After scouring northern Colorado by foot and air, frantically chasing a Mylar balloon for miles and repeatedly interviewing his big brother, authorities ended the search for 6-year-old Falcon Heene where it began -- at his house.
6-year-old Falcon Heene says he was hiding in a box in the attic while authorities were searching for him.
He was in a box. In the attic. The whole time.
"I played with my toys and took a nap," Falcon told a group of reporters outside his home Thursday afternoon.
"He says he was hiding in the attic," said Falcon's father, meteorologist Richard Heene, clutching his son. "He says it's because I yelled at him."
"I'm sorry I yelled at him," added Heene, tearfully hugging the boy.
In a later interview with CNN's "Larry King Live," Falcon said he heard his parents call for him from the garage.
When asked by his father on-air why he didn't respond, the boy replied, "You guys said we did this for the show."
>>>> Adam, sounds like you are also doing this for the "Show".
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
I agree. The show I want is a great panel or discussion to cover, amongst other things: Chris
I think you're missing the point here. I'm not asking you to defend yourself against me on a stage in Vegas. It's the exact opposite. As I stated "This isn’t a question of right vs. wrong or you vs. me. It was and has never been personal. But, there’s a great conversation worth having." I think there are people and companies every day asking, how do I pick a good partner, guru, expert, etc. Forrester even has an entire practice designed to help companies find great partners. That's something Jeremiah did on the social side. Again, you see this as a me vs. you. It's not personal and it's bigger than that. I think this is a great opportunity to have a quality conversation focused on amongst other things:
1. Personal branding in the ever changing social media environment 2. How does a consultant, like you, balance sharing the secret sauce with coming across as credible (aka the portfolio) 3. How to help companies ask the right questions so they don't end up with snake oil - you have to admit there's a lot out there 4. To what degree can companies/evaluators/gatekeepers probe? What's inbounds?
Chris Anderson
· 2 months ago
Adam, maybe in the meantime while you wait for Chris to debate you what you really need to do is buy a corvette?
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Chris
Never been a corvette guy. I don't think they handle as well as BMW. Appreciate the suggestion!
Adam
Chris Brogan
· 2 months ago
If we went through several of your other comments and several other posts, the tone is far less convivial. Essentially, in the past, you've deemed my work unimportant because I don't show up in Wikipedia. Despite the fact that I seem to continue to sign new clients who seem to buy something from me and then don't seem to complain, you continue to wonder whether what I do is charlatanism.
Is it an exacting marketing science? Not at all. Partly because it's so damned new that we're inventing the case studies while we're experimenting with what comes out of it. Are companies asking for more and more experiences with me to see if it'll work for them? Hell yes.
Do I want to give you a platform to point out why you're awesome and I'm not. No, not really. I think you're probably potentially awesome. You have Wikipedia entries and I don't, so that might mean you're awesome.
I just don't see the value in giving you a stage to thrash at me and for me to defend. Is that debate? Maybe. Does debate add value to things? Sure, why not?
I'm just over here doing my work. You seem upset by my press. You mention it in your blog post.
I just don't really care to argue with you about whether or not you think I'm valid. In fact, in a strange way, it just seems to add to the hype that you're seeking around the conversation.
You'll note that YOU write about me plenty. I don't write about you, nor do I call you out for anything good or bad, nor do I engage in any way except when engaged.
It's all you, amigo. Have the stage for yourself. Show the world all that you offer.
I hold myself accountable to my clients, my team, my family, and plenty of people. I don't really see why I'll defend myself against you on a stage in Las Vegas.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Chris
I think you're missing the point here. I'm not asking you to defend yourself against me on a stage in Vegas. It's the exact opposite. As I stated "This isn’t a question of right vs. wrong or you vs. me. It was and has never been personal. But, there’s a great conversation worth having." I think there are people and companies every day asking, how do I pick a good partner, guru, expert, etc. Forrester even has an entire practice designed to help companies find great partners. That's something Jeremiah did on the social side. Again, you see this as a me vs. you. It's not personal and it's bigger than that. I think this is a great opportunity to have a quality conversation focused on amongst other things:
1. Personal branding in the ever changing social media environment 2. How does a consultant, like you, balance sharing the secret sauce with coming across as credible (aka the portfolio) 3. How to help companies ask the right questions so they don't end up with snake oil - you have to admit there's a lot out there 4. To what degree can companies/evaluators/gatekeepers probe? What's inbounds?
See there's lots of good stuff to talk about. Few are asking these questions and even fewer are willing to answer and engage. My hope was that you'd want to get involved and carry on that fruitful discussion.
If you don't, that's your prerogative, but I think we'd add a lot of value to the community by asking, answering, and uncovering great questions.
Paula Thornton
· 2 months ago
Clearly there are always bandwidth issues that come to play for those who operate in the stratosphere of public awareness. That aside, there are many who believe that 'nice' is a substitute for 'getting things done'.
I've only more recently made this awareness in my personal life. There are people who have learned to avoid real discussion (fearing falling into contention, unwilling to 'practice' their way through better dance steps). They are labeled as 'disliking contention'. These same people also tend not to be good at real decisions -- those that require input from others -- they can make up their own mind, but they can't engage in 'understanding' effectively.
Ironically, these are the least relevant people to be carrying the banner for social anything. Being 'popular' because you're nice doesn't mean that you're 'effective' at dealing with real issues, which is the true potential of this stuff and the whole reason for embracing it: solving the tough issues (or in Design Thinking speak: the wicked problems).
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
I believe in the movie Wyatt Earp, they kick out Earp in favor of another law maker because that law maker was more "affable." It didn't work out so well. They asked Wyatt to come back.
