"Transition of power" -- iMedia Brighton 2011

On June 15, Paul Baverstock, Anil Pillai and I created an opening event for the iMedia conference in Brighton.  Our theme was the transfer of power to people on one hand, and a concentration of power "in the cloud" on the other. Inspiration and outright plagiarism is due to Eben Moglen, Richard Heinberg, and the anonymous creator of "Paradigm Tales" radio podcasts).

We know you all want to talk about creativity and technology, about lead generation, Twitter identity, demand-side platforms, implementing the EU's privacy directive
But we're going to start this morning with what actually matters.
You saw it last Christmas, and this Spring.

The power of thousands of people who had never met one another to bring down Amazon, because they disagreed with Amazon's policy towards Julian Assange.
The power of thousands of people who had never met one another to bring the world's attention to the freedom they wanted, in Tunesia, in Egypt, in Libya. This is what really matters.

Noam Chomsky says there are two superpowers in this world. The second is public opinion.

What is our role as we see the growing power of the public voice? The answer is: it is bigger. And so are the responsibilities.
We are part of "the creative class". We catalyze and inspire the aspirations, the hopes, of people. We have the power to effect society. But we also have responsibilities... They are not just to our clients, our agencies, our people. They are to the people we are trying to inspire.

The beginning of our meeting is a chance to open our minds. To ask ourselves, why are we here? Not just here in Brighton, but here in this industry, this time, this period, with this context.
This screen is a metaphor. What matters NOT is the presenter. What matters is the conversation, the conversation inside your heads, the conversation among us, the hope we create.

We look forward to a good conversation.

The loss of aspiration

So, you know the real reason we are in Brighton at iMedia, don't you?

That's right. The same concerns that keep us up at night.
....change, the speed of that change and the unease that follows from not knowing what comes next.
We live in an age of uncertainty. Our most basic assumptions - the truths by which we live - are being torn apart by the times in which we live. So of course we hold on to those elements of consistency we hold dear - people, places, methodologies and, of course, brands
At their best brands are able to resolve uncertainty. They reconcile paradox, give meaning, hope and create affinity.

Brands are able to provide the guardrails and guidelines that stabilise us when they appeal successfully to our aspirations, to our deeper desires.

When brands become the object of our desire, when they access completely our emotional and cultural core, they become religion, for better, often for worse

Some brands are iconic in this way, pervasive in this way - and everyone here knows the brands we are talking about.

For a generation, marketers, the society we market to and the brands for whom we market have been responding to and motivated by the aspiration of economic and resource growth... because tomorrow was always going to be better than today. We had a better life than our parents, and we were sure our kids were going to have a better life than we did.

Now some of us are not so sure. Old certainties no longer hold.

The kids who work for us -- our kids -- inhabit a no-growth world and will have to get by. These are uncharted waters....we have never had to make our way in a no-growth world. Most of the young people that work for us will struggle to afford to buy a house.

They will carry the burden of funding the interest on our "buy now pay later" approach to resources, this the result of a period of cheap energy.
And in consequence they will experience energy insecurity, climate change and food shortages.
They will be forced to create and lead governments that have taken on the debt of one generation, to be repaid by the next.
We bequeath them an insufficiently planned for future.

We have to ask ourselves, have we robbed them of the ability to aspire?

And if we have, what does this mean for the marketing world? Can marketing succeed in a no growth world? Isn't growth the seed corn of aspiration?

What does marketing do in a no-growth world?... do we fill the role of bread and circuses? Do we entertain ourselves while Rome burns?

Or is there something more? Can we find this together?

The internet was supposed to bring the meaning of people. It was peer to peer...remember?

But somewhere along the line it moved from peer to peer, to client-server... where "the client" is subservient to the server. The server is the master. We consolidated our power, around Google, Facebook, Microsoft.

And as of last Monday, Apple.

Apple has gone from being the insurgent, the young woman hurling the hammer at Big Brother -- to being Big Brother.

In return for providing free services, you could say that the media owners get to spy on people all the time. Analysing our every move, exploiting us. The free cappuchino from "checking in" on Facebook isn't free, is it?

And yet we, in the creative class, see the value in powerful media companies -- to reach people, to help them, to distribute our ideas.

So we have an obligation. We have to help keep the media owners honest, and help them do the right things for the real people for whom we create ideas.

Redemption

(Mr L) We are not here to sell. We're not here to satisfy clients. We're not here to entertain.

(Mr P) All of those things come if we make meaning.And meaning is needed now more than ever.

(Mr B) What makes a difference is an idea about the future. What makes a different is meaning.

