Don't Tax Affiliates, Be Affiliates

Okay, I ranted long and hard when North Carolina passed it's own legislation that caused Amazon to shut down it's affiliate program in the state. So now that Colorado has decided to be equally as stupid, let me just encapsulate my previous argument. Maybe I just used too many words before and you legislators out there just couldn't understand me. So here it is:

Being an affiliate offers your state more potential revenue than forcing out-of-state retailers to collect and pay your sales tax.

This is a shoe-string business in the first place. I know the arguments and they all make sense on paper, but for God's sake, you probably lose more money to unpaid sales tax at flea markets in your state than you do to affiliates.

But the most important thing to remember is that affiliate programs are open to everyone, including you!

Now why should this interest those in state governments? Well, in the case of Amazon you have one of the biggest potential affiliations anywhere right under your nose. You call it your library system. And it's just waiting to be tapped as a huge source of revenue.

What if every book in your online catalog, included a "buy it now" button that linked to the Amazon catalog. What would happen? Well, allow me to predict that you would quickly become the biggest affiliate in your state. Better yet, add multiple options for "buy now" and include some state book shops as well. I'm sure they'd love a kick-back program of their own.

Further, did you know that with the Amazon program, if a person clicks on your affiliate link, you are given credit for all their purchases for a period of time? This could generate millions for you over time, just by leveraging your existing investment in your library system. And that just one affiliate program. I'm sure you could find dozens of such synergies, not least of which isAdSense linking.

But instead, my friends in the NC and CO state houses, you have decided to tax. And the result is a pull-out of affiliate programs, meaning none of the revenue you expected, while effectively putting hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals out of business within your state.

Think, people! 

If you agree with the sentiments I've expressed here, please pass this post along and write posts of your own to this effect. We need to get someone in government to pay attention to this idea.

You Don't "Need" A Blog

Anyone who knows me, knows that I have a mantra in regards to blogging: Go to where you customers are already hanging out before you you try dragging them to your own content.

Not everyone needs a blog. I know that's counter to what a lot of marketing folks would say, but so be it. It's true. Not everyone is cut out for blogging and frankly there are too many blogs to begin with. And no, your markets won't crumble if you say no to corporate blogging.

Why the heresy? Here are the points of my argument:

Conversation Stimulation

Most companies don't understand the reason for blogging in the first place. They look at it as yet another channel to push out communications or opinions. Or worse yet, it's the press-release section of the site re-branded as the "blog."

In both of these cases, the company overlooks that the reason social "experts" claim you should blog is because they want you to engage in debate with, participate in a larger discussion with and/or garner advocacy and support from your targeted audience. So essentially blogging has very little to do with the message itself and more to do with participating in a conversation with the online community. So if that's the case, wouldn't it be better to find where that conversation is already happening than to try to create it from scratch?

Go To Them

Here's a simple example. A company sells dog treats. They already have a loyal population of customers who regularly post hundreds of videos on YouTube of their dogs enjoying the treat. So which is the more effective first reaction by the company: 

a) Create a blog and encourage all these users to read it?

b) Post official comments and praises in the comments sections of the video postings and maybe aggregate all these videos (with permission) on a company YouTube channel?

The users are already being loyal. They've already chosen the tool they want to use to engage with each other. Why disrupt that? Why not encourage this activity and show interest in their loyalty? Why do we always need to have them come to us, when going to them is a much stronger statement of customer engagement?

Blogging is Not Bad

I'm not saying that blogging isn't worth your time. Certainly, in the above example, also adding a blog would offer an extra hook for possible engagement and more opportunities to win over a customer's loyalty. But it's rare that this would, or should, be the first step in engaging customers. 

The first step should always be listening to see where your customers are already talking about you, then doing everything within your power to encourage as much positive buzz there as possible. Only then should you assess if you have the commitment and desire to start a blog. And more importantly, then you can gauge whether a blog is even something this audience of yours would want or read. Again, using the above example, maybe the focus on videos means that your audience would prefer a daily video clip of employees and their dogs. You'll never know until you reach out. 

