Social media may be creating a generation of dummies

I blog, therefore I am?

Steve Rubel is SVP, Director of Insights for Edelman Digital, and a social media and marketing thought leader.  I respect him tremendously.  But when interviewed recently by Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson on their podcast For Immediate Release, he said something that disturbed me profoundly.  He mentioned that he had given up his standard blog and was now only micro-blogging.  The reason, he said, was that people no longer have the time to read.

He’s wrong.  It’s not that people no longer have the time to read.  It’s that they no longer have the desire to read.  Because they don’t think it’s important.  That’s disturbing.

But what’s even more disturbing is the apparent readiness of thought leaders in social media to accept this fact and by words and deeds to further encourage it.  When instead they should be leading the discussion that this is something we should perhaps be concerned about.

Why be concerned?

Because ideas, analysis and opinion usually require more than 140 characters.  Because a successful society needs a citizenry that can think, and evaluate the validity of an argument.  I’m not saying that every member of the population needs to make The Journal of Foreign Affairs his or her favorite Sunday afternoon reading.  But I do think the greater the number of people who are at least capable of reading an article in The New York Times from start to finish, without becoming confused or disinterested, the better it will be for our country and the world in general.

Democratization of the creation and distribution of information is great, but what good is it if we’re creating a generation of information consumers that is intellectually incapable of separating the informational wheat from the chaff?

Unfortunately, by word and deed, there’s much that goes on in the web 2.0 world that I’m concerned may be breeding a generation of dummies.

Words and deeds that bother me

Our infatuation with all things visual vs. written word

Don’t get me wrong.  I love YouTube as much as the next man. But although pictures may speak louder than words, they don’t necessarily speak more intelligently.  My concern has less to do with video itself – after all, there is fantastic video content on TED Talks – but that so much video favors the superficial, the snackable. With people becoming seduced by the endless amount superficial, snackable video out there, they are developing an appetite for content, and only for content, that is the intellectual equivalent of cotton candy.  And soon their systems won’t be capable of digesting anything else.  The philosopher said Cogito ergo sum — I think, therefore I am,  not I snack, therefore I am.

I also believe, though I have no scientific evidence to prove it, that there is a greater depth of involvement with information when we take the time and apply the concentration required to read something.  We also may stop, and ponder a paragraph, before reading further, which we’re less likely to do when watching video.

Our obsession with churning out content – twitter posts, blog posts, comments – for the sake of our Google juice

Does anyone talk about quality vs. quantity anymore?  We’re all suffering from information overload.  But the sad thing is that a good deal of the overload is sifting the garbage from the stuff worth engaging with.  How about posting a little less, and thinking a little more?

Giving in to the lowest common denominator

This is what Steve Rubel has done.  And when a thought leader like Steve does it, it’s doubly concerning.  It’s what the TV network news stations did two decades ago, turning organizations that had formerly helped to inform and intellectually empower a nation into a mirror in which the nation’s most unflattering features were merely reflected.

The dismissal of learning for learning’s sake

Lately I’ve heard buzz among social media “thought leaders” about the worthlessness of a college education.  “Nothing that I learned in college prepared me for what I do to day.”  The first thing I would say to that is, if most of what you’re doing today are the kinds of things I’ve written about above, then that reflects more poorly on you than your college education.

I would agree that there is much I learned in college that is no longer relevant to what I do today.  But the most important things I learned are more relevant than ever.  I learned how to think, I learned the importance of investigating opposing points of view, I learned critical analysis, and I learned to value intellectual integrity.

And as far as the “no longer relevant” things are concerned, that’s beside the point.  College was a time of exploration and discovery, of things I might learn and become, and  things I wouldn’t.  I am thankful that I had that opportunity, an opportunity many never have the privilege to enjoy.

What we can do?

Well for one, we can start talking, as I am in this post.  And encourage further conversation.  The more we talk and discuss, the more this discussion will spread.  And if it even gets one person to start thinking about the importance of getting a complete picture on an issue, reading different points of view about it, or in general just taking the time to read and be exposed to different ideas and perspectives, and thinking critically and thoroughly about stuff – well that’s a good thing.

I wish more of us would resist the temptation to post, post, post – flooding the blogosphere, Twittersphere etc. with endless streams of information, half of it bogus, self-promoting, superficial or simply spam.  Post when you have something useful to say, or found something that you have taken the the time to read and come to a conclusion as to whether it’s really worth spreading or not.  If not, use that time posting for something more worthwhile — like reading.

Break free from you own compulsion to read and follow everything and everyone.  My God, how can you possibly follow more than a few hundred people on Twitter and not feel overwhelmed.  Be selective, be critical, take the time to really read what people are sharing with you and make decisions about which of those people are really worth hearing from.

