-
Website
http://www.thekmiecs.com/ -
Original page
http://www.thekmiecs.com/marketing-advertising/do-thought-leaders-need-to-be-practioners/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
When I'm discussing methodology with peers, if they tell me "But so and so says...", the very first thing I say is - that's all good and fine - can you show me one case study that proves out their theory? I never ever get a case study.
Sadly though, some preachers have such huge followings that somehow their follow count translates into trust.
I call that pathetic.
The current social media thought leaders are just the geeks who got here first, nothing more.
However, lack of experience isn't always a liability. More than once, I've seen someone who worked for me come up with a successful idea simply because they were unencumbered by years of practice. In essence, their ignorance allowed them to see the situation differently and find a unique way of solving the issue.
Ultimately, I'd be wary of someone that only "talks the talk," without having "walked the walk," but never close your mind to unique ideas, regardless of the source. You never know who is going to come up with the next big idea.
I am studying PR and the Social web. Am I an expert, by no means, but I am getting to know what works and what does not in this day and age.
I know there is a difference between CRM and Social Media interactions. I mean you do business with who you know, like a trust. This can only be measured over time and the relationships! So we are all learning how to use this technology and programs which are being produced to change the way we don business.
You should have some knowledge if you are an "EXPERT" but you also have to know what field you are in. IF the lines get blurred then there is a problem.
CRM is separate from Social Media. They may want to engage the consumer but they don't really mean you are both unless your job description says so.
I agree that sometimes the best teachers are not the best "doers" - but I think thought leaders are different than teachers. To me a thought leader is someone like Steven Levitt. He's not only one of the brightest economists out there, he can teach really well (as evidenced by his TED presentation), and he's a hell of a thought leader (aka Freakanomics).
Adam
Even better is if you practice what you preach -- which, I guess, Thoreau did for most of the rest of the time. I just thought it was ironic for him to refute his basic theory by buying into the very symbol Adam Smith used to describe the capitalist system Thoreau's book was criticizing: the nail itself, the quintessential symbolic fruit of the division of labor.
I agree: All talk, no walk is useless.
And I have yet to find ANYONE who can even DEFINE "social media". (see e.g. http://conversative.net/blog/2009/04/05/social-... ;)
:) nmw
My point was that if everyone thought like Adam, we would not do anything new. Ideas, philosophy- these are forays into uncharted waters or new ways of thinking about standard practices. That stance- it's safe. It eliminates the element of risk that can lead to great reward and even to competitive advantage. Professors, philosophers, leaders, analysts often deal in theory and hypothesize. There is value there and, when their ideas are well thought out with logical conclusions, why do they need to be the ones to prove them? Why can't the crowd prove the theory?
My comments, as Adam has stated, are out of context and were designed to spark debate more than to defend someone who does not need to be defended (see defense below *sigh*). Afterall, I am an analytics guy and am almost always asked for data to backup my thoughts. For the record, I am also a skeptic. I am an empirical learner. (I guess) the difference is that I am willing to consider philosophy, pick up the pieces that I agree with, test and learn.
The original stance by Adam was: Chris Brogan is no CRM expert. When I asked the question, I was talking about CRM as a process, not as a toolset [although I know that he knows his was around a database and also around segmentation].
"@schneidermike you're killing me - thought leadership in social - show me the portfolio, what has he done?" http://twitter.com/adamkmiec/status/2898658568
You mean besides build an extraordinarily impressive community at http://www.chrisbrogan.com? Besides the speaking engagements and generally being looked at as a leader by the industry at large? (We could ask the crowd, but you know I am right.)
How's this? http://www.bit.ly/cbbio
"We help bigger companies (SONY, Citrix, Pepsico, Comcast Interactive, Microsoft, etc) figure out how these social tools like blogging and Twitter and Facebook and all the rest might change the game. We build strategies, help with execution, and in general, do as much as we can to teach the brilliant people we meet at these places how to fish in these new waters."
Furthermore, this stuff is still pretty new and there are still few case studies. I would bet dimes to dollars that the people who have them are keeping locked in a vault and using the 2-key system to pull them out as needed versus putting them all up on the web for public consumption. I just had a conversation with a colleague this morning about scientists and their willingness to talk about methodology and technology, but not about the specific compounds. How else are you going to get a competitive advantage?
I leave you with a question. How did you get your first Social Media gig before you had any experience?
2 things real quick:
1. Just want to make sure I'm hearing your correctly. In general, not Chris specifically, do you think a thought leader should be a practitioner?
2. Don't want to take your comments out of context; I took our discussion to mean people in general though it started with a conversation about Chris.
To answer your, I never got a social media job. I don't see it as a unique skill. I've been a 13 year interactive marketing veteran though that has worked with and/or lead real projects an initiatives like:
GoArmy
BMW Films
The First American Airlines website that included the ability to book online
Buddy Lee
Yearbook Yourself
etc. etc. etc.
