========== 

“Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them.”

–

Bruce Lee

======

“If you own up to your mistakes, you don’t suffer as much. But that’s a tough lesson to learn.”

–

Lee Iacocca

=====

So.

Owning up is all about the respect for the boundaries of responsibility.

Owning up to what you have done and said is possibly the truest test of character you will ever see.

When you are managing people you learn a shitload about employees by how they handle a mistake and how they ‘own up.’

Now.

As a manager you always filter the ‘owning up’ through your own management style <because you affect your employees behavior whether you admit it or not>. Any leader worth half a shit encourages the people on their team to think, go and do. In doing so they also accept the inevitable mistakes that happen with those who are often reaching beyond what they are currently capable of <that reaching is called “growth” by the way>. Leaders aside anyone, in any organization worth a shit, is going to find themselves in situations where well intended actions which have become mistakes have been made.

<note: I will ignore the crappy organizations who believe stupid ongoing mistakes are a fundamental building block to everyday business>

 This is where ‘owning up’ moves to the forefront. In general … you will find owning up falls into three basic categories:

• Cocoon the mistake.

It is mine. Examine it. Accept it. Blame yourself for it. Own it as an isolated incident.

• Leverage the mistake.

It was mine. Examine it. I learned from it. Own it. Use it moving forward as a stepping stone.

• Equivalize the mistake

<note: I made up the word “equivalize” … I could have used ‘equalize’ but it is actually more about someone searching for some equivalence that they can pony up in their defense>

It was mine … but … it was pretty similar to this other mistake … and remember when <insert name> did this? … which makes it not so bad, right?

<note: there are certainly degrees of each and every of these response categories>

Let me talk about these.

The first is a martyr. Throwing themselves at the mercy of the court.

The last is a victim. Saying … well … if you are going to convict me, be aware, you will also have to convict all these other people.

The middle one? Well. Before you convict me let me tell you how it makes me, and us, better.

Once again, any good manager worth half a shit will reflect upon their responsibility for the response before they respond. Good managers understand that they set the tone for ‘encouraging mistakes’ and managing the main filter someone flows through when assessing and articulating their own mistakes – fear of repercussions.

All that said. If you remove fear of repercussion you gain some true insight into the person. For example a senior person who feels entitled and ‘above the fray’ will have little to no fear of repercussion and you will see who they truly are in their response. And they can fall into any of the three categories I outlined. Younger employees, on the other hand, are more likely to be scared shitless and their response is like looking into a mirror of your management style.

But. Here is an interesting thought with regard to owning up.

Shit hitting the fan is like … well … a hurricane. Rarely is it simple and even more rarely does it stay a simple storm if you ignore it, it will eventually become a hurricane if you let it.

The thought? The ‘i’ in hurricane is also in its center. That is where owning up truly resides. How the “I” in the middle of the hurricane acts.

Still amidst the buffeting winds?

Scared of the mountain high waves?

Make little nuanced responses to remain in the calm of the hurricane?

=====

“The little things? The little moments? — They aren’t little. “

John Zabat-Zinn

===========

I imagine my point is that in owning up there is certainly the larger “am I willing to accept responsibility” but there are numerous little things within the acceptance which showcase character.

Being accountable, in general, demonstrates you are responsible. It certainly demonstrates you are willing to do shit, to make a mistake and are prepared to take accountability for it.

Being unaccountable creates an incredibly irritating dilemma to a manager.

“I didn’t do it” , when all the obvious evidence states you did do it, creates incredibly stilted conversations circling some alternative universes. It can become an absurd dance around reality. And, worse, not owning up to something actually creates a spark which creates a smoldering fire which needs to be constantly dealt with over and over and over again. I would note each time its little flame appears it scorches that person’s integrity just a little more.

I know.

It is incredibly easy to point fingers when things go wrong. Even easier to not even speak up and hope that no one notices. Good things, the right things, are always harder to do. Which leads me to a really neat thing I found about ‘owning up’ which I found when doing some research — an organization called ‘cultures of dignity’ that has a curriculum they offer for young people.

====

Owning Up teaches young people to understand their individual development in relation to group behavior, the influence of social media on their conflicts, and the dynamics that lead to discrimination and bigotry.

Whether you’re teaching in a school, a team, or a youth-serving organization, Owning Up is a flexible, dynamic curriculum that respects your knowledge of the young people you work with and the communities in which you serve. Owning Up is a tool to help educators work with the most interesting, funny, and challenging people in the world: tweens and teens. It’s also a tool to teach young people the capacity to understand their individual development in relation to group behavior with their peers, the social dynamics that lead to discrimination and bigotry, and the skills to be socially competent in the difficult yet common social conflicts they experience.

====

Fabulous. I love it. I love we go out of our way to show young people the power of ‘owning up.’ Uhm. Now adults have to exhibit the same behavior <or have their own class>. Which leads me to Trump who is, unfortunately, serving as a potential role model for our young people.

I imagine I thought about ‘owning up’ because of Trump. He has mastered the art of not owning up to anything. But he does it in a way that I am not sure I have ever seen before. He just ignores what he has said and done. He just keeps moving onward <not upward> and I imagine in his head he shows a disdain for ‘owning up’ because it is so far in his rear view mirror he can’t even see why others want to keep talking about it.