Keep blogging, and podcasting, not just micro-blogging.  Big ideas, themes and points of view require more than 140 characters.  If all we feed our audiences is the equivalent of intellectual cotton candy, then we are accessories to the crime of turning their minds into mush.

Finally, talk about this.  Share your thoughts with others.  The more people talk about this, the more we can help to create a web 2.0 culture that still values quality of thought and writing, intellectual discipline and integrity, and validation of sources, facts and information.  And to cultivate a web 2.0  community that doesn’t simply surf,  snack and spread, but thinks, analyzes and informs.

The resurrection of an iconic German ice cream bar through online communities and social media

When I first came to Germany in 1989, I became enamored of an ice cream bar on a stick called Nogger Choc.  It was similar to a  favorite Good Humor bar variety from my childhood, the name of which I no longer remember.  Both had an outer chocolate shell, coating a creamy wedge of ice cream, and in the middle, as a crowning conclusion to the the whole taste experience, a delicious hard, chunky, chewy chocolate core.

In 2001, Nogger Choc was taken off the market by Langnese ice cream, a division of Unilever, never to be heard from again.  At least that’s what Langnese, and many consumers, must have thought.  But in 2008 Langnese reversed course and reintroduced Nogger Choc.  According to a presentation by Edelman Digital, it was the largest selling new product launch from Langnese.

The successful reintroduction of Nogger Choc was initiated by, and executed through, social media and online communities.  Above-the-line communications were not part of the picture.  And the impetus to bring back the brand didn’t originate with Langnese, it was thanks to a group of Nogger Choc passionate consumers.

It all started when Benjamin Gildemeister launched an online petition directed to Langnese, after he discovered that there were many others like himself who longed for the return of their beloved Nogger Choc.  Over five-thousand people signed.  But even more people, over 16,000, became members of the “We miss Nogger Choc” community on StudiVZ, a German online social network for students.

Langnese was impressed by the passion of these brand lovers.  And here’s what they did that was really smart.  They realized this was a business opportunity that could be best fulfilled by collaborating with the very online community that was calling for the comeback of the Nogger Choc.  And they initiated that comeback by starting their communications right where it had all begun — in the social web.

They kicked-off with an online video of the marketing director and brand manager announcing that Nogger Choc was back and thanking the community for alerting Langnese to the “big mistake” it had made in taking the brand off the market.  By engaging with the community to spread the word in blogs, forums and other online communities, Nogger Choc attained 150,000 impressions online.  That established the platform for generating traditional PR around the relaunch in mainstream media generating an additional 40 million impressions. (All figures from the Edelman Digital presentation.)

Blog post announcing Nogger Choc comeback

All-in-all, a winning case for the power of online communities and social media, complete with happy end.  Or is it?  There appear to be a few clouds on the bright new horizon for Nogger Choc.  The same social web that was the springboard for the relaunch is yielding a number of critical voices.  Some Nogger Choc fans claim the product isn’t the same as the one they know and loved.  Among other things, they say the chocolate core is too small and soft.  If that’s the case, Langnese should have known better.  You can’t pull the wool over the eyes, or the taste buds, of your most passionate consumers, whose disappointment and critique will spread like wildfire through the online community.  And from there it could eventually be picked up by more mainstream media, just as the relaunch was.

I haven’t yet tried the resurrected Nogger Choc, so I don’t know if it’s as delicious as the one I learned to love when I first came to Germany.  As soon as I do, I’ll let you know.

No surprise — trust in business takes a ten year dive

The Edelman 2009 Trust Barometer is out and — no surprise — the business scandals of 2008 have led to the sharpest decline of trust in corporations over the 10 year history of the study.

How to repair? Well, first and foremost I’d say, “Do the right thing.”  But According to the Trust Barometer, communicating frequently and honesty on the state of business is in third place behind offering quality products and services and treating employees well. So clearly engagement in social media represents a major opportunity for corporations to win back trust. Indeed, I would revise the statement to say, “Engage frequently and honestly in open dialogue on the state of the business and the concerns of stakeholders,” as this would be even more effective.

The trust debacle has happened mainly in the established economies of North America, Western Europe and Australia, and generally across all industries.  Not surprisingly, perhaps, trust in business is on the rise in emerging markets like Brazil, China and India.

Recommendations from Edelman for rebuilding trust echo some of the perspectives presented in my last post, “A Hippocratic oath for managers — is it an idea whose time has come?” Below are some excerpts from Edelman’s executive summary:

Business must partner with governments and NGOs to address key policy issues and the world’s most pressing problems, not merely the ones that impact their bottom line.

Companies must realign their business practices so they deliver dual objectives: benefit society and the bottom line.

Okay.  I guess Edelman is also saying, “Do the right thing.”