Vegasbab
· 2 months ago
I love that there are so few comments on this post.
Happy to moderate, thanks for volun-"telling" me :) I think everyone in social media should be held more accountable for their metrics. If, as an industry, we don't hold ourselves accountable and find answers to the tough questions, than we're not only cheating ourselves, but we're also cheating the brands we represent. Let’s stop playing in THEORY and look to the DO’ers.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
I don't think you will see a lot of comments. I didn't write it with the expectation that Chris would engage. If there was one thing I could bet on it's that he'd ignore the post and my offer to talk about things on the phone. Some people practice what the preach and others don't. No one wants to touch this post because no one wants to get on the bad side of the "social media elite" or the "twitterati." Me? I look at it this way...they need me more than I need them, because ultimately I influence where dollars are spent. Which means I can influence those dollars not to go to them.
Glen Allsopp
· 2 months ago
I really liked your post and your style until I read that.
"Which means I can influence those dollars not to go to them." Sigh, dude.
Step down off your horse.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
But, ultimately thats the truth. When a client says, hey "so and so is supposed to be a real expert in X arena. We're thinking of bringing them in. What do you think?" Well, I've got to do my research. Sometimes it's a slam dunk answer. Other times, not so much. This is a really gray arena right now. How do you tell fact from fiction? How do you tell real from fake? These are tough questions being asked by real clients. Happens every day. A company or consultant that avoids "inspection" is not one I would recommend. Would you?
mattscottnelson
· 2 months ago
.
tdhurst
· 2 months ago
Interesting tactic here.
mattscottnelson
· 2 months ago
I hate gimmicks. This is a gimmick. You'll probably see a spike in traffic, but like all gimmicks it'll fade. Good luck to you.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
The title is absolutely a gimmick. I admitted as much in the post. But, do you really think the content is a gimmick? Are the questions I'm asking gimmicky? I don't think so. If you do, that's ok.
Nick Shin
· 2 months ago
Usage of keywords, anchor texts, references, and you even got Brogan to respond. Nice strategy.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
@copyblogger always talks about the need to have a great headline. Just following his lead.
kevineblake
· 2 months ago
Yeah and @copyblogger also says to always follow through on the promise of your headline. Not turn around and go PSYCH!
Also if you don't mind could you explain to me what co-collaboration is? Is working with a group of people that works with a group of people?
And lastly, you keep saying your not making this a You vs. Chris thing, but you continue talk about calling people out on what you preceive to be their bullshit. Which would lead one to believe that is exactly what you intend to do to Chris, which makes it a You vs. Chris thing. And the nail in the coffin on this was threatening to attempt to impact Chris' lively hood by making sure you clients don't hire him. Yes I know you don't mention CHris' name specifically but the intent is clear enough.
Oh and you spike in traffic is probably because Chris tweeted someone else's post that pointed us here.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Kevin
1. Never saw that note from @copyblogger - but would certainly like to, please send it my way 2. Co-Collaboration: To me it's the collaboration between two different set of entities. For example a company and consumers. 3. On Bullshit: Absolutely. There's a lot of it. Never said Chris was part of it. Actually, I inferred and later went into detail in the comments that I think part of the value in a great panel on this topic would be Chris being able to explain how companies can tell the difference between real experts and snake oil salesmen. 4. Livelihood: You're right and you're wrong. I never threatened anyone. That's where you're wrong. Where you're right is that I did say the "twitterati" and "social media elite" need me more than I need them. Please don't try to change what I said. 5. Traffic: Again, as I've stated in the comments, what value do I get from traffic? I don't sell anything. I'm not a consultant? There's no ad sense turned on. Not sure I see the value in more eye balls.
Adam
kevineblake
· 2 months ago
Adam,
1. @copyblogger: http://www.copyblogger.com/why-you-should-alway... "Your headline is a promise to prospective readers. Its job is to clearly communicate the benefit that you will deliver to the reader in exchange for their valuable time.
The thing about promises is, they tend to be made before being fulfilled. Writing your content first puts you in the position of having to reverse-engineer your promise. Turn it around the other way and you have the benefit of expressly fulfilling the compelling promise you made with the headline, which ultimately helps to keep your content crisp and well-structured."
2. Interesting.
3. Let's say I accept that that is your intention, your writing style and tone don't come across that way. You come across very confrontational and if I were in Chris' shoes that is exactly what I would expect of you.
4. Sorry but I'm going to dissect what you said: No one wants to touch this post because no one wants to get on the bad side of the "social media elite" or the "twitterati." ---In this context, since the post is about Chris, one can only rationally assume you mean Chirs.
Me? I look at it this way...they need me more than I need them, because ultimately I influence where dollars are spent. Which means I can influence those dollars not to go to them. ---If that's not a threat to make sure your clients don't spend money with some supposed "social media elite" or Twitterati than similar to co-collaboration your making up your own meaning here.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Kevin
thanks for the @copyblogger link. Interesting read. Ultimately only you can decide what you want to believe. If I were to buy into what you think my intention was/is, why would I have written this in 2008 http://www.thekmiecs.com/marketing-advertising/...
thomsinger
· 2 months ago
I am not sure if everyone is only "authentic" if the agree to debate and discuss their credibility with everyone who claims they want to have such a discussion.
By this argument every celebrity in the world would need to have public discourse with everyone who challenged them to defend their credibility?