(Mr P) The future is a challenge to transform. Our energy and food systems. Our way of life.
(Mr B) This could be the most exciting time to be alive. Mankind is addressing challenges we've not prepared for.
(Mr L) It's our job in the creative class to help keep hope alive.
During the next two days, you will be hearing from inspirational marketers with inspirational opportunities and ideas. Everyone has something to contribute. Don't be shy. Get involved. Make a difference to the conversation.

(The program was interspersed with clips from "Things gonna change" (John Lee Hooker and Carlos Santana), "Wooden Ships" (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young), "Little Boxes" (Malvina Reynolds), "Fight for your mind" (Ben Harper), and "Maybe Tomorrow (Stereophonics)

Point of view on New Egypt

Creating a global diaspora for the transition to democracy

Mark Linder (Bell-Pottinger Sans Frontieres)
Dana Eyre(Bell-Pottinger Special Projects)


What on earth could a couple of “old hands” from the private sector in the US and UK possibly contribute to the formation of New Egypt?

One of us is from the world of marketing -- big brands and their competitive relationship with users. The other is from the world of peace-making -- conflicted states and their relationship with citizens.

Between us we see the potential and the threat. New Egypt is a promise. Old Egypt has been partially destroyed, but incumbent forces could put substantial “drag” on the progress forward.

Put this another way -- the spirit of freedom has succeeded in partially disabling the old system, but the challenges are greater than any existing system to solve them. These challenges will require New Egypt to invent new systems to address them. That is the journey you are on.

Our key advice is, involve the whole world in your journey.

Don’t let the west tune out of this great drama. Invite countries, brands (especially), people, to witness, to participate, make contributions, to engage. Solicit sponsorship of your magazine itself! Create involvement. Because it’s going to take the pulling power and creative energies of the world to help New Egypt become a reality. We have listed practical steps at the end of this article.

Remember, man is a small-group animal. We can feel for each other, but we have not developed sufficient capacity for large-scale empathy. Large scale empathy is only possible through the accumulation of small stories that win our emotional attention.

And you have a lot of competition for attention, and not just in the region. There are three other global dramas playing out. Climate change is a source of deep anxiety. The end of cheap oil is limiting growth and accentuating national interest. The world’s finances are a vulnerability, as we see states start to go bankrupt.

New Egypt is at the center of the fourth great drama -- global social realignment.

Social realignment is aided by technology, both the mass media of television and the connectivity of the internet. Most colleagues in our industry would say technology has had an accelerating factor.

What the streets of Cairo show is that a much more fundamental change has taken place, from people who want their voices heard now, who want change now, who are willing to give up personal life now to pursue this kind of change. This is painful, but enormously charismatic and aspirational. You will succeed to the degree that you can maintain the participation of those who are working with you now, and to the degree you can extend, strengthen, and enhance the coalition for change you’re building.

Here’s what we recommend:

1. Recruit brands. Make a list of the world’s top brands that have self-determination as part of their brand character. For example, in the tech space we would identify both Apple and RIM/Blackberry as standing up for the freedom and security of their users. Make your own list. Write to these brands, ask them how they can become involved. Offer them ideas, but listen to their suggestions.
2. Put together a team of 100 “ambassadors”, your most articulate and engaging representatives. Offer sponsorships to enable them to be hosted to tell the story.
3. Make films.... not just for your own people, but for the extended diaspora. Your target audience is “us” -- the part of all of us that is anxious about excessive concentration of power.
4. Get academic “brands” involved. You need premiere brands from the UK and the USA. Approach Stanford University and University of Cambridge looking to build a joint transition culture programme. As mentioned, you are going to invent new systems to deal with new problems. You should have an academic partner to help capture this work and spread the word.
5. Tap into the global leadership and change community. What kind of leadership skills are required for New Egypt to succeed? Who will lead New Egypt? How can you continue to work together, incorporating new allies, with differences, into a common project?
6. Finally, treat New Egypt like a brand. It’s not too early to form a national brand committee. You don’t need to pay for consultants to help. You’ve already got a powerful start – a brand that, in our view, symbolizes energy, positive change, peaceful change, and the importance of the individual. But it’s not about our view: it’s much more about deciding what you want the rest of us to feel about Egypt, living that, and creating engagements like the above to bring this to life.
7. Last, practice radical openness. This process will be imperfect, subject to personality disorder, confusion, ignorance, polarization -- in other words it will be a very human process! Acknowledge the imperfections, acknowledge that this is an invention – a new way of doing – open up the discussion, commit to a way ahead that engages the positive energies of the world.

Dana and I look forward to hearing more, and if there’s a way we can help, we will.

mlinder@bell-pottinger.co.uk
dana@bellpottinger.net

Bell Pottinger Special Projects and Bell Pottinger Sans-Frontières focus on strategic communications for conflict transformation. Their clients are entities, industry sectors, governments and societies.