I am not sure if in his own alternative universe <in his head> he never did anything to own up to … or if he is so focused on where he is going next he cannot be bothered by going back to what was. Either way it teaches nothing about the value of ‘owning up’ to our young people and sends a horrible message with regard to accepting responsibility for words & actions. I would be quite pleased if Trump ‘owned up’ to that.

Regardless. All I would suggest to everyone is that there may be nothing more reflective of someone’s character than their ‘owning up’ behavior. And, I have to tell you, ‘owning up’ is possibly a key common characteristic of a good person & a good leader.

===================

Alvin Toffler wrote in 1990:

——

“Anyone who believes that we’re just going to leap into some sort of glorious new age is very unrealistic … far-reaching turmoil can be expected, as individuals and institutions either adapt to, or resist, change.”

=========

So.

Leadership is a tricky thing. It is walking a fine line of truth (grounded in what is real as well as ‘not lying’) and aspirational (giving people a glimpse of what they can be).

And, as with anything, this is about some functional practical things and emotional soul searching things.

Oh.

And connecting them.  It is the connection aspect that great leaders do well. But, ultimately, those leaders who figure it out end up leading high energy, high performance organizations. I tend to believe when you see an organization that ‘thinks small’ (or acts small) it is because their leaders do.

Regardless.

Just as I wrote recently about the fact we are in the ‘selling hope’ business I tend to believe great organizational cultures are also grounded on hope. Hope for being better.  Being a better person.  Being better at what you may do daily (even the smallest task). Being part of something that betters the world. Great organizations, at their core, feed their people’s hope. And great leaders figure out a way of showing them that hope.

In practical terms and aspirational terms.

All that said … leads to me to some words that made me think about this.

Sam Meek. Sam was the CEO of of the advertising agency J. Walter Thompson in the 50’s/60’s. And the words below were delivered in a 1965 speech. Within the following words there are little scraps of hope littered throughout for people to pick and choose from.

Scraps of the practical.

Scraps of aspirational.

Scraps of lessons that can be implemented daily in actions.

All littered on a ground of a solid attitude focused on the horizon.

These are words that make you feel good about being part of the organization and yet words to challenge every one to be better and work harder (“we are a permanently dissatisfied company”). I am not above stealing great words and reapplying them.  I use these words all the time and, frankly, I seek to work within organizations that like these words:

===

When I talk of this company, I am not thinking just of a legal or business entity. I am using the word in the older sense, as in a company of scholars, as a company of adventurers, or a company of voyagers. I think our companionship partakes of all these things.

There had to be something special about this enterprise to attract the talented and venturesome people who have come together to exercise their considerable talents and to derive from it the things that make for full and satisfying life.

Our relationships are subtle and highly sensitive relationships …. 

Our job must be to share authority without losing it …

The whole staff must have a proprietary feeling about the company’s work.

We are a permanently dissatisfied company and so far as I can see, we shall not run out of things to be dissatisfied about. I think our work, in most instances, is the best of its kind in the world – and yet not good enough. Not as good as it is going to be. There has not been and there should never be a year when it is not better than the year before.

Our audience is getting more demanding all the time – it is not a question of talking down to them. The problem, the opportunity, is to talk far enough up to them.

===

 Lastly.

I use one line from what Meeks said over and over again. I am not sure I have ever seen nor heard words from a leader that captured the essence of both functional practical and aspirational better than these:

“We must be dynamic for purposes bigger than ourselves.“

I admit. I absolutely hate when an organization “thinks small.” That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t think practical but they should think about impact.  What kind of impact, or imprint, do they truly want to make.  And I don’t necessarily mean making people’s lives better.  I mean ‘doing good or great shit.’ Making an impact through what they do and who they are as an organization.  Impacting whatever world they affect. It doesn’t have to be global (like a JWT) but it can be local or even within their own circle of friends & business relationships.

Creating a great organization, a company of adventures, needs leaders who say, who mean, who live, these types of words.

And all words that are said within a truth that it isn’t rhetoric but rather it is the soul of the organization.

Be dynamic.

Whew.

That alone is a great thought. A great thought for an individual, a leader and even an organization. I admit I often struggle with the current focus on “purpose driven” organizations but I never struggle with “dynamic.”

So … go be dynamic.

——–

“Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have.”

==========

Émile Auguste Chartier <Alain>

———

Well.

I love this quote.

One idea is really <really> dangerous ground to stand on <part 1>. Dangerous in that it may be the most solid ground you have ever stood upon … and yet … you may leave it seeking another idea, and place, to go.

One idea is really <really> dangerous ground to stand on <part 2>. Dangerous in that it may be the most unstable ground you have ever stood on … shit … it may simply be a lily pad in the middle of a volcano … and yet … it’s ‘moment of stability’ seduces you to hold on to the idea like it is a gift from God.

Ideas, in general, are dangerous creatures. But ‘one idea’ is particularly dangerous.

Suffice it to say if you aren’t in the <multiple> ideas business as a company you are simply in the ‘doing most effectively’ <which is actually “we all do well so please pick me by my price”> business.

Ideas are the lifeblood of any business.

And ideas … at least good ones … are one of the most elusive objectives anyone can think of. You can set up the best of the best methodologies, you can train, you can encourage, you can give everyone funky crayons <and remind everyone that because we all grew up with crayons anyone can be creative – which is a slightly absurd encouragement in its own right> … but suffice it to say … a good idea just happens <and you hope like hell they happen when you actually need them>.

I believe most creative idea generator people are highly attuned to the where and the how they come up with ideas <therefore ‘forced idea thinking environments’ are not effective>.