I could care less about you or Chris in this situation... but I think it is a bit strong to assume that if you disagree with someone they must be on a panel with you to "defend" their life.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
I couldn't agree more. I'm not demanding Chris get on a panel. Nope. I'm inviting him. This isn't about his credibility, but it is about an industry thats filled with people pretending (and getting away with it) to be experts. When those people don't deliver the goods it hurts the community at large...making it tougher to make a dent.
thomsinger
· 2 months ago
But who determines who is an expert? Isn't that up to others to decide (regardless of if they call themselves experts or not.... the marketplace determines authenticity).
Take Hollywood. Lots of people show up and call themselves "actors". Some are good, some suck. But in the end, it is the producers, directors, and the audience who determines who is a star. Is Brad Pitt the best actor ever? Probably not, but he sure gets paid well.
Adam.... if you are good... I mean really good .... then the people will line up behind you and toss money at you to hear your wisdom, etc... But I still think you are being critical that you have invited Chris to be on a panel and he did not say yes. If I invite the mayor of a major city (whom I don't really know) to a party and he does not come.... does that make him a pretend leader?
If your way of doing this is right... Host a seminar.... and see who comes. Write a book and see who buys it. The marketplace determines who wins.
My confusion is I missed who elected you the person who gets to judge who is delivering the good and who is not? I think consumers decide. I know that sounds mean, but you talk like you are a proven expert.... and maybe you are.... I just had not got the memo.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
"But who determines who is an expert?" + "My confusion is I missed who elected you the person who gets to judge who is delivering the good and who is not?"
You said who. I'm saying me and other...frankly the collective community should be asking more questions and letting others know who is full of it. Kinda like an Angie's list. This whole topic was covered here in Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspot...
I didn't demand Chris do anything. I asked. Hell I offered to buy the beer.
I'm not saying that I'm the expert. Actually my twitter bio even says, "expert of nothing." But, someone should be asking questions. In my opinion most are too afraid to because of they don't want the type of response of getting here. But, again, I'm not bothered by people defending Chris or taking an opposing view. That's what makes a good conversation. If you're in a room full of head nodders, how is that valuable?
Jeffrey Tang
· 2 months ago
You talk a lot about asking questions and evaluating people as potential partners. That's great. But what kind of questions would you be asking, exactly? It's not really clear from your posts what you would be debating. Saying you'll bring up "tough questions" is pretty vague. Right now, I'm not really seeing the potential value in having a debate ... what are your points, exactly ... and what do we stand to learn? I don't think you're trying to produce a traffic gimmick here, but right now it sure sounds like it.
And as for the thought leader as practitioner question, I don't see why a thought leader needs to be a practitioner. Sure, being a practitioner brings valuable experience, and sure, being a practitioner helps to convince skeptics. Being a practitioner is a practical advantage. But just because you're a practitioner doesn't make you an expert. It doesn't mean you have valuable ideas. Even if you have impressive things on your resume.
To be a thought leader, the only thing that's absolutely required is having good, useful ideas. Period. Trying to make being a practitioner a requirement for being a thought leader relies on a fallacious argument from authority. There's only one logical way to judge a thought leader - and that's on the content of his or her ideas. Anything else is just window dressing.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Jeffrey
Great points. To me there's a big difference between talking about how to hit a baseball and being able to actually do it. I'm not saying everyone agrees with that approach or type of thinking. To answer your question about what types of questions, here are just a few:
Chris
I think you're missing the point here. I'm not asking you to defend yourself against me on a stage in Vegas. It's the exact opposite. As I stated "This isn’t a question of right vs. wrong or you vs. me. It was and has never been personal. But, there’s a great conversation worth having." I think there are people and companies every day asking, how do I pick a good partner, guru, expert, etc. Forrester even has an entire practice designed to help companies find great partners. That's something Jeremiah did on the social side. Again, you see this as a me vs. you. It's not personal and it's bigger than that. I think this is a great opportunity to have a quality conversation focused on amongst other things:
1. Personal branding in the ever changing social media environment 2. How does a consultant, like you, balance sharing the secret sauce with coming across as credible (aka the portfolio) 3. How to help companies ask the right questions so they don't end up with snake oil - you have to admit there's a lot out there 4. To what degree can companies/evaluators/gatekeepers probe? What's inbounds?
To me those seem like the start of a great discussion.
Adam
megfowler
· 2 months ago
I hate blog titles like this. I really do. It's marketing, I get it, but it's also really lame at the same time.
You don't hate Chris Brogan. So don't say it.
The title almost put me off the rest of the post -- not because of the sentiment but because of the painfully tired device/SEO grab/pretend shock tatic you used to try and stimulate a response.
But I read it, and here's what I think:
1. Yes, listening and engagement are two of the "pillars" of social media. Does this mean I have to listen to everyone who has something to say to me, and engage with them all? Nope. Not even a little bit. I'm one of those people who crazy people tend to approach on the street. Should I carry on a conversation with every single person that wants to talk to me? Nope. I have to decide what conversations I want to be a part of, and choose what is worth my time and effort, since there are only so many hours in a day. That isn't always going to make other people happy, but hey -- that's life. You do your best, you make your calls, you move on.
Chris is a busy guy with a ton of clients and colleagues and friends, and making wise choices about who he engages with is what will save his sanity in the end. He doesn't have to debate you just because you want to debate him. It doesn't mean he's not a listener or an engager. It just means he's not particularly interested in talking to you. While that might irk you, it's not a social media issue. It's just like that dating book: he's just not that into you.
2. Your need to call people on what you perceive as their bullshit is just that -- it's something you want to do/need to do. No one is required to respond. No one is responsible to justify themselves or their existence, simply because you wish they would. If Chris came to you and said, "Hey, hire me!" and you asked him a question and he told you to screw off, then sure -- you could be peeved that he pitched you and couldn't back it up. Even then, he's not "required" to do anything, but you'd have more cause to be irritated.