I can point to a body of work that shows I can "do."
Does it improve credibility? Yes. I agree with you, but I don't think that the person needs to be the one specifically to prove a good theory? No.
My belief is that those who can do will survive in this industry and this space. Time will tell.
1.) You'll never hear me call myself a thought leader. That's douchebaggery.
2.) I have quite a roster of companies I'm working with right now, but we're deep into the DOING, and so aren't ready for case studies yet. Again, it'd be douchebaggery for me to claim success yet with these clients, as we're just now getting to the fun stuff.
3.) My first professional roles were in call centers and customer service. I started as a rep, worked my way up to the advanced teams, and then later was made manager of a call center. I then grew into roles that had me building projects where call centers were used as pieces of a larger puzzle.
4.) I do CRM as a byproduct of what I do, but I sure don't consider that WHAT I do, any more than I consider videoblogging a career (for me).
So that's my take in the first person.
Carry on.
In social media stuff, I've built blogs, run podcasts, created videoblogs, launched presence across multiple platforms, built content marketing, crafted email marketing campaigns, worked with live streaming applications, integrated several APIs for a dashboard project, taken apart RSS feeds, and all other kinds of tech stuff that would bore you too much.
Beyond that, I've got several years experience with various folks from different parts of the web, so it might depend what else you wonder about in the "is he DOING" department.
I'm a huge fan of, "If you've never done it, why should I give a shit what you think?" Even me.
But I dunno. Am I really a thought leader, or just someone who extrapolates on what I've observed or experienced? I mean.. what's in a word?
"someone who extrapolates on what I've observed or experienced"
My experience doesn't line up the same way as your resume, for sure. But that's why I'm getting all the opportunities that I'm getting. They know what everyone else has done. It's a chance to do something new.
Good comments and thanks for hopping over. It's about time you returned the favor - given all the times I've been on your site :) This was never about you, but then again it's all about you. I'm looking forward to seeing real tangible work and more importantly results come from the opportunities you referenced.
There's too much vapor out there. To many people talking transparency, dialog, and 2-way conversation and not enough real work being done.
Adam
GM - @cbarger (or Fritz Henderson, if you read the WSJ piece).
Pepsi - @boughb
Citrix Online - @lisahorner
Comcast Interactive - @fancast (I don't think Robin D'Agostino has her own account)
Sony Electronics USA - @marcycohen (starting shortly on a nice project)
Microsoft Office Live - @officelive
Just to name a few.
But the thing is, it's not the same work as you were doing in the past. Most of what I do involves education, strategy, and first moves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_One_%28Rec...
etc.
I'm not looking to compare resumes of work. I'm saying that this industry has become one in which we can't point to the "work" which makes it hard to separate charlatan from thought leader :)
Here's my idea: call me a charlatan.
I say this without irony or anger. I just really don't see the benefit of defending. My clients keep buying. They buy second projects (meaning they don't feel cheated). I get new referrals. The majority are Fortune 100s.
I'm okay with who I am.
I could point people to a lot of things that I've done, but it's not the story and it surely doesn't explain my part or my thinking process. As well, I've been engaged in social media for 5 years. Do I have case studies? Nope. But I think people know me well enough to know that I can walk the walk...and talk the talk.
Pointing to work doesn't separate the charlatan from the thought leader. I've seen a TON of social media case studies that were junk. Perhaps what's good marketing, PR or social media is in the eye of the beholder. ;-)
In reading between the lines here I think a lot of people are pointing fingers at Chris and others NOT because they truly want to see their work, but because they want to know the secret sauce of THEIR success and try to recreate it because they can't do it themselves. (Hmmm, I think some ears are burning...)
I LOVED that Chris said there isn't a comparison here. He's doing something NEW and not recreating an interactive agency. And that's what I think is bothering some folks because they can't wrap their heads around it or recreate it.
As well, Chris or anyone else is NOT beholden to share their work with anyone else. The only people that matter are our clients and our management.
So, to answer your question should thought leaders also be practitioners? Yes. I think they should. But as I said above, they don't need to prove that to anyone who ISN'T buying/paying.
Just my $.02 for what they are worth.
Great discussion here Adam!
What I provided were links. I can provide others, like this http://www.oneclub.org/os/osi/showcase/?year=20... - you can open up Communication Arts or Creativity and see the real work produced.
There's a difference between talking about what you can do/what you've done and being able to show it. Show it is a loose term - it could be visual, it could be a reference, it could your name in print. My overall point is that there are too many people being put on pedestals without anyone saying...wait a second, what have they done.