So if you absolutely must, by all means start a blog. More power to you. Just go in with open eyes about it's role and realize it's probably not a front-line strategy for your social media campaign.

What Exactly Is A Brand?

This subject has been so much on my mind over the last few week's I'm pretty shocked I haven't written about it yet. But I've been contemplating and asking the question, What is a brand, anyway? How do we distill it down and quantify it's effects? How does it guide our advertising and reach our audience? How can we define it?

The reason this keeps coming up for me is the unending parade of people who don't seem to get the value of branding. Whether it's the direct marketer enamored with results or the B2B marketing director who says everything comes down to promotions and sales for them, there is a sense that branding only works for the "big-boy" consumer products companies — and even there the measurement is often suspect. And I think the reason people don't get it comes down to a basic misinterpretation of what a brand is.

Your Brand is NOT Your Ad Campaign

I won't ask anyone to raise a hand, but how many times have you heard (or said), "They have a great brand," in reference to a TV spot or magazine ad? Or how many times have you heard people trash a company for terrible branding, commenting solely on the quality of an ad?

Admittedly, we do communicate our brands through our ads. But to say a brand is good or bad based on that work alone is misleading. A company can have a perfectly acceptable brand — even an endearing brand — but still be running terrible ads. The ads themselves may help or hurt that brand, but they are not the brand.

Further, the brand can be communicated in all sorts of ways outside of advertising. Personal meetings. Point of sale experience. Customer service calls. All of the touch points with a customer are potential branding opportunities. 

So what is a brand?

Your Brand is a Feeling

We can shape a brand. We can mold a brand. We can shepherd a brand. And we can do all this with ads. But it's time to accept that a brand itself is still what the customer feels when they become aware of your message, buy your product and engage with your people. 

This is not saying that the customer owns the brand. Far from it. We are still responsible for making a brand what it is. But the brand is not a font choice, logo creation or a clever idea. Those are only tools we use to communicate a brand. The brand is bigger than all that. The brand is the equity we build in the hearts of people. 

We are transcending the tools here, which is why we use descriptive words like, "Brand Essence." We're trying to communicate a core understanding of the impressions we want to leave with our target markets. We need something that's unchanging and ongoing. 

Ad campaign will come and go and they need to come and go to keep the interest of a public with a shortened attention span. But no matter how different the ads are, they need to always be leaving the targeted individuals with a familiar feeling, building on that storehouse of equity we have been depositing in their hearts and minds.

Emotion Always Influences Buying

I've talked many times here on the blog and on The BeanCast about how buying decisions always come down to emotions. Even B2B purchasing, as fact-based and analytically as it can be, often comes down to, "I like them the best" as the tie breaker. So this is why a clear understanding of what your brand is becomes so essential. Promotions buy customers, but brands keep them coming back and maybe telling their friends and associates. Or another way to look at it is, a promotion is selling a can of soda, but a brand is buying stock in the soda company. 

Brands are an investment that pay dividends over time if managed well. We can probably survive without them. But there's a reason why those with strong, well-managed brands are such dominant players. It's not all economics of scale. It's also economics of emotion. Think about it.

Some "Free" Advice

I'm becoming more and more enamored with the ruminations of The Ad Contrarian, Bob Hoffman. His blog is always interesting and thought-provoking. And his recent piece on "Free is the New Stupid" is no exception.

The post takes on the concepts of "Free" and "The Long Tail," both promoted by author Chris Anderson in his books of the corresponding names. Bob Hoffman's argument is that the obsession with the "free" idea devalues content and is actually killing art.

While I would argue that market forces are just as much to blame for newspapers being unable to sell subscriptions online as the free model, he makes some really good points about the value side of the equation. Which led me to harp on the fact (yes, once again) that free only works if there's still a value exchange of some kind. Giving away free stuff without leading the recipient intentionally down a path of purchase is just throwing good money after bad.