But the sheer existence of a question is not justification enough for an answer. A topic for debate is not reason enough for a debate. Something to argue about isn't enough justification for an argument.
From this post -- which is the only post of yours I've read, which I'm sure will give you ample cause to ignore my comments entirely -- I don't see much in your plan here except a desire to provoke, get attention, get a new stage to speak on, and to push buttons.
Chris was totally thoughtful and provided you with answers in the post you linked to, so I'm not sure why the debate continued. He's got clients, they're happy with him (you KNOW we'd hear about it if they weren't), and he produces a ton of content and value outside of his client work. What else were you hoping he would tell you?
I think he got bored of responding because he saw that you were asking questions to stimulate some sort of artificial conflict -- and how exactly you figured that would be worth his time, I'm not sure.
Something I've found is that all the "no bullshit!" people on the internet seem to love to wallow in it more than anyone else. The rest of us have work to do and good relationships to maintain and priorities about what we'll engage in, and what we won't.
Or, as my grandfather says, "Some hills just aren't worth dying for."
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
While I guess I'm surprising you, by responding. I'm looking for traffic. I don't cash a paycheck based on traffic. There's no referral service, no ads, and no attempt to solicit business on this site. With that out of the way let me address your commentary:
1. You're right he doesn't have to engage, doesn't have to respond, doesn't have to participate, and doesn't have to bother. I don't think I ever said he did. But, as a "thought leader" I thought he'd welcome the discussion. If he doesn't that's ok. If he doesn't want to participate, that's ok. I'm sure he's plenty busy between book events, speaking gigs, and real client work. I don't disagree with that. As someone who's a pioneer in the space though, I'd like to think he'd want to have this type of discussion...hell if for no other reason than it does help him explain the difference between credible people like him and posers pretending to be credible.
2. That's right. I enjoy calling people out on bullshit. So does Bob Garfield, George Parker, and a host of others. Most people simply sit back and let BS take place. They don't like getting there hands dirty. I'm the opposite. I like getting involved. Chris, nor anyone else, needs to respond to me or anyone else. I didn't need to respond to you, but I am. Why? Because, 1, it's common courtesy. 2, I like that you pushed back.
3. Some hills just aren't worth dying for. I totally agree. Again, no one is forcing anyone to climb a hill.
Adam
peterpoulton
· 2 months ago
Yeah.
I hate Chris Brogan too.
Twice I tweeted the guy with a question; no response...
This fact, you'll accept, makes me better than him ;)
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Well, I'd have to have a beer with both of you to know if you're better.
Jennifer Leggio
· 2 months ago
This is what I read:
"Why I hate Chris Brogan.... linkbait, linkbait, request for high-profile panel at BWE, linkbait, more linkbait, and a little more linkbait."
Boo.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Jennifer
If it's link bait, then I guess it worked...seeing as you decided to visit :) More telling, is that you avoided providing a smart, pointed, and witty response. I'm bummed by that, because I've come to enjoy that type of commentary from you in your columns.
Adam
Shawn Farner
· 2 months ago
You, sir, are a tool.
Now that's authentic.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Thanks Shawn. Cheers! Love the deep and clearly well thought out response.
Peter Poulton
· 2 months ago
I rarely get spam to the mail address I used when I posted here.
But since I did, I have. Quite a bit. Great.
Is that a coincidence?
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Well, that's a great question. I'm not sure.
Lorann
· 2 months ago
Picasso is one of the most recognized artists in the world but does that mean we all like his art? Absolutely not, and personally I'm not a fan of his work. But that's what art is all about right? It’s expression, interpretation, it’s how it makes us feel and it is completely personal. I have art on my wall that my kids made 15 years ago and to me, it's beautiful and I’m touched every time I look at it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not comparing Chris Brogan to Picasso I am simply saying that writing, like any art form, is merely an expression of the artist. The beauty of Blogging is that it gives so many people in this world that never had a voice before, a means to be heard.
I’ve read a lot of articles on blogs, some I like and I go back for more and some I never visit again. I happen to like Chris Brogan a lot, his writing is very relevant to me and I enjoy his style so, I continue to read his posts. On the flip side, I think you are full of yourself, a little to “name droppy” and I don’t like your writing style…but see, that’s the point, I don’t have to like you, I don’t even have to tolerate you, I can just close the tab and never return.
That’s what you need to do Adam, close the tab, move on, don’t worry about Chris Brogan’s credibility or anybody else’s for that matter…worry about engaging and inspiring your own readers.
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Lorann
Thanks. To each their own. There's lots of options out there. If Chris' works for you awesome. If mine doesn't that's ok too. You get too choose - this is the era of the consumer after all. Well, I did move on - see I even wrote another post after this one.
Adam
cyndyNY
· 2 months ago
Why would Chris Brogan want to participate in what appears to showing up for someone who wants a smackdown. Why does he need to defend himself?...that's not exactly being a probing reporter...
adamkmiec
· 2 months ago
Well if you think this is about a smack down, then you've clearly not read anything that's been written in this post. Thanks.
Paula Thornton
· 2 months ago
Sadly many are missing the point of this conversation (reread the closing statement). They are unwilling or unable to separate a challenge of ideas from a challenge of the person. Nor do they seem to understand the value of true conversation and the skills required to engage in real dialog.
Sure while Adam threw a very 'non-skillful punch' in his title, he quickly validates why he did it and why it has no real 'meaning' or intent -- other than as a mechanism to call others into the exchange (note, I didn't say fight or free-for-all).