I don't want Chris's secret sauce, assuming it exists...and I don't think what he's or others is new...circa 1999 this same thing was going on when it came to websites. He and others don't need to show their work - but I can tell you that many clients...myself included wouldn't hire someone that couldn't show me what they've actually done in the real world.
If I attend a conference and Chris or Laura or some other "thought leader" is on stage I deserve to know the facts - after all I paid to attend and listen :)
If we're operating in the world of transparency, why is it so hard?
I don't think "beating up" is the wrong phrase here...you are surely 'beating the rug,' so to speak, to get out of it what you feel you need/derserve from the social media space you even said that yourself ("entitled to my opinions") and that's completely understandable.
My point to my posts above (call me a devil's advocate if you will) is that asking for "proof" (what you've been discussing with Chris) is the antithesis of what you've provided us as an agency (and I say that because you pointed us in that direction w/your link), proof but NO thought leadership.
I totally get your point and I think this has been a great discussion...that said, I, personally, want to see BOTH thought leadership AND proof (and in the social space the proof can also be the person's actions or online reputation...like their community, their blog, their conversations -- again subjective, mileage will vary). I don't want a dog & pony show only, I want to know how the agency or consultant trained the dogs and ponies and the process they took to do so. :)
Also, I think there's a sense in the social media space that self-promotion is a no-no (which could be part of what you are experiencing). Why? It makes no sense to me because after a while I think people earn the right to promote the great things they've done. Like you, I want to see what people are working on because I'd like to be able to refer them. Knowing how they think and what they do tactically is helpful.
Thanks Adam! This has been fun (I like to debate, don't take it personally) and insightful. I know you've been thinking about this topic for a while, so I am glad to see you finally blogged about it. :)
here's the difference...my thinking can be seen on this site, on other sites, on twitter, in Connect Marketing In the Social Media Age, and in the speaking I've done...and I've got the real world examples as credentials. I've got both halves of the equation.
My point is that some people aren't as discerning as you...in fact most aren't. My argument (since you work for an agency, I am going to start there) is that a lot of agencies say "the do social media" and yet *they* don't walk the walk either.
My only point is that it goes both way and I am trying to provide some balance to the conversation here.
Valeria Maltoni (Conversation Agent) had a post on agencies that were also social...it was VERY short.
I don't know what you've done as a social media practictioner, I'd love to see what social media programs you have put together for clients. Do you have anything other than the links above? (Like I said, I am always looking for references.)
From a creative marketing standpoint, there are too many playbooks, guides, etc. out there. If you stick to the playbook all the time, every engagement ends up being the same.
To decide from external views who's done what is the same as assuming that since someone worked at an agency that handled big accounts they personally have knowledge and experience. You can bring the coffee to the big dogs at an agency and still claim such.
N'est pas?
I think we're getting lost in semantics here. The point is simple. While you may be very bright and may actually stumble onto some very interesting ideas for a particular niche, it is narcissistic in the extreme for anyone to think that they are a "thought leader," expert, guru, etc. if they have not actually done the work.
Hence it is an affront to those of us who have been building online communities, social media, etc. since the dawn of the Internet to see someone sign up for Facebook and immediately assume they are a "Social Maven" or whatever they throw into their profile.
We're in the age of Micro-celebrity, and right now there's a battle to carve out space as an online personality within an array of niches. It's going to be up to us to figure out who is the real deal, and who is just a passing blast of hot air.
Even better is if you practice what you preach -- which, I guess, Thoreau did for most of the rest of the time. I just thought it was ironic for him to refute his basic theory by buying into the very symbol Adam Smith used to describe the capitalist system Thoreau's book was criticizing: the nail itself, the quintessential symbolic fruit of the division of labor.
I agree: All talk, no walk is useless.
And I have yet to find ANYONE who can even DEFINE "social media". (see e.g. http://conversative.net/blog/2009/04/05/social-... ;)
:) nmw
The way I see it, that includes the entire world wide web.
Certainly some software facilitates interaction more than other software, but even just following a link can be a form of interaction (I'll admit that that's a little extreme, but the point is: without a clear definition of what social media is supposed to refer to, people cannot say very much -- or much that might be considered meaningful -- ABOUT it)
That doesn't mean it's my opinion, but rather that I'd like your feedback on whether / how that might be the case:
http://conversative.net/blog/2009/07/29/social-...
Here's a little thought experiment (to get the juices flowing): just because a website in Germany or Russia or China is not on a list of "social media" sites maintained by some rating agency and or statistical number-crunching service doesn't make those sites any more / less social. If you would not like to interact with 300 million people in China, then that is simply YOUR decision to ignore them -- but they are probably using the web much in the same way as you or I use it: to interact in a SOCIAL manner.
But that's just IMHO -- and I welcome any + all different opinions (and I'm happy that Adam also celebrates the multitude of different opinions... much in the spirit of Voltaire [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall ;] ).
