Kick-off

Just finished a 2-day Social Media Strategies Summit in SF, which was great overall about social media.  My biggest note, though, was that I was one of 4 brand folks there, out of 400 people.  Why is there a desire to segment out the "brand people" from the "social media" people?  Do you separate out the "print" people from the "strategy" people?  NO!  And why not?  If anything, this would be an even cleaner break out for marketers than separating "brand" from "social media."  It seems as though more and more marketers are passionate about Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, what have you, but they like it like people like their stamp collections-- something to pull out and dust off when someone new is in town.

This lack of involvement with social media often underlies a bigger issue: a need to be infallible.  Often I encounter, in my brand rodeo, a need for other riders to establish the brand as GOD.  "This is BRAND," they say, "thou shalt not speak badly of it, it is always correct, it is BRAND."  Most brand books I've seen talk more about what you can't do, or must do, than what should inspire what you do.  Listen, people: brands SHOULD BE like people.  They will go longer for it.  Nobody talks with stars in their eyes about old brands long gone, like Cycle dog food or Cocomalt drink mix.  People still talk about people like Mozart or Ghandi or Nietzche with passion, though.  Each person can be right and wrong at the same time; most of all, if they are inspiring and inspired, their thoughts and actions live with us forever.  That's the funniest thing-- each brand wants to live forever, but without taking risks.  If nothing else, realize that the rider who takes no risk wins no rodeos.  Don't be lame.  Don't try to live forever to do nothing over eternity.  Let brands take risks and own up to mistakes when they're made-- listen to folks who love you and folks who hate you, and figure out where you are in each person's story.