Here's my response on Bob's blog:

"First, I need to say I mostly agree w/ Bob. But I think it bears saying that the backlash against 'free' is a real shame. The concept was oversold (and sold millions, I'm sure), but that doesn't make the concept trash.

The only way 'free' works is when there's a value exchange of something. We give a free item to get a lead or a name (like a direct mail offer or a tradeshow contest). We provide free content to make money on advertising (which did pretty well for TV until recently). Or in my case, I provide a free podcast in exchange for the credibility it brings me with clients and prospects (kind of like what I'm sure you get from this blog, Bob.)

Where the free concept becomes problematic is when the free part and the value exchange part become separated or just plain too nebulous. The idea of my music having no value, but my concerts will make me money is good in theory. But only if done intentionally with a clear call to action. For instance, the music is free, but getting that music requires the downloader to a page selling tickets to shows or some such thing. (Heavy handed example, but I'm just proving a point.)

We can't forget that 'free' is still the most motivating word in all of marketing, no matter the over-hyping."

By the way, I'm thinking Bob Hoffman needs to be a BeanCast guest.

What They Least Expect

There's been an interesting discussion brewing on Twitter about the value of sentiment analysis and social chatter in relations to brand planning.

Readers will know that I'm a fan of social metrics and the tools that deliver a real-time picture of consumer impressions. But over the course of a conversation on the subject started by Len Kendall, Ben Kunz and me this weekend, I surprised even myself with my level of skepticism.

My problem is not with the tools or what they reveal. I think these are becoming robust and important additions to our arsenal. My issue is what people do with these metrics. Because I think that what we are hearing people say, even in real-world conversation, is not always representative of how they are acting.

Take for instance direct mail. For year before the advent of the social media juggernaut, polls, focus groups and conversations with people on the street always showed that people hated mail and would prefer just about anything other than telemarketing as an alternative communication method. And yet, the response numbers told a different story. The real issues was untargeted mail and the mass mailings that played the numbers game. There's no doubt that the sentiment was real and that direct marketers needed to explore other options, but clearly a knee-jerk reaction based on sentiment alone would have been foolhardy.

For me this is a good reminder that what people say is not always what they do. Ben Kunz turned our conversation into an excellent blog post on the subject, so I won't try to recreate what he said so eloquently. But I do want to take this thing one step further and talk about needs.

The Expectation Rut

Ben talks a lot in his post about how sentiment needs to always be tempered with hard numbers representing actual behavior. I certainly agree with this assessment. But I also wonder whether sometime we get so caught up with with expressed consumer needs and desires as a whole that we hamper innovation and market creation.

Let me ask, who among you needed a smartphone 10 years ago? Who needed the Internet 20 years ago?

Consumer sentiment and consumer purchasing behavior is all well and good, but in many ways relying solely on these metrics is nothing more than a maintenance plan. It keeps cash flowing when times are good, and with a strong brand identity it may even spark some love and loyalty. But it's kind of like an employee-of-the-year award — this type of honor always seems to go to the person (in this case, brand) that gives us exactly what we expected.

When you invest your brand exclusively into the narrow box of consumer need you may reap acceptable rewards, but you also lock your brand into the unforgiving ruts of consumer expectations. And humans being human, they will only tolerate so much change before they rebel and your brand falls from their favor. You must give them what is expected or you are penalized.

That's why we have to leave room for vision when we analyze markets. 

Looking Beyond Need

Market creation is a risky proposition. It goes beyond expressed needs and looks at how life would be improved if this new product (or service) was introduced. It looks at how we want consumer behavior to change and mold itself around our brand, rather than the other way around. And it's a huge roll of the die that takes confidence, careful planning and a truly innovative offering.

Obviously you can fail big. But if you win, the result is a measure of loyalty that far exceeds the expected. People love to be surprised and delighted by unexpected new things. (As long as this new thing doesn't break what's already working for them, of course.) Innovation is an understanding of the consumer that's more than a reflection of their desires, but is prescient of what they never even knew they needed until they met you.