Oh.

I also believe that that entire ‘how to’ knowledge is mostly nontransferable to others.

That said.

There is an interesting guy named Chic Thompson who, while I think he says some mumbo jumbo type stuff with regard to ideas and coming up with them, has suggested two things that I believe are good for people to take note of when discussing the whole ‘coming up with an idea’ discussion:

–          How you mentally approach ideas.

He says things like … rather than ask your students “what did you do at school today?” you should instead ask something like “what questions did you ask today?”

He also argues that changing the way we approach questions, problems, and solutions can reshape the outcomes <this sounds basic yet ‘idea creating methodology seems to fly in the face of this thought>.

In addition … I believe beyond rethinking the ‘how to’ generate ideas we also have to learn the mental assessment of risk and response. By that I mean I think ideas should typically be slotted so that mentally not only do we ask the right questions while thinking about an idea … we also ask the right questions in discussing an idea.

Someone came up with this chart <which I have recreated from some notes I made years ago>:

<sorry for the crappy chart but I suck at creating these things>

I buy this. People who come up with ideas are typically quite comfortable letting things germinate and have them bubble up. On the other hand … non good idea thinkers like a ‘point & shoot’ process … and even more importantly … like the comfortable ‘know we/I can do’ type idea.

Idea generation can often feel slightly chaotic … and … well … it is. However … within that chaos a good idea generator tends to be able to reach in and pull something good out of all the swirling shit.

Uhm.

A lot of people don’t like that a process that looks like that.

Next thought from that Chuck guy.

–          Ideas take time and a sense of relentlessness

I like to call it restlessness intertwined with a willingness and resilience to bear a shitload of failures <bad ideas> to find the solutions <good ideas>.

Apparently it took Chuck roughly 40 years to see an invention come full circle to its original solution in the right environment. Which led him to note … “when something goes wrong, something goes right … you learn from trial and error.”

40 years?!? <insert a ‘yikes’ here>.

Sorry folks … but an unspoken truth in the idea business is that 90% of great ideas are lost simply because when arrived at … it just wasn’t ‘their time’ … and when it DID become their time … they were in some landfill because they had landed in some trash can months, if not years. ago.

I say that <getting back to the one idea thought> because not only do we often suck at agreeing on the ‘one idea to focus on’ in the moment … we also tend to throw away a shit load of great ideas simply because it is not their time.

<note: in business … if you pull out an idea that was thought up months ago … or years ago … it cannot be used because it is … well … an old idea … or ‘it cannot be relevant because that was then and this is now’ – note: both those comments are dangerous because they are rooted in logic but absurd in practicality>.

Einstein was once asked what the difference was between himself and another person. He suggested that when challenged to find a needle in a haystack … others would stop when they found one … he tears apart the haystack looking for any and all that could be there.

Thompson’s version of that is he always suggests “always look for a second answer” when you imagine solutions to problems in a unique way. He was <is> a big proponent of young people bringing unique and fresh perspectives to discover creative outcomes.

I buy this.

Great ideas are typically born from other ideas. The original idea may be good … but they tend to be soft around the edges … and they need to be sharpened. I know that while I often like my first idea I will tend to ‘steal’ additional aspects from lesser ideas to strengthen another idea. It helps to look for and see all ideas and answers <albeit … in today’s business world many people struggle to discern crappy ideas from good ideas which inevitably means a good idea generator likes to protect a good idea by not offering ‘options’>..

Look.

Discovering creative outcomes & ideas typically comes down to unique and fresh perspective.

This means looking at things differently <which typically doesn’t translate into ‘methodically’>.

There are a boatload of tricks on how to come up with ideas.

“Thinking in opposites” … uncovering what can be flipped to get the right solution.

“Start off with what’s positive and then go to the negative” … then focus on making the negative positive <or how it represents some opportunity>.

I would be delighted to tell everyone what to do here … but I will note … because I cannot. What makes me hesitate to endorse any ‘idea generation protocol’ and ‘what questions to ask to stimulate effective ideas’ is that most ideas are actually thought up <insert a huge DOH! Here> in the shower or on the toilet.

Yup.

There are a bunch of surveys <informal and formal> and in general they have the following list of ‘where do you come up with your ideas’ when asking known & proven idea generators:

1. When showering or in bath
2. Commuting to work
3. Sitting on the toilet <note: this is good because it seems like per research we spend about 3 years of an average lifetime in the bathroom>
4. While falling asleep or waking up
5. During a boring meeting <note: this can also be an ideation or brainstorming meeting>
6. Leisure reading
7. Exercising

Most good ideas do NOT come from brainstorming meetings … or any meeting at all.  And they rarely come at your desk.

Ideas tend to come from the stimulus of the setting <and what that setting does to your mind … relax & think at the same time>. Therefore … the corollary is … the loss of ideas comes from the stimulus of the setting.

By the way.

While there is absolutely a relationship between creative & ideas … not all creative people are good idea generators. That said. You increase the likelihood of good ideas if you encourage creativity.

And there is a reason I bring this up. While we give ‘everyone is creative’ a lot of lip service the reality is that we tend to squeeze the creativity out of people as time goes by.

Read this and be prepared to be depressed:

———

George Ainsworth Land, author of Grow or Die, gave five-year-olds a creativity test used by NASA to select innovative engineers. Ninety-eight percent of the children scored in the “highly creative” range. When these same children were retested at ten years old, only 30 percent were still rated “highly creative.” By the age of fifteen, just 12 percent of them were ranked “highly creative.”