:) nmw
As someone who makes a living in the practice of helping firms develop and execute thought leadership, I picked up on the back & forth between you and @schneidermike as it was going on (one the fundamentals that thought leaders practice is to stay "tuned in" to what's going on) out there...
I have to say that I was taken aback by the "thought leader does not have to be a practitioner" quote. In essence, they do have to be a practitioner, but it doesn't mean that they have to have done everything on which they posit a point of view.
For example, McKinsey may produce a wonderful whitepaper about the coming opportunities & challenges of working in Russia. While they may not have clients doing so, and they may not have a direct 'body of work' with Russia, one can simply look to their body of work in globalization as part of their practice and ascertain their qualifications to be a thought leader, so to speak, on Russia.
The other example are coaches. You have great coaches in many sports and professional disciplines who are not, by the nature of their job, practitioners at what they're thought leading on. However, they have unique insight, a point of view, a philosophy and the ability to teach (educating the market/customers/constituents is also a fundamental for thought leadership). While they may have been practicioners at one time, they were often not the best.
As it relates to Chris Brogan and CRM social media. Perhaps, Chris is not a CRM guru by trade, however, as a marketer, technologist and business leader, (and social media notable, at the very least) his blend of work, though not directly related to the discreet discipline of CRM, could quite readily qualify him as a thought leader int the CRM and social media spaces.
Further, thought leadership is attained through audience validation. An audience (customers, prospects, fans, donors, whatever) "bestows" the "title" of thought leader on an individual. A thought leader to one person or group isn't necessarily a thought leader to a different person or group. Someone may be the thought leader in an industry, their town or in their association, but may not be considered so in another context.
By all of the criteria by which we measure thought leaders (this is a sample: http://www.marketingsavant.com/2009/02/the-elem...), Chris has the majority of the qualifications.
The people she throws out as thought leaders are the ones I respect.
Thought leaders are hard to define in any space, especially one that touches across large entities. I have several international clients, as well as several "competitors" that have utilized my skills.
Since I do audit and competitive intelligence work with a social media focus, it is very easy to realize that I sign non-disclosure agreements on a daily basis. In some cases I don't find out anything. In other cases I find twenty million dollar client lists online (ouch.)
On the flipside- I contribute a lot of insight on my blog, which a lot of PR and University folk stop by and even use for coursework (the first request I received for coursework quotation made me feel like an uber-geek)
On the other hand, there are A LOT of those imposters out there who know how to game a system for simple numbers... who cares if you have 50k followers? (Laughingly, I tried keeping my follower count under 1000 for the longest time because of the methodology I had for using it)
On a client basis, it is also hard to define what makes or breaks the model of being proficient/expert with social media. I routinely audit companies that have been "suckered" by top firms or who have done something technically simple, but incredibly costly. In some cases the "expert" did such a good job building a relationship and greasing the gears that the client was "happy" even though the results were non-existent.
Some examples:
A top ten clothing retailer who paid $100k for a Facebook app that had 72 retail users.
A top ten home builder who had paid over $500k in Google PPC, but was never provided an ROI / conversion column six month into the campaign
A top one-hundred traffic site that had accidentally added "no index" to it robots.txt file (ouch)
I come back and then readdress the question: "Does a thought leader need to be a practitioner?"
Yes. Absolutely.
Otherwise the "thought leader" is a salesperson, not a thought leader. There are SO MANY people spitting out random thoughts here and there, that 1 person out of 1000 will be correct about the future. Does this make them right? a thought leader? a guru? No... it just makes them lucky.
We could compare the same idea to all the stock market wackos who claim they predicted X years in advance. If 95% of your predictions and thoughts are incorrect, the other 5% is just normal luck (not insight or thought leading)
In your comparison to baseball, there may be a difference in theory of hitting the ball and actually swinging at it- but a thought-leader is more comparable to the superstar on the team, instead of the superstar coach.
If we apply ideas of general management to social media, every corporate director could claim they have "social media expertise" - you can read more about my thoughts on defining social media expertise on this article I wrote back in March http://ow.ly/iw7Y
The teacher in me believes I can take nearly any subject and make it exciting and practical without a lot of practitioner experience.
And, the opportunist in me recognizes there aren't always very high thresholds for claiming expertise; anyone can, for example, claim to be a "social media expert", or so it seems these days.
But the "do I write this guy a check for a speech and/or consulting" judge inside me says, "I'll write the check for the communicator who is also a practitioner".
I've spent more than a few years practicing what I speak/write about, Performance Branding. Clients seem to respect and value that fact as much as my ability to teach and entertain when called upon to do so.
Again, thanks for stirring the pot!
Keep creating...a brand worth raving about,
Mike