This entire exchange is further evidence of a trend I'm seeing that we tend to really not know how to engage in real dialog. We allow ourselves to too quickly start lashing out at people rather than focus on the ideas and the topics -- which often DO need some beating up. THAT's how we move thought forward.
We all need to consider that we really don't know how to engage in deep dialog and look for new ways to do so...and I'm pretty sure that was Adam's original point.
Vegasbab
· 2 months ago
I have to agree with Paula and couldn’t have said it better.
Sadly, there’s approximately 20 comments on this post and a few blog posts lashing out at Adam’s character. That’s not cool. Many of these comments include statements like, “I don’t know the guy, but…” or “I’ve only read this post.” How do you make a snap judgment about not only a SINGLE post but also someone’s character? Weren’t we taught in kindergarten the Golden Rule? In business, weren’t we taught to attack the problem and not the person?
Understandably, if you don’t read Adam’s blog, it’s hard to get a feeling for his typical tone. But, you also didn’t bother to read his comments/what he’s looking for. His questions are great – we’re all struggling with measuring social media. I think a lot of us have made up our own measurement formulas. Is there a way to balance sharing that formula, that “secret sauce” as Adam calls it? His other question is fantastic too- what questions should Brand Marketers be asking to get incredible social media help? Again, we all have questions we ask publishers, creative agencies, etc. that get to the meat of whether or not they’ll be a fit for us. What similar questions will help us find a great social media consultant?
As a kid, I hated when a grown up would say, “If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?” If we don’t challenge and question ideas, aren’t we all just acting like lemmings?
stevebrogan
· 2 months ago
I like your approach. Also your SEO seeding attempt, which might and might not work! A fun post! It is always important to keep "Trust Agents" honest.
larrybruce
· 1 month ago
"The Barack Obama of the social media world", now that's funny I don't care who you are. I am obviously late to this party, but I am going to participate anyway.
I have gotten to know Chris over a little less than a year and he is a good guy. Adam this is the first post I have ever read of yours and I have never met you so I can't comment.
I don't agree with everything Chris writes but it does make me think and that's really what this is about, at least for me. I have just started to get outside the Auto Industry where I have had my head buried for the last 22 years and there are a lot of good people with good things to say out there, but I don't think there are any experts just a lot of opinions and those opinions allow me to form my own opinions then act and see what happens.
What I am taking away from this post:
1. A great headline is still key - in the direct marketing world of the auto business this was key looks like it still is.
2. People do business with people they like and once they like you they will defend you to the end. Again I have to say nothing new here either.
3. It's about the show - Hmm well it's always been about the show, when it comes to personal branding or promotion, hell take a look a Don King he's been doing that for 40 years +
So what does all this mean to me (as if you even want to know) well that social medial isn't new at all the internet has just made it more efficient and faster to do the thing above.
Adam this show either went well for you or it didn't and in the end now 4 weeks later its forgotten and we're on to another topic, another great thing about the platform (the internet) nothing keeps our attention very long. ;)
Adam thanks for the Barack Obama comment that was funny.
All Comments
After scouring northern Colorado by foot and air, frantically chasing a Mylar balloon for miles and repeatedly interviewing his big brother, authorities ended the search for 6-year-old Falcon Heene where it began -- at his house.
6-year-old Falcon Heene says he was hiding in a box in the attic while authorities were searching for him.
He was in a box. In the attic. The whole time.
"I played with my toys and took a nap," Falcon told a group of reporters outside his home Thursday afternoon.
"He says he was hiding in the attic," said Falcon's father, meteorologist Richard Heene, clutching his son. "He says it's because I yelled at him."
"I'm sorry I yelled at him," added Heene, tearfully hugging the boy.
In a later interview with CNN's "Larry King Live," Falcon said he heard his parents call for him from the garage.
When asked by his father on-air why he didn't respond, the boy replied, "You guys said we did this for the show."
>>>> Adam, sounds like you are also doing this for the "Show".
Chris
I think you're missing the point here. I'm not asking you to defend yourself against me on a stage in Vegas. It's the exact opposite. As I stated "This isn’t a question of right vs. wrong or you vs. me. It was and has never been personal. But, there’s a great conversation worth having." I think there are people and companies every day asking, how do I pick a good partner, guru, expert, etc. Forrester even has an entire practice designed to help companies find great partners. That's something Jeremiah did on the social side. Again, you see this as a me vs. you. It's not personal and it's bigger than that. I think this is a great opportunity to have a quality conversation focused on amongst other things:
1. Personal branding in the ever changing social media environment
2. How does a consultant, like you, balance sharing the secret sauce with coming across as credible (aka the portfolio)
3. How to help companies ask the right questions so they don't end up with snake oil - you have to admit there's a lot out there
4. To what degree can companies/evaluators/gatekeepers probe? What's inbounds?
Never been a corvette guy. I don't think they handle as well as BMW. Appreciate the suggestion!
Adam
Is it an exacting marketing science? Not at all. Partly because it's so damned new that we're inventing the case studies while we're experimenting with what comes out of it. Are companies asking for more and more experiences with me to see if it'll work for them? Hell yes.
Do I want to give you a platform to point out why you're awesome and I'm not. No, not really. I think you're probably potentially awesome. You have Wikipedia entries and I don't, so that might mean you're awesome.
I just don't see the value in giving you a stage to thrash at me and for me to defend. Is that debate? Maybe. Does debate add value to things? Sure, why not?
I'm just over here doing my work. You seem upset by my press. You mention it in your blog post.
