News aggregator

Linchpin will be the last book I publish in a traditional way.

One of the poxes on an author's otherwise blessed life is people who ask, "what's your next book," even if some of them haven't read the last one. (Jeff did, of course). To answer your question, this book is my next book. I think the ideas in Linchpin are my life's work, and I'm going to figure out the best way to spread those ideas, in whatever form they take. I also have some new, smaller projects in the works, and no doubt some bigger ones around the corner. [PS the best analysis of this whole thing, particularly the punchline is by Mitch.]

A little background: For ten years or so, beginning in 1986, I was a book packager. Sort of like a movie producer, but for books. My team and I created 120 published books and pitched another 600 ideas, all of which were summarily rejected. Some of the published books were flops, others were huge bestsellers. It was a lot of fun. As a book packager, you wake up in the morning and say, "what sort of book can I invent/sell/organize/write/produce today?"

It took a year or so, but I finally figured out that my customer wasn't the reader or the book buyer, it was the publisher. If the editor didn't buy my book, it didn't get published. Here's the thing: I liked having editors as my customers. These are smart, motivated and really nice people who are happy to talk with you about what they want and what they believe. Good customers to have. (In all of those years, only one publisher stole any of my ideas, no check ever bounced, and no publisher ever broke a promise to me).

When I decided to become focused on being an author, the logical thing to do was to sell to that same group of people. And it worked. I've been lucky enough to work with some great editors, and my current publisher, Portfolio, has been patient, flexible and, did I mention, patient. Adrian Zackheim, who runs the imprint, is exactly what you'd hope for, even if the architecture of his industry is fundamentally broken.

Authors need publishers because they need a customer. Readers have been separated from authors by many levels--stores, distributors, media outlets, printers, publishers--there were lots of layers for many generations, and the editor with a checkbook made the process palatable to the writer. For ten years, I had a publisher as a client (with some fun self-published adventures along the way). Twelve bestsellers later, I've thought hard about what it means to have a traditional publisher.

Traditional book publishers use techniques perfected a hundred years ago to help authors reach unknown readers, using a stable technology (books) and an antique and expensive distribution system.

The thing is--now I know who my readers are. Adding layers or faux scarcity doesn't help me or you. As the medium changes, publishers are on the defensive.... I honestly can't think of a single traditional book publisher who has led the development of a successful marketplace/marketing innovation in the last decade. The question asked by the corporate suits always seems to be, "how is this change in the marketplace going to hurt our core business?" To be succinct: I'm not sure that I serve my audience (you) by worrying about how a new approach is going to help or hurt Barnes & Noble.

My audience does things like buy five or ten copies at a time and distribute them to friends and co-workers. They (you) forward blog posts and PDFs. They join online discussion forums. None of these things are supported by the core of the current corporate publishing model.

Since February, I've shared my thoughts about the future of publishing in both public forums and in private brainstorming sessions with various friends in top jobs in the publishing industry. Other than one or two insightful mavericks, most of them looked at me like I was nuts for being an optimist. One CEO worked as hard as she could to restrain herself, but failed and almost threw me out of her office by the end. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't heartbroken at the fear I saw.

All a long way of saying that as the methods for spreading ideas and engaging with people keep changing, I can't think of a good reason to be on the defensive. It's been years since I woke up in the morning saying, "I need to write a book, I wonder what it should be about." Instead, my mission is to figure out who the audience is, and take them where they want and need to go, in whatever format works, even if it's not a traditionally published book.

If you're among the majority reading this that has never bought one of my books in a bookstore, not much will change. But I thought I'd share with you this fork in the road. Thanks for reading, in whatever form you choose.

"I'll be out of bed in five minutes," is not a true statement because it's a promise not meant to be kept. It actually means, "go away, I'm sleeping, I'll say what I need to get rid of you." "Your... Seth Godin

"I'll be out of bed in five minutes," is not a true statement because it's a promise not meant to be kept. It actually means, "go away, I'm sleeping, I'll say what I need to get rid of you."