Such brands become beloved by their buyers. But more importantly, these brands afford themselves room to maneuver. Because innovation buys advocacy and ensures a certain amount of forgiveness. You aren't locked into the expected, so no one really has you pegged on solid expectations. And innovation breeds innovation, raising the stature of your brand over time.

I know we can't expect every product to be truly innovative. So the metrics of sentiment and real-world behavior are important to have at our disposal. But those who hold the keys to developing new consumer offerings would be best served by stepping out of these metrics on occasion to look not at what consumers want, but what they least expect.

Keeping Social Distributed And Ethical

Got a great email today in response to our last show. And the questions asked were so in tune with my recent speaking engagement in Pasadena, that I felt compelled to answer at length.

The main gist of the email was questioning both how companies could ever justify social network involvement without response and the ethics of pay-per-tweet. I started with the latter answer, which was the easier of the two:

"Wow! So much to comment on. But let me try to do so briefly. 

"Pay-Per-Tweet issue has been covered repeatedly on the show. In fact, Ben Kunz is particularly against it and has been on the show quite a few times addressing this.

"My only issue about any paid promotion in the social space is when you aren't saying, 'this is an ad.' And I'm not just talking about disclosing that you took a freebie or some money changed hands. I don't think disclosure is enough, because you still aren't admitting that you are doing an ad for the company. You're pretending to do a review for the product or that somehow you are immune to bias and that's disingenuous. Even a negative review becomes suspect, because people still question the fact that you kept the item. I even go so far as saying that if you give away the item as a prize you are still taking a payment for promotion of the product.

"So if you say it's an ad, you're clean. If you feel you have to justify your credibility in any way, you are straying into payola.

"As for using social media effectiveness, there's no simple way to answer this, but essentially it needs to be a distributed and transparent effort to get the most benefit. Yes, there needs to be a single, official account for tweeting the promotional links. But the real power of social is when multiple people in an organization are empowered to share their thoughts and gather followers. Sure, you need guidelines, but offering the ability to employees to be individuals shows the customer what kind of organization you really are. A great example of this is Zappos where every employee is encouraged to use social networks aggressively for the benefit of the organization.

"We also shouldn't muddy the waters by talking about response with social. Social marketing is an experiential branding tool that enhances the advertising and response efforts, but doesn't generate response. Social is about creating relationships, which can then be leveraged for response-based and sales efforts. But when Dell crows they sold $X million with 'social' they aren't being honest. They built trust with social. And then they launched a coupon campaign that was well received because of the social. But the social effort itself isn't the source of the response. The offer and message of the coupon campaign did that.

"A great example I recently heard was a charity using NPR. By all measures their NPR effort was a dog. Response was in the basement via that particular 800 number. Yet every time she canceled her NPR buy, ALL of her other efforts went down. I liken social to that story. It's not the burger, but it's the secret sauce that sells the burgers."

I still owe you readers a full-on report of my recent talk, but hopefully this does a good job of encapsulating some of the higher points of the discussion.

Evaluating An NPO Director's Success

I had a fascinating discussion last night over dinner with Dave Martinez. Dave is the executive director of the Placer Food Bank out of Roseville, CA. And during our conversation (filled with really funny stories about the struggles of keeping a food bank up and running) we turned to how his success is evaluated by his board of directors.

"Relationships," was the summation by Dave. I think the number of evaluation points he mentioned were 16. But every single one of them came down to his relationship abilities. And as he said it, everything else he had been talking about came into laser focus. All the various situations and stories he had described to me were solved with the brute force of building relationships with people and seeing where those relationships took him.

There was the neighbor associated with the local TV affiliate who agreed to be a driver, and then turned out to be a recurring spokesperson for the charity through his media connections. There were the local reservation members upset over Dave's bingo operation drawing away their casino revenues, only to be mollified by Dave's solution that would be make them both more profitable. There was the Facebook effort that continues to blossom not by a campaign drive for members, but through their engagement in conversation with the members they have and those members continuing to pass along and encourage the involvement of their friends.