What about the average adult population? Only 2 percent of the adults who took the NASA tests were rated as “highly creative.” Therefore, our lifetime creativity, measured in terms of our ability to generate a number of new ideas, is at its highest point at five years old and lowest around forty-four years old. It seems that creativity is not just learned, but unlearned as we advance through life.

——–

Shit.

My main response to what we just read <after I pulled myself out of the depths of despair … because I am WAY past even the lowest ideation point> is that all our ‘planned ideation processes’ kill creativity … they don’t enhance creativity.

<I believe I just suggested killing an entire industry>

In our ‘outcome focused business world’ where ‘let’s use process so we can be as efficient as possible with regard to everything we do’ <ideas included> the process most efficiently kills creativity.

All that said.

I will end with 5 Ideas secrets <these are not mine … they are from some expert who I have forgotten … but I like these secrets>:

–          Creative Secret #1: Ideas are the currency of your future

–          Creative Secret #2: You come up with only 1% of your ideas while at your desk.

–          Creative Secret #3: By age 44, your creativity score is at a lifetime low and doesn’t go back up until retirement.

–          Creative Secret #4: The world isn’t going to slow down

–          Creative Secret #5: Good ideas are scary.

Oh.

And the last secret?

Go to the bathroom as often as possible. It increases the odds you will have an idea.

Today I discuss mandating standing for the national anthem <as President Donald J Trump appears to be advocating>.

While I will share my views and while I doubt Mr. Trump has ever looked at the Constitution or googled “Supreme Court decisions with regard to enforcing patriotic compulsory routines” I will share what the US Supreme Court HAS said about this:

===================

 

“To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”

 

——

US Supreme Court 1943

 

==============================

To be clear.

I stand for the national anthem.

I don’t burn flags.

I believe people should do the former and the latter.

That said.

I could give a shit if people stand, place their hand on their heart or sing along. It’s a ridiculous empty faux act of patriotism to simply do something because <a> you have to or <b> you do it because everyone else is doing it.

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try not acting like an asshole to those who have served.

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try conducting yourself in ways that make this country look like it’s less full of shitheads and more like a country whose military teaches dignity, honor & integrity.

I respect the flag and the country but if you truly want to respect those who served, well, try and act like we are not at war or our freedom is under attack from some outside enemy and recognize that the only attack we are under are from dickheads like Trump who claim to value freedom and independence but espouse conformity & hollow patriotism.

Beyond all of that, and whatever constitutional freedom of speech stuff you want to attach to this discussion, there is an additional fairly basic business management aspect – building an organizational culture is never about enforced conformity.

===========================

“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.”

―

John F. Kennedy

=============

“The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it’s conformity.”

―

Rollo May

================================

Yeah.

I admit.

I hate codes of conduct <in general>.

I have never been a fan of conformity in general … and absolutely hate forced conformity.

I hate dress codes.

I hate office rules.

I hate meeting rules.

Yeah.

I say that tied to the thought of how some people are discussing creating laws, or establishing rules, for standing for the national anthem.

I say that because this entire discussion isn’t just about being patriotic, and being a ‘patriot’… but enforcing conformity or specific behavior.

We try and do that shit in business all the time.

Well.

Leaders who do not understand how to build a strong self-sustaining organizational culture try this shit all the time.

To be clear.

90% of the time, enforced behavior, fails miserably.

What do I mean>?

90% of the time the desired behavior, which you have always forced & enforced, stops when you stop looking and stop enforcing.

At the core of ‘enforced’ is that it isn’t something people want to do, or maybe it isn’t something they naturally inherently do, and they do it because they have to do it.

At the core of ‘enforced’ is failure. People, in general, don’t like to be told to be honest, do things certain way and how to think. Trying to enforce organizational attitudes & behaviors works just as well as forced changes of behavior in personal Life <diets, quitting smoking, chewing on your fingernails, etc> — it does not work

By the way.

Here is the other weird thing about ‘enforced conformity.’

Failure even happens with the shit that <a> people really don’t mind doing and <b> people kind of know is the right thing to do.

It’s just that people do not like to be forced to do things … even things they kind of want to do anyway.

—————————-

Seek to impose your will, and more men will kneel (if they’re permitted), and when they rise, it will be with resentment in their hearts.

Embrace liberty, and more men will rise, and they’ll do so with joy.

I want those players to stand.

I want to see their hands over their hearts.

But I want to see that happen out of love, not fear, and so long as the fear remains, a decision to stand means nothing but an empty victory in a culture war that will tear this nation apart.
———————————

Look.

We would love it in business if everyone did what you wanted them to do.

We would love it if everyone in a society did things the way they were supposed to do.

But you cannot enforce conformity and, in fact, just as the Supreme Court suggested with the national anthem in 1943 … you really do not want to force behavior. You want behavior to come from within the individual and not enforced from ‘without.’

Oh.

This is where the role of “social norms” can come into play.

Different from enforcement, that promotes top-down direction, administration and monitoring, encouraging social norms can spur, and inspire … uhm … conformity.

It is conformity by choice.

It is having the freedom to conform … and choosing to do so.

This is a powerful conformity.

Anyway.