"Your call is very important to us," is not a true statement either. The truth is self-evident.

"I promise I'll tell the manager about this," is of course not a real promise either. It might be uttered with good intent, or might be designed to get an annoying customer to go away, but still...

You can already guess the problem with little lies. They blur the line, and they lead (pretty quickly) to big lies. The worst kind of little lies are the ones you make to yourself. Once you're willing to lie to yourself, you're also willing to cheat at golf, and after that, it's all downhill.

Companies that refuse to break small promises have a much easier time keeping big promises. And they earn a reputation, one that makes their handshake worth more.

Given that expectation and trust are just about all we have left to sell, it seems to me that little lies and small promises are at the very heart of the matter. And they're a simple choice, nothing requiring an MBA or a spreadsheet.

It all depends on what you want to stand for.

Wolfstar has been shortlisted for another two public relations and social media awards.

We’ve been shortlisted in the CorpComms Magazine Digi Awards in the ‘Best agency with integrated digital expertise’ category. We’re up against Bite Communications, Eulogy!, Manifest London and Ogilvy PR London. We’ve already announced that we were shortlisted in the ‘Best social media press office’ category for our work with First Direct.

The First Direct social media newsroom work has also been shortlisted in the DADI Awards for ‘Best use of social media’. The other contenders are Twentysix, Whitespace, 1000heads and Naked Penguin Boy.

To recap the PR and social media awards Wolfstar is currently shortlisted for are:

Communicate Digital Impact Awards

• Best online newsroom for First Direct
• Best multimedia press release for Sony Ericsson and Dolce & Gabbana

CorpComms Magazine Digi Awards

• Best agency with integrated digital expertise
• Best social media press office

DADI Awards

Best use of social media for First Direct

When Gerald Roush died in late May, he left behind the Ferrari Market Letter. This newsletter, which he started and ran, had nearly 5,000 subscribers, paying him $130 a year for a subscription. Do the math! It's a good living--even... Seth Godin

When Gerald Roush died in late May, he left behind the Ferrari Market Letter. This newsletter, which he started and ran, had nearly 5,000 subscribers, paying him $130 a year for a subscription. Do the math! It's a good living--even without a fancy website.

The newsletter, it appears, was not just lucrative, it was a bargain. It chronicled the pricing, whereabouts and details of just about every Ferrari ever made. If you were a buyer or a seller, you subscribed. If you wanted to run an ad, you were required to include the car's VIN, which added to Roush's voluminous database.

The Roush effect involves extraordinary domain knowledge, a market small enough to understand and diligently earning the role of data middleman. The players in the market want there to be one clearinghouse, one authority who can connect the data, see the trends and publish the conventional wisdom.

It might be a newsletter, a conference or an online database. The tactics don't matter, but the role is indispensable. If you need examples to persuade you to try this, they won't be hard to find. One of my favorites is my friend Michael's role in the book industry. He's bigger and more important than the famous (but failing) trade journal.

Just about every tribe needs a Gerald Roush. And in many markets, they can afford to pay someone like him very handsomely.

Linchpin will be the last book I publish in a traditional way. One of the poxes on an author's otherwise blessed life is people who ask, "what's your next book," even if some of them haven't read the last one.... Seth Godin

One of the best ways we have to intuit the way others decide is to understand how we decide. We have a voice in our heads and we assume others do too. We don't like rancid cheese and we assume... Seth Godin

One of the best ways we have to intuit the way others decide is to understand how we decide. We have a voice in our heads and we assume others do too. We don't like rancid cheese and we assume others don't either.

I've met two kinds of successful intuitive marketers. The first kind has absolutely no ability to describe why people do what they do. They just know. I talked with a famous fashion designer for two hours and came away believing that she has no idea whatsoever how or why purchasing decisions are made. She has no words for it.