I'm here in Pasadena to talk about social media and how it might help non-profit organizations. But it strikes me that the average NPO is better equipped to integrate a social media strategy than just about any business I've ever run across. It's a natural fit, because it doesn't involve any kind of paradigm shift in thinking. Instead, social is simply the digital version of what already works for them. 

It should be interesting to see how the 70+ participants in the room this afternoon respond to what I'm saying. I'm sure the same fears and doubts all businesses feel about online transparency and engagement will be present. As well they should be. (You should know by now that I'm a social pragmatist more than a social cheerleader.) But I am glad I had this conversation with Dave. It helps me to see that a lot of my premises about how social could possibly help an NPO may be right on target.

Look for a post tomorrow sharing some of the essential points from my talk. And thanks to agency Russ Reid for bringing me out for this event. It's been great so far.

Your Tradeshow Objective

I'm preparing to give a talk at the MarketingProfs B2B Forum in Boston, May 4-5. The subject is tradeshows. And as I was thinking about the subject on my flight this morning, something became suddenly clear to me about a pervasive problem facing those trying to market at industry shows. It all boils down to a single question:

What's your objective when you attend a tradeshow?

Go ahead, ask any five people involved in your next big event and see is they say the same thing. Chances are they won't. 

You'll hear about getting leads. Some will talk about closing sales. Some may say it's all about PR. Some are interested in improving existing relationships. Some just want the free food. Others only care about the liquor. I've even heard the, "Gets me away from the family!" excuse trotted out.

I'm not writing this to disparage any of these objectives. (Well, maybe some of them. But certainly not most of them.) And really, all of these can be valid reasons for attending a tradeshow. What I'm trying to highlight is that the managers leading the teams at these trade events rarely bother to even ask the question, "Do we all understand our objective for being here?" And as a result, the team becomes ineffective through a simple lack of focus.

We're not talking about a lack of planning either, which is also something that can derail a good tradeshow effort. What I'm talking about is that group that goes to a show with a seemingly solid plan of action, yet still finds themselves being ineffective. If you're in this latter category, then consider these points:

Manage Competing Visions

Clearly there's no way to completely erase the individual objectives of a team. Sales people will be sales people and they will still be seeking their own commission first. However, a well managed tradeshow team will account for these individual motivations without letting them usurp the objective of the whole. Make sure you understand what people expect out of their attendance and then start to shape these passions to the organization's objective.

Clarify Roles

When we clarify what each person on the team gets personally out of the show, it helps us to assign roles in a way that is most effective
toward reaching the aims of the whole. It also gives us the opportunity
to clearly communicate to each person what they are working toward. Take time to help each person understand how their unique skills can contribute to the success of the event.

Invite Grand Thinking

Be careful not to squash the individual passions of the team along the way. There's no surer way to demotivate someone than to tell them to put aside their passions for your vision. So without compromising your show objectives, work with the team to see how individual objectives can still flourish while working toward the greater good. For instance, if you view the show as a lead show and marketing sees it as a customer appreciation opportunity, you could create an event that rewards customers for bringing leads. It's all in the spin.

Clarify Communications

When everyone knows the objective, brochures, talks, mailers and even the booth creation becomes a simplified task. You no longer need to throw in everything but the kitchen sink. You can target message to your aim. The more targeted your communication elements can be, the more success you will have in achieving your objective for the show.

Offer a Clear Path to Accomplishment

Never under-estimate an employee's desire to please a manager. Communicating clearly what you see as the objective of the show, can actually make the team happier and more engaged in the experience. It serves to manage expectations and keeps the team efforts focused on what you, the manager, will view as a success. So make sure you notice and appreciate these efforts.

Talking Content

Yesterday I tried my hand at something I've never done before. I led a discussion on marketing through content in a closed session for MarketingProfs Pro members. That, in itself, is not unusual. But the format was new to me, because it was completely conducted by typing posts in a text-based forum.