The Supreme Court got it right back in 1943 when a small group of Jehovah’s Witnesses declined to salute the flag. They were patriots but their beliefs wouldn’t allow them to demonstrate reverence for a flag <a symbol>. The Supreme Court rendered its verdict — with words that should be etched into the minds of anyone who truly cares about who and what America is:

 

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Those are the most famous words of Supreme Court case West Virginia v. Barnette, but it is these words which any true patriot, or leader, should ponder:

–—————

Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.

——————-

In other words, the power of the symbolism & patriotism lies with the choice to honor & dignify the symbolism of a fag & an anthem.

In other words, compelled patriotism … the effort to force a person to say or do what they do not believe … doesn’t touch upon the true spirit of what the country stands for.

In other words, if I have to compel someone to be patriotic, or do acts which imply patriotism, the American Idea isn’t working.

In other words, mandatory patriotism isn’t patriotism at all.

In other words, the government cannot force someone to violate their conscience and they shouldn’t bully private businesses into doing what a government cannot legally dictate.

I will say this over and over and over again until the day I die — the cure for bad speech is better speech, the cure for bad behavior is better behavior and the cure for dealing with any ‘the American ideal (and idea)’ doubts is not bad enforced conformity.

We should inform, educate, and recommend policies, ideas & behavior that improve America but allow its citizens their freedom of choice.

For the best compliance, don’t just enforce the rules, establish the norms.

Yeah.

I am sure some NFL owners will attempt some behavior-shaping constraints <fines, suspensions, etc.>. And they have that right as a business owner managing their own business & culture.

But I will tell them a secret <and I am hoping President Trump, who has never managed a business which demanded building a culture, is listening in> … that will not shape behavior but it will certainly shape attitudes <unfortunately, most likely not the attitudes truly desired>.

Forcing functional behavior is not always the best approach to shaping behavior.

Here is what any business leader who has ever run a business knows:

It takes your own to govern your own.

Not rules of conduct.

Not enforced conformity.

Lastly.

Just to conclude this piece.

Trump the asshat.

He has no fucking clue how to build a company culture. To him culture is having all the women wear their hair the same way, everyone wear a certain type of clothes that appeal to him and wear name tags with the Trump brand on it.

How do I know he has no clue how to build a culture without ‘enforcing conformity’?

The one people skill he has exhibited to date – it seems like Trump has this unique capability of bringing out the worst of people on actually the best of things.

Huh?

By using patriotism and pride in country <good> he encourages … well … wrong thinking, wrong thoughts and wrong behavior.

What he has done is bring out the worst in people who actually believe in a good thing.

What an asshat.

I would remind President Asshat what every god business leader knows about their employees and their culture … both good and evil lies within the hearts of most men (Alexander Solzhenitsyn) .

Most of us have the capacity to do great and good things … uhm … do very bad and evil things.

Leaders have a choice.

Either bring the best of the good out of people or bring the worst of the bad out of people.

You cannot bring out ‘good’ from within through some type of enforcement nor should you be seeking to try to ‘conform’ good.

Good has to be encouraged, not enforced <someone should print that off and put it on Trump’s mirror so he can see it every morning>.

====================

“We miss out on the value of the message itself as a vehicle for driving virality.”

–

Jonah Berger

==================

“Say something meaningful in an interesting way.”  

–

Bruce McTague

<author of “the shortest business book ever written”>

===================

So.

This is about how we have a simplification crisis.

Ok.

This is actually about how we have an oversimplification crisis.

This crisis is making us … well … stupid.

Ok.

This crisis is actually making us stupider.

Look.

What I mean is that in a world in which we know that everything is complex, and more often than not, more complex than our own pea like brains can handle, we unerringly swerve toward simplistic headline conclusions and oversimplifications and absurd bullet point conclusions. We have hollowed out communication of the truly meaningful parts.

This surface skating intellectualism just makes us stupider.

Now.

We may convince ourselves we do this simply as a mental survival technique but I would argue, and I do, that it actually is the opposite of a survival technique … it is destructive behavior. It is destructive in that it destroys the overall thinking of what is actually a population quite capable of being intelligent, if not intellectual.

Yeah.

It makes us stupider.

I thought about this the other day because I have conversations with some incredibly smart and talented people who know a shitload more about more things than I could ever imagine and this topic came up. I note the smartness of these people to highlight how unusual it is that I can say something that actually can make a group of these people stop, be silent and then go “hmmmmmmmmmm.”

It is a rare thing.

And, yet, it happened the other day.

How did it happen? After some extensive conversation on North Korea, global trade challenges, Trump <of course> & foreign policy we opened the discussion to “what is the biggest challenge facing us …”

I spoke up & my thought drew some <thoughtful> silence.

I said “oversimplification.” <insert group silence afterwards>

To me … oversimplification misleads and creates bad decisions and, worse, creates bad thinking <which leads to bad opinions, attitudes and thoughts>. To me we have created this oversimplification shithole we currently reside in. And I offered a couple reasons why I believe this is happening <I did this because if you can identify the issues you can find solutions>:

We have convinced ourselves we do not have time for complex

Going back to the ‘destructive behavior’ thought I shared earlier …  oversimplification is anything but efficient. It actually demands more time in a variety of ways. The two simplest ways it does so is <1> the time we over invest attempting to isolate the simplest version of what is anything but simple and <2> the amount of time & energy we have to invest explain everything beyond the simplistic tripe initially offered, to thwart misguided behavior & reactions to the oversimplified offering & to redefine the oversimplification into bifurcated parts of the oversimplified whole.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that we all have shorter, and shortened, attention spans.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that people best retain “one thing.”

