: a conversation starter.
3. Leverage the new influencers and content creators to amplify, extend and enhance the word-of-mouth associated with your efforts.
4. There's always a story behind the story. The making of. The extended or deleted scenes. The director's commentary. If you're going to break the production bank, make it count.

In addition -- and in the spirit of the late Chuck Fruit -- I'd like to introduce a benchmark or yardstick against which to evaluate your Super Bowl spend in years to come. I'd like to propose that for every dollar you invest in both Super Bowl media and production, you counterbalance that with an equal commitment to innovation and/or experimentation.

It's the perfect yin-yang, if you think about it: for every cent spent on perpetuating the status quo, there is a proportionate investment in the future.

If you have enough money to blow on a 30-second needle in a haystack, you should have the same amount of discretionary budget to hedge your bet-and in doing so, you're going to go to market with the best of both worlds. Who knows, you might even figure out how to bring these two worlds together.

So, get cracking people. There are only 359 days to go before Super Bowl XLIV kicks off.

Clam chowder flavored linkety-link

Sitting in the lobby of the Westin St Francis and need to get these links off my chest. They're too good to keep to myself:

• New CMO Council survey which sheds new light on social media adoption
• Life after the 30-second spot. No really.
• Twitter fun at the Satmetrix Net Promoter Conference. Now you can be here too with hashtag #NPS
• Would you like Ketchum with that? Let's hope the red you see is in fact a condiment and not blood. Sadly, I think this represents the latter. What a mess, which just seems to have been made worse by a very predictable PR-type response. No comment.
• PR is killing itself and it hurts to laugh. Only because we're laughing too much.
• The grandest of social media lists about social media lists. All your favorites are here too.
• Say it ain't so, Jo-Jo. Just kidding - 2 posts for your reading pleasure
• Tony Hsieh interviewed by Melissa Pierce.
• What do Perez Hilton and Joseph Jaffe have in common? Apparently, we're both blogging heavyweights, which I can only take to mean, "FAT"
• How to make crayons. Now you know. Next up: how to make crayonistas (rated R)
• Failure is a winning strategy. Sounds like a book title. The post title states that you aren't a social media expert until you fail (unless of course you become an expert failure)
• Just because....President Obama's official portrait (via Steve Garfield/Flickr). Did you know he's the first US President to have his photo taken with a digital camera? Wonder if it was a Panasonic? :) Also, CNN tops their election hologram with an inauguration photosynth. Hey, at least they're trying...

If you don't blog, you can't work at crayon...

There, I said it. The post title probably sounds a little harsher than it actually is, but here's the thing...the culture of a company is its heart and soul; it's perhaps the one aspect of its DNA that is non-negotiable.

Over the past 2 years, I've played my part in trying to build the company (or at least the workplace) of the future. Part of our essence is the belief/philosophy that we walk our talk; we live in the heart of the storm; the epicenter of change....etc.

We've experimented ourselves with different types of formula - looking to balance or counterbalance marketing services experience with "social media insider" expertise, amidst a start-up atmosphere.

The fact remains...some things can be taught and others cannot; some things are natural and other things are forced; some things are either in you or they're not.

Over time, we've crafted (work in progress) our own internal checklist of what constitutes a crayonista. Some of it is attitude. Some of it is aptitude. Now - using people like Tony @ Zappos as inspiration (everyone within Zappos is on Twitter), we've decided what is mandatory and what is optional.

Here's one of the mandatories: if you aren't already blogging, don't bother applying for a position at crayon.

Sound harsh? Perhaps. Will exceptions apply? Of course, but they will be few and far between and will be considered under exceptional circumstances.

• I wonder what your reaction to this is?
• How many people within your organization are charged with "social media", but - themselves - are not walking the talk?
• Do you agree or disagree with this position?
• What gates or checklists do you have in place in your organization?
• What gates or checklists do you wish you had in place in your organization?

I'll also mention 2 additional points:

1. Shameless self-promoters need not apply (just because you have a blog doesn't give you a sense of entitlement; your content needs to be original and quality; if you're blogging to get speaking gigs, good luck with that...) In addition, blogging as an empty shell is probably lower on the prioritization list. I guess it comes down to the difference between going through the motions and actively engaging/participating in the "conversation"
2. We've thought about several other "gates" as well e.,g. people need to be actively tweeting. Like Zappos, this is something we feel strongly about...but I'm just not sure I want to put this on the same level of importance/pedastal as "blogging", which is truly a marquis representation of this new conversational model.

Thoughts?