I'll call it "Speed Blogging." Because that's exactly what it felt like. A question would be posted and then the race was on for me to sound intelligent and answer thoroughly in as little time as possible. To say my fingers were tired is an understatement. In the course of an hour and a half I must have written the equivalent of three of my normal blog posts.

Now I'd love to share the entirety of my responses, but it was a closed session after all. So instead, I'll just highlight the main take-aways from the event.

Create for the Heart

When businesses think "content," they usually focus on product features or services offered. They may even stray into benefits or uses. But it's rare that a company will listen to the consumer and shape a message around what they hear.

Certainly push marketing should not be controlled by the customer. But when it comes to content, you should always be including your audience in the discussion.

Content should be shaped to appeal to the deeper issues felt by a customer. That's because for content to work effectively, it needs to be chosen by the customer. The customer needs to reach out and engage with it, because it meets some need they currently feel. It could be they need pictures for a presentation and you provide a ready database of royalty-free images centered around your industry. Or it you could just be an entertaining blogger who's fun (and informative) to read.

The point is, while push marketing is about pushing your main selling points, content marketing is about drawing the customer into deeper relationship with your brand.

Don't Force Your Media Channels

People always lambast the "brochure websites" out there. But frankly, not every company needs a great, deep and rich website. Don't get me wrong. If your site hasn't been updated in eons, it may be time for a makeover. But some industries have customers that will never use their site. Other companies have customers who prefer open forum discussions rather than website research.

My recommendation is always focus the majority of your spend on where your customers are. If your customers aren't online, send them a CD, DVD or whitepaper. If your customers hang out on Facebook, engage with them there. If they're Kindle users, distribute a free eBook through Amazon. If your customers are heavy podcast listeners, create audio content and feed it into iTunes.

This doesn't mean ignore your web site or don't have a blog. I'm simply saying don't force your customers in content channels they don't use. Meet them where they are first and evolve them to where you need them to be.

Let Pull Dominate Your Push

I spoke a little bit above about how in content marketing your customer needs to choose to engage with you. At the heart of this phrase is a philosophy of weaving a pull strategy into your content.

In my case, my show The BeanCast is focused first on entertainment and then second on content. Even though I'm lauded for the depth of the content, people would never even show up to listen if it wasn't entertaining.

Always be conscious of whether your content has an emotional value for your audience. The more you touch on this emotional value, the more engaged the customer will be with you, and the more likely they will be to get your underlying message.

Focus on the Feeling

I always sum up my content talks with a reminder that content marketing is more about branding than about selling. So I stress that you need to be asking the question, "How will this make my customer feel about my brand?"

Branding is not about an ad or a logo or a tagline. Branding, at its heart, is how the customer feels about you when they see your product, hears your name or sees you walking through the door. So decide what that feeling should be and carrying it out through all your marketing efforts, including your content. The result will be an investment in mindshare that will grow over time and enhance your ability to close your deals.

The Unexpected Power Of The Virtual Space

Joe Jaffe has been a good friend of The BeanCast Marketing Podcast. So I've continually deflected the criticisms I've heard of his support of Second Life since he started coming on the show. (And don't ask who's been criticizing, Joe, because I'm not gonna tell you.)

But here's the thing: Even I had to wonder, after all the negative publicity the man suffered as a result of his early promotion of Second Life, and the subsequent ribbing he's had to endure for this support, why he continued to use and stand by the service? Certainly he must have learned a lesson about being too gung-ho about new tech too early, because he's displayed a much more pragmatic approach since. But it seemed to me he should have immediately sought to distance himself from this "source of shame."

Instead, Joe and his team at Crayon (now Powered) continued to regularly meet and conduct business via Second Life. What's more, they all seemed to remain upbeat about it. You might even say they've been glowing about the service. It was completely baffling.

But then, in the most unlikely of places, I found my own fascination with virtual spaces. And now I'm here to capitulate.