I just don't really care to argue with you about whether or not you think I'm valid. In fact, in a strange way, it just seems to add to the hype that you're seeking around the conversation.
You'll note that YOU write about me plenty. I don't write about you, nor do I call you out for anything good or bad, nor do I engage in any way except when engaged.
It's all you, amigo. Have the stage for yourself. Show the world all that you offer.
I hold myself accountable to my clients, my team, my family, and plenty of people. I don't really see why I'll defend myself against you on a stage in Las Vegas.
I think you're missing the point here. I'm not asking you to defend yourself against me on a stage in Vegas. It's the exact opposite. As I stated "This isn’t a question of right vs. wrong or you vs. me. It was and has never been personal. But, there’s a great conversation worth having." I think there are people and companies every day asking, how do I pick a good partner, guru, expert, etc. Forrester even has an entire practice designed to help companies find great partners. That's something Jeremiah did on the social side. Again, you see this as a me vs. you. It's not personal and it's bigger than that. I think this is a great opportunity to have a quality conversation focused on amongst other things:
1. Personal branding in the ever changing social media environment
2. How does a consultant, like you, balance sharing the secret sauce with coming across as credible (aka the portfolio)
3. How to help companies ask the right questions so they don't end up with snake oil - you have to admit there's a lot out there
4. To what degree can companies/evaluators/gatekeepers probe? What's inbounds?
See there's lots of good stuff to talk about. Few are asking these questions and even fewer are willing to answer and engage. My hope was that you'd want to get involved and carry on that fruitful discussion.
If you don't, that's your prerogative, but I think we'd add a lot of value to the community by asking, answering, and uncovering great questions.
I've only more recently made this awareness in my personal life. There are people who have learned to avoid real discussion (fearing falling into contention, unwilling to 'practice' their way through better dance steps). They are labeled as 'disliking contention'. These same people also tend not to be good at real decisions -- those that require input from others -- they can make up their own mind, but they can't engage in 'understanding' effectively.
Ironically, these are the least relevant people to be carrying the banner for social anything. Being 'popular' because you're nice doesn't mean that you're 'effective' at dealing with real issues, which is the true potential of this stuff and the whole reason for embracing it: solving the tough issues (or in Design Thinking speak: the wicked problems).
Happy to moderate, thanks for volun-"telling" me :) I think everyone in social media should be held more accountable for their metrics. If, as an industry, we don't hold ourselves accountable and find answers to the tough questions, than we're not only cheating ourselves, but we're also cheating the brands we represent. Let’s stop playing in THEORY and look to the DO’ers.
"Which means I can influence those dollars not to go to them." Sigh, dude.
Step down off your horse.
Also if you don't mind could you explain to me what co-collaboration is? Is working with a group of people that works with a group of people?
And lastly, you keep saying your not making this a You vs. Chris thing, but you continue talk about calling people out on what you preceive to be their bullshit. Which would lead one to believe that is exactly what you intend to do to Chris, which makes it a You vs. Chris thing.
And the nail in the coffin on this was threatening to attempt to impact Chris' lively hood by making sure you clients don't hire him. Yes I know you don't mention CHris' name specifically but the intent is clear enough.
Oh and you spike in traffic is probably because Chris tweeted someone else's post that pointed us here.
1. Never saw that note from @copyblogger - but would certainly like to, please send it my way
2. Co-Collaboration: To me it's the collaboration between two different set of entities. For example a company and consumers.
3. On Bullshit: Absolutely. There's a lot of it. Never said Chris was part of it. Actually, I inferred and later went into detail in the comments that I think part of the value in a great panel on this topic would be Chris being able to explain how companies can tell the difference between real experts and snake oil salesmen.
4. Livelihood: You're right and you're wrong. I never threatened anyone. That's where you're wrong. Where you're right is that I did say the "twitterati" and "social media elite" need me more than I need them. Please don't try to change what I said.
5. Traffic: Again, as I've stated in the comments, what value do I get from traffic? I don't sell anything. I'm not a consultant? There's no ad sense turned on. Not sure I see the value in more eye balls.
Adam
1. @copyblogger: http://www.copyblogger.com/why-you-should-alway...
"Your headline is a promise to prospective readers. Its job is to clearly communicate the benefit that you will deliver to the reader in exchange for their valuable time.
The thing about promises is, they tend to be made before being fulfilled. Writing your content first puts you in the position of having to reverse-engineer your promise. Turn it around the other way and you have the benefit of expressly fulfilling the compelling promise you made with the headline, which ultimately helps to keep your content crisp and well-structured."
2. Interesting.
3. Let's say I accept that that is your intention, your writing style and tone don't come across that way. You come across very confrontational and if I were in Chris' shoes that is exactly what I would expect of you.
4. Sorry but I'm going to dissect what you said:
No one wants to touch this post because no one wants to get on the bad side of the "social media elite" or the "twitterati."
---In this context, since the post is about Chris, one can only rationally assume you mean Chirs.
Me? I look at it this way...they need me more than I need them, because ultimately I influence where dollars are spent. Which means I can influence those dollars not to go to them.
---If that's not a threat to make sure your clients don't spend money with some supposed "social media elite" or Twitterati than similar to co-collaboration your making up your own meaning here.
thanks for the @copyblogger link. Interesting read. Ultimately only you can decide what you want to believe. If I were to buy into what you think my intention was/is, why would I have written this in 2008 http://www.thekmiecs.com/marketing-advertising/...
By this argument every celebrity in the world would need to have public discourse with everyone who challenged them to defend their credibility?
I could care less about you or Chris in this situation... but I think it is a bit strong to assume that if you disagree with someone they must be on a panel with you to "defend" their life.