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves in our perceived “never enough time” world we have to topline everything <to fit everything in>.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that in a blizzard of nonstop things constantly vying for our attention the only way to capture someone’s attention is in some pithy soundbite.

Basically we have convinced ourselves that hollowing out an idea and a thought actually benefits not only the idea and the thought … but us! This is fucking nuts. Absolutely crazy.

Unfortunately, and truthfully, some things are just too complex to communicate in a sound bite or in 3 seconds or less. No matter how brief and simple you want to make it … well … it is neither brief nor simple. It is complex and sometimes the opposite of brief.

It isn’t just about telling a story.

Nor is it just about finding influencers to broker the story.

Nor is it just about practical value.

Nor is it just about emotion.

Unfortunately … it is a combination of those things. Yeah. Effective communication is … uhm … complex.

We have convinced ourselves that simple & simplicity is reflective of common sense.

I admit.

I have never been shy about calling bullshit on the simplistic tripe being spewed under the guise of ‘expert advice’ or ‘common sense.’

That said. I will suggest no topic has  been tortured more by common sense than simplicity.

Common sense suggests the simplest thing is the best.

Common sense suggests it is easier for a person to remember one thing and one word.

Common sense suggests in a complex world we humans crave simplicity.

Common sense suggests in a busy world we only have time for simplicity.

Common sense suggests a lot of nonsensical bullshit.

I will not argue that making something as simple as it can be is good but … well … simplistically … oversimplification is misleading and ultimately creates bad less-than-informed decision making AND thinking.

We have used this common sense simplicity bullshit for one simple reason — it serves us well in challenging the most established legitimate rule of Life & things. And that rule is “the world is complex.”

We embrace simplistic solution after simplistic solution, all labeled as ‘common sense ideas’, which are often counter to what an expert would suggest <which is often deemed “too complex”>…  only to find 90% of the time common sense was not only just simply wrong but also made us stupider.

I have written about simplicity and the complexity of finding the simplest way to communicate the complex many times and as I do so today I would remind everyone of what Jonah Berger offered us for a nifty sound bite compilation of sound bites to create a sound bite philosophy:

Here are his STEPPS for making anything go viral:

–          Social Currency: We share things that make us look good (even if that means pictures of our cat).

–          Triggers: Easily memorable information means its top of mind and tip of the tongue.

–          Emotion: When we care, we share.

–          Public: Built to show, built to grow.

–          Practical Value: News people can use.

–          Stories: People are inherent storytellers, and all great brands also learn to tell stories. Information travels under the guise of idle chatter.

And while this Berger thought is about “making things go viral” it is actually about finding the simplest way to communicate complex shit in a way that it is actually retained in a cognitive way.

I would also note that this dos not reflect “one simple thing”, it does reflect the complexity of reality and the mind and it reflects how to … well … help make us less stupider.

Ah.

Cognitive way.

As in “we actually understand what it is we heard, saw or read.” That is an important thing to ponder because over simplification cheats cognitive value as well as the value of whatever it is you have to offer people. Simplicity may be “memorable” but it doesn’t really lodge itself in anyone’s mind & memory in any meaningful way.

In fact.

The less depth you offer in your oversimplification the more you are at the mercy of the mind that decides to remember you. What I mean by that is if you don’t provide the depth the mind will create some perceptions around whatever it lodges in the pea like brain.

Uhm.

This means the pea like brain lodges only what is actually the brain’s perceptions of what to remember and not what you <a> know to be true, <b> think it may be important for that mind to know or <c> want the brain to store away in its mind.

I imagine what I am talking about is some wacky version of awareness versus engagement … but that shit is bullshit too.

It’s all bullshit because we should be turning away from simplification and engagement and connection and simply focus on “say what you need to say to persuade someone to think or do what you want them to think or do.”

All the other bullshit just confuses things.

If I tell someone that ‘being noticed ‘ is the most important thing, than some asshat is gonna come up with some zany oversimplified shit that gets noticed but doesn’t effectively communicate one thing <let alone all the things you may have deemed truly important in the beginning>.

I admit … I balk at a lot of the bullshit offered online about simplification <and the importance thereof> because … well … it is an oversimplification which diminishes the importance of ‘communicating depth’ and increases the importance of ‘being noticed.’

I do not like that equation. Effective communication is not a binary choice.

Effective communication, as with almost everything, is a complex challenge in communicating a complex thing well – because if you can communicate a couple things well it actually increases the perceived value <which then inevitably creates a stronger “memory stamp” … with value attached!>.

Which brings me back to our oversimplification crisis.

I could clearly argue that in today’s fragmented messaging world where information multiplies at light speed and a day still remains 24 hours that we humans are constantly honing our “incoming thoughts” filtering mechanisms.

I could also argue that our filtering system, as it exists today, sucks. We have dumbed down our communication and thinking behavior to such a hollowed out status the majority of time we skate along the superficial irrelevant surface of reality.

If we are lucky, the ice doesn’t crack.

But the truth is that oversimplification only offers the thinnest of ice to skate on and inevitably we fall thru the ice … over and over and over again.

Uhm.

And in the business world falling through the ice is bad. It is, metaphorically, making a bad decision based on shallow thinking and paying for it.

Yeah.

I did say the biggest issue we face is oversimplification.