Mall Hell

For those of you unfamiliar with the virtual realms out there, there's everything from World of Warcraft on the gaming side to Second Life on the adult community side. But nestled between those two extremes is the much-maligned virtual world of PlayStation Home.

Picture, if you will, a mall overrun with teenagers, without any parental supervision other than a persistent censor that knocks out foul language from chat scrolls, and you come dangerously close to describing Home. It's no wonder the gaming press hates it and most serious gamers avoid it. Why would anyone, other than hormonally charged teenagers in desperate need to be seen as a demon or to walk around in public places in bikinis, ever want to go there?

Well...apparently me for one. I'm almost ashamed to admit it. But yes, I now like PlayStation Home. And here's how it happened.

A Joke That Formed Community

A group of my gaming friends recently took on the challenge of Home. And I'm not talking teens. This is a group of 20-40 year-olds, both men and women. Their sole purpose? To mock the whole thing and cause some trouble.

I won't name all the participants, but the group was the brainchild of the EZMode Unlocked podcast, featuring Dana LaPorte,Rob Felt and Rob O'Connor. And as a lark, they decided that it would be fun to gather listeners and go cause trouble. So like a gang of rowdy teens heading to the mall, the group descended on the service.

But a funny thing happened. The Home meetups started occurring week after week. People started talking about it more and more on the EZMode Unlocked Forums. People even started to buy crap. Not real crap. Virtual crap. Not even resellable crap like in Second Life. We're talking crap crap, like glowing dumb-bells.

Pretty soon, the joking was left by the wayside. People were actually having fun. And even though we all participated in a forum to stay in touch with each other, Home was actually forming stronger relationships among the group than we'd ever had before.

The Power of the Eye

I attribute our sudden change of heart to one thing: Seeing a person (even if he or she is virtual) is a much more connecting experience than simply talking or writing to that person.

Think about how conversation works. It's not just about voice or words. It's also about visual cues. That's why people invest so much attention on user-account pictures and emoticons. These are both attempts at replacing the visual cues that are missed when conversation moves online.

But in a virtual world, these cues begin to approach real cues. For instance, in Home you can change your stance or show physical reactions to conversation. And most importantly, you can face another avatar who is speaking to you. It all sounds silly, but the result is a level of intimacy in conversation that is surprisingly effective and engaging.

And there was no way to discover this until I had a large group of associates online using the service. Until I had friends also adopting the service, it was simply a large, empty space with ghostly dancing bodies wandering around with lackluster activities to participate in. It takes a commitment to relationship for a virtual space to work. Once I had that, the world literally opened up with possibilities.

Visionary or Martyr

There's an old saying that if you're one step ahead of the curve you're a visionary and if you're two steps ahead you're a martyr. But in the end, it doesn't make you any less insightful about what the future holds. Joe may have leaped a little early into the virtual space, but I now think he may have been right to do so.

My experiences with Home are revealing to me that the problem with virtual spaces is not their usefulness, but rather the massive shift that is required to use them effectively. It's pretty unnatural to manipulate a virtual character on a screen. It feels silly and stilted at first. And frankly, the technology is not fully up to the promise. But to allow any of these negatives to outweigh the future benefits is foolish short-sightedness.

I can envision endless business and social applications that most haven't considered. Brainstorm sessions over distance can become more immersive, incorporating a sense of shared space and intimacy. Visual collaboration can become much more personal and effective as the tools evolve. Social meetups online can become more engaging, as we can go to the movies together with friends across the country and shoot snarky comments to each other during the film.

In many ways, it was good that the bubble burst on virtual spaces. It took the pressure off and allowed these applications to evolve more naturally. Now we can look to a more reasonable future in these digital realms, instead of dealing with the early hype and land-grab that went on with Second Life.

So to Joe, on behalf of all who care to join me, you were right. And I believe you'll be remembered for being so.

EDIT: I'm already thinking of about a zillion more angles on why virtual spaces are still good for the future of branding. Look for a follow-up post in a few days