Take Hollywood. Lots of people show up and call themselves "actors". Some are good, some suck. But in the end, it is the producers, directors, and the audience who determines who is a star. Is Brad Pitt the best actor ever? Probably not, but he sure gets paid well.
Adam.... if you are good... I mean really good .... then the people will line up behind you and toss money at you to hear your wisdom, etc... But I still think you are being critical that you have invited Chris to be on a panel and he did not say yes. If I invite the mayor of a major city (whom I don't really know) to a party and he does not come.... does that make him a pretend leader?
If your way of doing this is right... Host a seminar.... and see who comes. Write a book and see who buys it. The marketplace determines who wins.
My confusion is I missed who elected you the person who gets to judge who is delivering the good and who is not? I think consumers decide. I know that sounds mean, but you talk like you are a proven expert.... and maybe you are.... I just had not got the memo.
You said who. I'm saying me and other...frankly the collective community should be asking more questions and letting others know who is full of it. Kinda like an Angie's list. This whole topic was covered here in Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspot...
I didn't demand Chris do anything. I asked. Hell I offered to buy the beer.
I'm not saying that I'm the expert. Actually my twitter bio even says, "expert of nothing." But, someone should be asking questions. In my opinion most are too afraid to because of they don't want the type of response of getting here. But, again, I'm not bothered by people defending Chris or taking an opposing view. That's what makes a good conversation. If you're in a room full of head nodders, how is that valuable?
And as for the thought leader as practitioner question, I don't see why a thought leader needs to be a practitioner. Sure, being a practitioner brings valuable experience, and sure, being a practitioner helps to convince skeptics. Being a practitioner is a practical advantage. But just because you're a practitioner doesn't make you an expert. It doesn't mean you have valuable ideas. Even if you have impressive things on your resume.
To be a thought leader, the only thing that's absolutely required is having good, useful ideas. Period. Trying to make being a practitioner a requirement for being a thought leader relies on a fallacious argument from authority. There's only one logical way to judge a thought leader - and that's on the content of his or her ideas. Anything else is just window dressing.
Great points. To me there's a big difference between talking about how to hit a baseball and being able to actually do it. I'm not saying everyone agrees with that approach or type of thinking. To answer your question about what types of questions, here are just a few:
Chris
I think you're missing the point here. I'm not asking you to defend yourself against me on a stage in Vegas. It's the exact opposite. As I stated "This isn’t a question of right vs. wrong or you vs. me. It was and has never been personal. But, there’s a great conversation worth having." I think there are people and companies every day asking, how do I pick a good partner, guru, expert, etc. Forrester even has an entire practice designed to help companies find great partners. That's something Jeremiah did on the social side. Again, you see this as a me vs. you. It's not personal and it's bigger than that. I think this is a great opportunity to have a quality conversation focused on amongst other things:
1. Personal branding in the ever changing social media environment
2. How does a consultant, like you, balance sharing the secret sauce with coming across as credible (aka the portfolio)
3. How to help companies ask the right questions so they don't end up with snake oil - you have to admit there's a lot out there
4. To what degree can companies/evaluators/gatekeepers probe? What's inbounds?
To me those seem like the start of a great discussion.
Adam
You don't hate Chris Brogan. So don't say it.
The title almost put me off the rest of the post -- not because of the sentiment but because of the painfully tired device/SEO grab/pretend shock tatic you used to try and stimulate a response.
But I read it, and here's what I think:
1. Yes, listening and engagement are two of the "pillars" of social media. Does this mean I have to listen to everyone who has something to say to me, and engage with them all? Nope. Not even a little bit. I'm one of those people who crazy people tend to approach on the street. Should I carry on a conversation with every single person that wants to talk to me? Nope. I have to decide what conversations I want to be a part of, and choose what is worth my time and effort, since there are only so many hours in a day. That isn't always going to make other people happy, but hey -- that's life. You do your best, you make your calls, you move on.
Chris is a busy guy with a ton of clients and colleagues and friends, and making wise choices about who he engages with is what will save his sanity in the end. He doesn't have to debate you just because you want to debate him. It doesn't mean he's not a listener or an engager. It just means he's not particularly interested in talking to you. While that might irk you, it's not a social media issue. It's just like that dating book: he's just not that into you.
2. Your need to call people on what you perceive as their bullshit is just that -- it's something you want to do/need to do. No one is required to respond. No one is responsible to justify themselves or their existence, simply because you wish they would. If Chris came to you and said, "Hey, hire me!" and you asked him a question and he told you to screw off, then sure -- you could be peeved that he pitched you and couldn't back it up. Even then, he's not "required" to do anything, but you'd have more cause to be irritated.
But the sheer existence of a question is not justification enough for an answer. A topic for debate is not reason enough for a debate. Something to argue about isn't enough justification for an argument.
From this post -- which is the only post of yours I've read, which I'm sure will give you ample cause to ignore my comments entirely -- I don't see much in your plan here except a desire to provoke, get attention, get a new stage to speak on, and to push buttons.
Chris was totally thoughtful and provided you with answers in the post you linked to, so I'm not sure why the debate continued. He's got clients, they're happy with him (you KNOW we'd hear about it if they weren't), and he produces a ton of content and value outside of his client work. What else were you hoping he would tell you?
I think he got bored of responding because he saw that you were asking questions to stimulate some sort of artificial conflict -- and how exactly you figured that would be worth his time, I'm not sure.
Something I've found is that all the "no bullshit!" people on the internet seem to love to wallow in it more than anyone else. The rest of us have work to do and good relationships to maintain and priorities about what we'll engage in, and what we won't.