I said that because if I can solve this, if I can have smarter people communicating complex things more smartly and I can have more everyday schmucks understanding that simple solutions are more often like trying to place a square peg in a round hole … well … I think it unravels a shitload of other problems we face in today’s world.

I imagine I am arguing that if more people are less stupid and more aware of the reality of things the more effective & efficient we will be in addressing the difficulties reality tends to place in front of us.

In the end.

I will go back to where I began … “say something meaningful in an interesting way.”

There are no rules nor boundaries in this statement.

You use as many words, or as few, as you need to say … to say something meaningful in an interesting way with the intent for it to be understood … and, ultimately, persuade someone to think something. I would say that the hollower the communication the less true persuasion engagement occurs and, conversely, the fuller the communication the more true persuasion engagement occurs.

Period.

======================

Seth Meyers

—–

Yeah, “fair” is a word we talk about. We talk about “fair” when we talk about “even.” I feel as though “even” can sometimes lead to false equivalents, whereas “fair” is, is this how you’d like to be treated if somebody disagreed with you?

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

=====================

Ok.

Today, in this world & in this environment, I could be having a discussion on some topic and make a statement and 99% of the time the other person will say <usually indignantly> “where did you hear that?” … and I could say “well, Albert Einstein said it” … and I can almost guarantee I will get the following question … “when did he say that?” … and if I said “well, he said it on <pick your poison … FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc>” … I can almost guarantee I will get a ‘lean-back-in-chair-moment combined with a sage “oh, he is biased.”

Yeah.

Albert Einstein.

Biased because he decided to say something smart but, unfortunately, on … well … some venue.

Suffice it to say that, lately, it seems like anyone you disagree with or anyone who espouses a different view than you is “biased.”

This is crazy.

And it gets crazier because the same people who are quick to brand some mainstream news venue as biased are the same ones to place blind faith on some random internet website espousing something they agree with.

Let’s be clear.

Professional journalists may slant their work toward their own views but non professionals, and opinion people, are biased.

The vast majority of websites and blogs out there are, for all intents and purposes, biased.

Placing those important nuances aside … everyone should assume a fact is a fact and a fact can be delivered in a variety of ways – slanted, biased, fair, straightforward, misused – but it still remains a fact.

Bias:

Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Most people would suggest that any site that only focuses on one side of an issue without giving the same amount of “unbiased” coverage to the other side is biased.

Fox News. Biased.

MSNBC. Biased.

The Nation. Biased.

Federalist. Biased.

Pravda. Biased.

Yep. All of them.

Biased.

I, personally, do not call them biased <at least their news programming/pieces … not their opinion programming/pieces>.

I would call them intellectually slanted toward a specific view but still factual & truthful journalism. For the most part, if it is not an opinion show, you will receive some facts to sift through.

Yeah.

Some of the stories they publish are great, helpful, and insightful.

Yeah.

Some of them are extremely one-sided.

And while this one-sidedness may be well intended all it really does is drive us into deeper separation and make the ‘bias gap’ seem deep & wide.

Here is where the real trouble begins.

If everything is biased … who offers the truth?

Who you view as biased I view as a purveyor of truth … well … where is there any place for truth between us?

We cannot afford to be in an information gathering world where we “take what resonates and leave the rest.” We cannot because what resonates isn’t always what is reality or truthful. It is actually more likely to simply fit your belief system.

Uh oh.

If it fits than what doesn’t fit is biased.

Once again.

This is crazy.

I tend to believe this is a reflection of a number of things all grounded in the inability to know who to trust <because if I accepted an expert as an expert then I would be able to accept an expert speaking truth I could believe as unbiased>. I tend to believe there is a strong strain of “anti-intellectualism” or maybe it is better called “a gut instinct opinion world” in which facts only confuse the issue <therefore shouldn’t be pursued> and rational thinking is actually ‘common sense.’

Sigh.

We live in a wacky world in which we have no experts, we trust no institutions to not have some nefarious intent and truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

We live in a wacky world in which articles by professional journalists, which are fact-based, are confused with op-eds <opinion & editorials> which is … uhm …  an opinion, a column, meaning it does not have to be unbiased, fair, or balanced.

We live in a wacky world in which the internet is like the wild west of information. There are minimal laws, minimal enforcers of laws and a shitload of people who are willing to have a dubious relationship with any law <and truth or proper use of facts>.

We live in a wacky world in which people have more access to an almost unlimited unfettered amount of information and they also have the freedom to contribute to that unfettered amount of information as they see fit.

We live in a wacky world where even the people who are allegedly so concerned with finding the truth circulate a shitload of bullshit.

Yeah.

It is a wacky world.

That being said, it is not wacky enough to simply discard good smart thoughtful factual information <some would call that “Truth”> under some wacky filter we apply to every mouthpiece which makes that mouthpiece conveniently “biased” so we have an excuse to disregard the information.

I believe we can find fair, even and biased wherever we may choose to look. I can find it on FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, BBC and almost every venue with professional journalism employees. It doesn’t mean they will not slant the information. It doesn’t mean they may conveniently leave a fact or two out.

But in this wacky world I cannot afford to discard everything and I, frankly, have no desire to just discard what doesn’t meet my current views.

I believe that each of us needs to take responsibility for detaching ourselves from what we want to be true, and get off our lazy asses to find out what actually is true … and stop using “biased” as a reason to not consider what was shared.