The other kind is an honest witness of the decision-making that goes on every day inside. "Why did I just choose that?" "Why do I believe this? Is it because of something my dad said when I was three?" "Why did I give $100 to that charity? Why not zero? A thousand?" This self-insight is difficult and valuable. It means that you can't take things at face value, even things that you might be more comfortable leaving unexamined, as truths. Theologians wrestle with this dilemma all the time. How can you study an idea or a trend or a belief system if you also accept it as a universal, unquestionable fact?

And so the smart marketer throws away bias and stops cheering for one outcome over another and instead quietly takes notes on herself. Notes start shallow, but if you push, you can get deeper, stripping away layers of previously unexamined instinct. You can test those notes, see if they occur in other people when you vary the inputs. And it's this series of notes and tests that give you insight on how to share your next idea.

Critics and fans, passersby and the media crave a battle, a scandal and heroic stories of winning and losing.

Want to get written up on a tech blog? Just post a really angry rant about your competition.

Want to sell tickets to the hockey game? Just put a few brawlers on the team.

The media demands that a politician "get angry" in the face of a conflict or problem that anger won't have any effect on--but it will make a good story. Your customers demand that you stop doing what's always worked and race to follow a trend or launch a risky sideline...

When you stumble or fall, they won't say, "sorry, we were wrong." They'll say, "what were you thinking!" and talk about it even more. And then the cycle continues.

Critics and fans, passersby and the media crave a battle, a scandal and heroic stories of winning and losing. Want to get written up on a tech blog? Just post a really angry rant about your competition. Want to sell... Seth Godin

One approach to innovation and brainstorming is to wait for the muse to appear, to hope that it alights on your shoulder, to be ready to write down whatever comes to you. The other is to seek it out, will... Seth Godin

One approach to innovation and brainstorming is to wait for the muse to appear, to hope that it alights on your shoulder, to be ready to write down whatever comes to you.

The other is to seek it out, will it to appear, train it to arrive on time and on command.

The first method plays into our fears. After all, if you're not inspired, it's not your fault if you don't ship, it's not your fault if you don't do anything remarkable--hey, I don't have any good ideas, you can't expect me to speak up if I don't have any good ideas...

The second method challenges the fear and announces that you've abandoned the resistance and instead prepared to ship. Your first idea might not be good, or even your second or your tenth, but once you dedicate yourself to this cycle, yes, in fact, you will ship and make a difference.

Simple example: start a blog and post once a day on how your favorite company can improve its products or its service. Do it every day for a month, one new, actionable idea each and every day. Within a few weeks, you'll notice the change in the way you find, process and ship ideas.

When using an axe to split logs, it's awfully tempting to aim at the top of the log.

After all, if you miss the log entirely, it's dangerous or at the very least, ineffective. One can argue that if you don't split the top, it's pointless—nothing else will happen.

The problem with aiming at the top is that the axe loses momentum before its work is done and you end up with a stuck axe and half a split log.

No, the best approach is to focus on splitting the bottom of the log. Split the bottom and the top takes care of itself.

Amplification: some of my smartest and fastest-reading readers (and some with experience in log splitting) missed the point of the post above. I'm not Gary Larson, so I guess I should clarify.

I'm not talking about turning the log upside down or some other semantic trick. I'm pointing out that if you aim at the top (at getting started), then you don't split the wood. If you aim at the bottom (by way of the top) then you do. Hitting the top of the log isn't, the point, it's merely the beginning of the stroke. In other words, don't focus so much on starting something. It's the follow through that will get you there, so the beginning must be with the end in mind. And yes, this actually makes wood chopping far easier.

Today Wolfstar was proud to join the Public Relations Consultants Association. It’s something we’ve been thinking about for more than a year, but now thanks to Francis Ingham and Steve Miller we’ve finally taken the plunge.

I’m a big believer in the need for constantly improving professional standards and contributing something back into the industry from which we make our living.

Joining the PRCA is about helping Wolfstar to constantly improve (through initiatives such as the Consultancy Management Standard) and putting something back by myself and the Wolfstar team contributing to the PRCA’s work.