Or, as my grandfather says, "Some hills just aren't worth dying for."
1. You're right he doesn't have to engage, doesn't have to respond, doesn't have to participate, and doesn't have to bother. I don't think I ever said he did. But, as a "thought leader" I thought he'd welcome the discussion. If he doesn't that's ok. If he doesn't want to participate, that's ok. I'm sure he's plenty busy between book events, speaking gigs, and real client work. I don't disagree with that. As someone who's a pioneer in the space though, I'd like to think he'd want to have this type of discussion...hell if for no other reason than it does help him explain the difference between credible people like him and posers pretending to be credible.
2. That's right. I enjoy calling people out on bullshit. So does Bob Garfield, George Parker, and a host of others. Most people simply sit back and let BS take place. They don't like getting there hands dirty. I'm the opposite. I like getting involved. Chris, nor anyone else, needs to respond to me or anyone else. I didn't need to respond to you, but I am. Why? Because, 1, it's common courtesy. 2, I like that you pushed back.
3. Some hills just aren't worth dying for. I totally agree. Again, no one is forcing anyone to climb a hill.
Adam
I hate Chris Brogan too.
Twice I tweeted the guy with a question; no response...
...and I've got a wikipedia entry. Look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Poulton
This fact, you'll accept, makes me better than him ;)
"Why I hate Chris Brogan.... linkbait, linkbait, request for high-profile panel at BWE, linkbait, more linkbait, and a little more linkbait."
Boo.
If it's link bait, then I guess it worked...seeing as you decided to visit :) More telling, is that you avoided providing a smart, pointed, and witty response. I'm bummed by that, because I've come to enjoy that type of commentary from you in your columns.
Adam
Now that's authentic.
But since I did, I have. Quite a bit. Great.
Is that a coincidence?
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not comparing Chris Brogan to Picasso I am simply saying that writing, like any art form, is merely an expression of the artist. The beauty of Blogging is that it gives so many people in this world that never had a voice before, a means to be heard.
I’ve read a lot of articles on blogs, some I like and I go back for more and some I never visit again. I happen to like Chris Brogan a lot, his writing is very relevant to me and I enjoy his style so, I continue to read his posts. On the flip side, I think you are full of yourself, a little to “name droppy” and I don’t like your writing style…but see, that’s the point, I don’t have to like you, I don’t even have to tolerate you, I can just close the tab and never return.
That’s what you need to do Adam, close the tab, move on, don’t worry about Chris Brogan’s credibility or anybody else’s for that matter…worry about engaging and inspiring your own readers.
Thanks. To each their own. There's lots of options out there. If Chris' works for you awesome. If mine doesn't that's ok too. You get too choose - this is the era of the consumer after all. Well, I did move on - see I even wrote another post after this one.
Adam
Sure while Adam threw a very 'non-skillful punch' in his title, he quickly validates why he did it and why it has no real 'meaning' or intent -- other than as a mechanism to call others into the exchange (note, I didn't say fight or free-for-all).
This entire exchange is further evidence of a trend I'm seeing that we tend to really not know how to engage in real dialog. We allow ourselves to too quickly start lashing out at people rather than focus on the ideas and the topics -- which often DO need some beating up. THAT's how we move thought forward.
We all need to consider that we really don't know how to engage in deep dialog and look for new ways to do so...and I'm pretty sure that was Adam's original point.
Sadly, there’s approximately 20 comments on this post and a few blog posts lashing out at Adam’s character. That’s not cool. Many of these comments include statements like, “I don’t know the guy, but…” or “I’ve only read this post.” How do you make a snap judgment about not only a SINGLE post but also someone’s character? Weren’t we taught in kindergarten the Golden Rule? In business, weren’t we taught to attack the problem and not the person?
Understandably, if you don’t read Adam’s blog, it’s hard to get a feeling for his typical tone. But, you also didn’t bother to read his comments/what he’s looking for. His questions are great – we’re all struggling with measuring social media. I think a lot of us have made up our own measurement formulas. Is there a way to balance sharing that formula, that “secret sauce” as Adam calls it? His other question is fantastic too- what questions should Brand Marketers be asking to get incredible social media help? Again, we all have questions we ask publishers, creative agencies, etc. that get to the meat of whether or not they’ll be a fit for us. What similar questions will help us find a great social media consultant?
As a kid, I hated when a grown up would say, “If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?” If we don’t challenge and question ideas, aren’t we all just acting like lemmings?
I have gotten to know Chris over a little less than a year and he is a good guy. Adam this is the first post I have ever read of yours and I have never met you so I can't comment.
I don't agree with everything Chris writes but it does make me think and that's really what this is about, at least for me. I have just started to get outside the Auto Industry where I have had my head buried for the last 22 years and there are a lot of good people with good things to say out there, but I don't think there are any experts just a lot of opinions and those opinions allow me to form my own opinions then act and see what happens.
What I am taking away from this post:
1. A great headline is still key - in the direct marketing world of the auto business this was key looks like it still is.
2. People do business with people they like and once they like you they will defend you to the end. Again I have to say nothing new here either.
3. It's about the show - Hmm well it's always been about the show, when it comes to personal branding or promotion, hell take a look a Don King he's been doing that for 40 years +
So what does all this mean to me (as if you even want to know) well that social medial isn't new at all the internet has just made it more efficient and faster to do the thing above.
Adam this show either went well for you or it didn't and in the end now 4 weeks later its forgotten and we're on to another topic, another great thing about the platform (the internet) nothing keeps our attention very long. ;)
Adam thanks for the Barack Obama comment that was funny.