Energy industry transparency

I saw some new research that shows that UK opinion forming approval of biofuels is pretty high (56%), but could be much higher (92%) if concerns are addressed. But – one wonders whether the energy industry is sufficiently open and transparent to address these issues and take advantage of this opportunity. 

·         Scientists are at the top of the trust hierarchy with 83% support.  They are followed by NGO’s at 48% and Government at 38%.

·         Biofuel producers and specifically oil companies are flagged as the least trustworthy source (only 10% support) for information on biofuels.

 

Here is a question: Do you believe transparency helps an organization stay relevant to its stakeholders? Do you think the interchange of ideas and criticism helps an an entire industry to change? 

·         92% majority agreed / strongly agreed that if their concerns were addressed they would be happy to use biofuels. 

Society depends on certain industries for our wellbeing. Banking and Automotive are two examples. Energy is a third. Given there’s no “central planning” for the industry, how do we citizens know the industry’s strategic direction is in alignment with our long term interests? How can society penetrate the veil of PR and brand advertising to know what’s really going on? Can transparency help de-bunk some of the myths? 

·         59% strongly disagreed with the statement that they were ‘not bothered’ as long as the fuel in their tank is cheap and doesn’t damage their car. The ‘cost over conscience’ theme is not as all pervasive as some suggest.

·         Cost viability features only third to impact on food production and natural environment as primary concerns over biofuels.  Both of these primary concerns are easier addressed than some of the more amorphous ‘GM’ / ‘interference in nature’ themes that exist. 

I believe the web 2.0 movement could be harnessed to help the energy industry meet our needs. Conversely, unless that industry harnesses our collective wisdom, we will have another failure, like banking and automotive. 

I have a colleague (David Kenning) who believes that wisdom is the new high-value good. Not knowledge, but wisdom. He makes a distinction between theoretical and practical wisdom. Theoretical wisdom is when Ram Dass teaches you the pleasure of serving others. Practical wisdom is about understanding that chickens will inevitably come home to roost. 

That’s the great thing about the web 2.0 movement. It’s about harnessing the collective smarts of all of us. These crowds of independent people, collaborating together, create a higher level of wisdom. 

We are inevitably running out of oil. Low investment in alternatives, and public ignorance in bio-fuels land use and nuclear waste will hamper quality discourse and development. 

We recognize these kinds of train crashes from our work in conflict zones. Extreme environments reveal tendencies which are harder to spot in the “civilized” world. Like peace-making, an industry is a multilateral process, and this process is often dysfunctional. Groups act individually, and form their own coalitions and try to guide the public discourse toward their own interests. Some actors have the incentive to block collective discourse – their interests are better served by disorganization. Usually the bigger picture is invisible to the players, and completely opaque to the citizen. To complicate things, strategic industries are full of technical issues which are exploited to mislead an ignorant public.

 

In a multilateral system, how do the players learn about the issues and context as others see that context?

 

Here are five principles: 

1.                  Someone must play the trusted interlocutor and broker. All parties must feel this entity (or person) is suited to convene the right debate, that this entity cannot just act to further their own interest. Academia often fills this role. Some commercial entities are granted “permission” to convene the industry.

2.                  Any participant in pursuit of a grand “unifying theory” should not be fully believed. No a-priori theories can explain the irrationality and diversity that you find in an actual theatre. It is our experience that absolutist models exclude parties and interest in favour of the theory.

3.                  There has to be a way for “sectarian” groups to interact and understand each other. The key is to create environments where the other parties’ context – as they perceive it – can be understood and shared. It is our experience, from conflict zones and also geo-political spheres, that some kind of multi-party deliberative process is essential.

4.                  General ignorance needs to be addressed thrugh creation of a learning environment. The population at large must have access to information and must be aware that there are no absolutes. Journalists absolutely have their own views, biases, even agendas. That does not mean they are not to be trusted. It becomes imperative to throw open access to information.

5.                  Disruptive players, if their purpose is simply to prevent discourse, have to be managed. 

What matters is transparency, and a multilateral knowledge and relationship building process. And transparency cannot be a trite tip of the hat anymore – industry has to be seen to be transparent rather than just talking about it. Knowledge is not about the content – it’s about the networks of contributors who test and improve that knowledge, round it out. 

The energy industry has an opportunity to profit from the fallout in other strategic industries, and radically open the debate about alternatives, and the industry’s own strategy, so that the market can address the shortfalls. 

Source: Opinion Leader Research Reputation Thermometer, Feb 27, 2009