I’ve started the contribution part by becoming a judge for the PRCA Awards. I’m also particularly keen to work closely with my new colleagues in the PRCA to make sure that the highest professional standards are applied as we put social media and online PR at the heart of public relations and corporate communications.

While reading the Metro on my way to work this morning, I saw an article about how we consume different media and by multi-tasking, cram much more information into our days. The article stemmed from a report commissioned by Ofcom, stating that Britons spend almost half their waking lives using media and communications.

The report has found we spend roughly seven hours a day watching television, on the internet or using our phones. However, the interesting thing is how we multi-task using several devices to fit as much information in as possible. Apparently, people between the ages of 16 and 24 only spent six and a half hours on communication platforms, but consume nine and a half hours worth of information in this time.

So, according to the report, digital natives are cramming more information into less time, but is this really the case? I imagine this takes into account things like using the laptop while watching television, hence multi-tasking. However, if you’re doing both things at once, are you really consuming the information on the same level? I know when I’m checking Facebook or shopping on ASOS while watching the television, I’m rarely fully concentrating.

It is interesting to see the way in which we consume media changing, especially when it comes to watching television. Viewers now want to get involved, give their opinions and check out their friend’s opinions while the show is on.

Many companies have taken advantage of this, Strictly Come Dancing had live webchats and voting panels on its website during the show and the Golden Globes had a “rate the outfit and 3D catwalk” app on its website.

The report also reveals (unsurprisingly) that traditional media, such as television and radio aren’t actually dead! We watch more television as a nation now than we have at any time over the past five years. And although listenership of radio has gone down, the number of people able to access it is at an all time high of 91%.

The fact we (or at least the 1,138 people surveyed) spend half our waking lives in front of a screen does depress me ever so slightly! I’m taking a stand and switching the television off tonight – I can always Sky + my favourite shows, fast forward the adverts and multi-task tomorrow to make up for it.

When using an axe to split logs, it's awfully tempting to aim at the top of the log. After all, if you miss the log entirely, it's dangerous or at the very least, ineffective. One can argue that if you... Seth Godin

Subtle is a cousin of beautiful.

Subtle design and messaging challenge the user to make her own connections instead of spelling out every detail. Connections we make are more powerful than connections made for us. If Amazon and Zappos had been called "reallybigbookstore.com" and "tonsofshoes.com" it might have made some early investors happy, but they would have built little of value.

Subtle details demonstrate power. Instead of being in an urgent hurry to yell about every feature or benefit, you demonstrate confidence by taking your time and allowing people to explore. They don't put huge banners on the Hermes store, announcing how good the silk is and how many famous people shop there...

And subtle messaging communicates insider status. I don't have to say, "Hey I was in Skull and Bones too! You should hire me!" Instead, a subtle (secret) handshake does all the talking that's needed.

It's tempting to turn the dial all the way to 11, the make everything just a bit louder. The opposite is precisely what you might need.

I'm aware of the oxymoronic nature of spelling out details about subtlety. At least I didn't explicitly point out the Spinal Tap reference.

One of the best panels I attended at SXSWi in March was one on infographics – what they are, why do them, how to do them well?

Unfortunately most of the world doesn’t appear to know the answer to any of these questions and think infographics are simply about turning numbers and data into a pretty picture format.

Wrong! Infographics are actually meant to make the data more comprehensible and easier to understand. Pretty pictures are pointless if you’ve made the data HARDER to grasp, which is what so many do. That’s why I love Phil Gyford’s infographic.

Yesterday Mashable had an absolutely ridiculous article on the ‘Future of public relations and social media’.

Some of its analysis and expert opinion was truly breathtaking in its simplicity.

News releases still aren’t dead

First up for being wrong is the assertion that the press release is dead. Please, we were there in February 2006  with Tom Foremski’s ‘Die! Press release! Die! Die! Die’ and we’ve been there every year since – and the traditional press release is still alive and kicking. Back then I pointed out that Foremski was an ex-Financial Times journalist and what sort of idiot PR person would target the FT with a press release and expect it to work on its own?

It’s all about using the best tool for the job and frequently that means both a traditional news release and a social media news release. There are thousands and thousands of journalists out there who just want a well written news release that they can edit easily to fill the pages of regional papers, weekly papers, trade magazines etc. Sending out an identical news release to hundreds of journalists has ALWAYS been a fairly useless tool for generating news stories, especially if you’re targeting big media outlets such as national newspapers and broadcast news.

Social media news releases are fantastic and we use them successfully all the time for our clients, but we also know why we’re doing it and what we’re trying to achieve. It’s not just about leaping aboard the latest bandwagon.

It’s all about brevity and YouTube video announcements

Apparently social media is all about brevity and making things shorter. I suppose that’s why we add all that extra content in a social media news release is it? If brevity means faster, then tripling the amount of content is a big fail.

The next stellar idea is to direct time-starved journalists to a YouTube video with a message from the CEO making the announcement. Wow! That’s going to save them time and get the message across quickly and accurately isn’t it? Or not. Let’s see, first they have to spend three minutes watching it then they’ve got to transcribe it to get the quote out in order to be able to write their story. Or is it just that the PR person wants to control the message and stop that pesky journalist reporting the story? Instead the journalist can just embed the video and leave the inquisitive reader to be sold the unedited company line. I don’t think so.

Don’t get me wrong I like the idea of CEOs and directors utilising YouTube, but let’s stop and think about why and what we want to achieve. As supplementary content for a journalist creating online content it has a value, but as a primary delivery channel it’s far less efficient than the traditional news release. It would be great content for the end audience, but not for most journalists. A live video webcast where journalists and the public can ask questions directly would have far more value.

Successful pitches have always been succinct. When I started in public relations that meant if you were faxing a news release with all the background information the journalist needed then the cover sheet would have the compelling pitch. You’d also have a 20 second verbal pitch prepared for phone calls. The only difference today is that your succinct pitch might be delivered by email or even Twitter with a link to the full news release (please never an attachment) on the web.

Crafting a good news release hasn’t changed

The idea that social media news releases need to be “more brief and focussed” is nonsense. In the old days a good news release told the whole story in the first paragraph, I think that’s as brief as you can get. The rest of the news release has always been about adding background information. Social media news releases are exactly the same – get across the news and pertinent facts as succinctly as possible, and then support it with supplementary content.

Monitoring is most important today, not in five years

Another piece of hokum is that apparently today the most important public relations tools are the broadcasting tools, but in five years time, the most important tools will be the monitoring and measurement tools. What total and utter nonsense!

Using monitoring and measurement has always been one of the most important aspects of public relations, even before the internet existed. Back then it was all about analysing print media for competitor coverage, seeing what story trends were emerging so you could create content that fitted, responding to what was being said about your industry sector etc.

We do exactly the same thing today on the internet. The main changes are that the volume of content to be monitored and measured has increased dramatically, but we also have far more effective tools for doing it.

One of the few intelligent comments came from Chuck Tanowitz who points out that you can’t just measure influence online. He uses the example of Mayor Setti Warren who has just more than 700 followers on Twitter, so he’s obviously not that influential. Except when he was elected as mayor he got a call from President Obama, so maybe he does matter.

Social media isn’t free

And finally there’s the example of the company that saved $270K in expenses by using social media. Except I’m not sure it did. What it did was fire its PR agency, apparently saving the $250K fee, and saved an additional $20K in events (travel, venue, promotions etc). Instead it brought its PR in-house and focused on social media. This anecdote might mean something if we knew how much time was then spent on this by people in-house – they do have salaries and presumably were doing something before getting this additional workload. And saving $20K in events – it’s a tiny amount and probably only relates to one or two events.

Rant over, comments welcome.