I will end where I began:

We all have bias, we all have a point of view. I think the best you can do is try to be aware of it and try to make sure that the bias doesn’t make you treat someone else unfairly.

——————–

“I wish I had the courage not to fight and doubt everything… I wish, just once, I could say, ‘This. This is good enough. Just because I choose it.”

―

Chuck Palahniuk

===============

So.

Let me very clear upfront … while this piece will be on Russian involvement in the 2016 USA presidential election I am not discussing, nor suggesting, collusion or coordination of efforts between anything I will outline and the Trump campaign. The analysis of that will be done by greater minds than mine.

This piece is about what Russia did and the effect on the 2016 election. Let’s call this an analysis of the Russian marketing campaign to support Donald J Trump.

I have the fortune to exchange ideas, on occasion, with some highly qualified experts and several foreign policy thought leaders and all of them continuously grapple not with what Russia did but more so with how to talk about it. Which leads me to the horrible position that I find myself in <and I imagine any professional communications person with any significant experience is in>.

We know that Russia most likely influenced enough voters to have elected Donald J Trump.

There. I said it. The one sentence which seems to be on the lips of almost any credible thinking individual but never seems to be spoken. This has nothing to do whether I believe he is qualified or not … this is just a conclusion that anyone who knows shit about marketing & advertising has arrived at if they look at the campaign.

<note: this is easily provable … hire MillwardBrown, pay them $100k, give them all the voting information and attitude poll information and they could do a county comparison … they do this for marketing & advertising campaigns all the time to measure effectiveness>

Anyway. It took me a while to get there because the overarching narrative ‘cover’ for the election is, and always has been, “Russia never changed a vote or made someone do anything.” While every reasonable marketing person would debate the seeming lack of understanding in the concept of ‘ability to affect behavior through marketing’, it was easier for people to generally focus on the truth Russia never got into actual voting machines and changed votes.

This means it just took me a lot longer to get to the truth that many of my peers had already arrived at.

…. I did not want to know this ………..

Whew.

The truth. Russia changed votes and voting behavior.

What knowledge to have. What a wretched position to be in … to be a professional communications person and a believer in America democracy … that is the horrible position many of us find ourselves in.

Why?

Well. The majority of us know, if we view it through a professional lens, that the Russians communications <propaganda> effort most likely put Donald J Trump into the presidency … and we don’t know what to do and say about it.

Why?

Think about the outcome of this presentation. The main one would be that many people would believe Donald J was not a legitimate president or legitimately elected. And that would be … well … horrible. Horrible for the country, horrible for democracy and … well … just horrible. I, personally, feel a little less horrible because I still believe … 100% believe … and have written extensively that if the Clinton campaign had done a couple of things and maybe thought thru a couple of things they would have won.

All that said.

I could open this presentation by suggesting the Clinton campaign ran a slightly-less-than-effective-as-it-could-have marketing campaign but I could also showcase how the Trump campaign, in and of itself, did not do enough to win.

——- Clint Watts analysis of Russia Social Media Plan ——-

I would then have to point out that an overlaid Russian marketing campaign <which diminished Clinton to suppress behavior in her favor> made the difference at the finish line. As noted earlier, someone like MillwardBrown could prove/disprove this in ‘two notes or less.’

Anyway … before anyone argues with that premise please remember that with 136 million votes cast, Trump’s victory came down to a razor-thin edge of only 77,744 votes across three states: Pennsylvania (44,292 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Michigan (10,704 votes) – all less than .7% difference between the two candidates … a less than full Michigan stadium … and, if reversed, Clinton would be our president.

The 2016 election result is really all about the fact that there was just enough movement in just the right places, with just enough increased turnout from just the right groups, to get Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

Regardless. While I know from career experience advertising affects attitudes & behavior the rest, block by block, of the truth fell into place. But what make this conclusion truly horrible is … well … what do you do with that knowledge? It does no good to suggest the current president is illegitimate. None. Zero.

Look.

I am not making this up.

While others look at this in some vague “what could they do to make someone vote a certain way” I look at this from a marketing perspective where I have sat in meeting after meeting analyzing marketing campaigns and tactics to watch what levers <tactics & messages>have been pulled to get someone to do something they may not have considered doing before. Given that knowledge here were the 4 blocks which gt me there:

The first ‘block’ was, of course, when the US government warned us that 17 intelligence agencies <or 4 with others tentatively agreeing, or whatever number you want depending on your cynicism but suffice it to say the US Intelligence agencies are aligned in some form or fashion> agreed Russia was fucking within our election. They didn’t go into details but rather just said “they, they are doing this” <and did some behind the scenes stuff to deflect some things they did>.

I would also note that this is where “marketing doesn’t affect my behavior’ attitudes started digging in within the general population’s mindset … “I made my own decision” is what they say <naively I may add>.

The second ‘block’ occurred on November 6^th 2016 in an article called “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy” .

——————-

… in addition to phishing and cracking attacks, these hackers are aided by honeypots, a Cold War term of art referring to an espionage operative who sexually seduced or compromised targets. Today’s honeypots may include a component of sexual appeal or attraction, but they just as often appear to be people who share a target’s political views, obscure personal hobbies, or issues related to family history. Through direct messaging or email conversations, honeypots seek to engage the target in conversations seemingly unrelated to national security or political influence.

These honeypots often appear as friends on social media sites, sending direct messages to their targets to lower their defenses through social engineering. After winning trust, honeypots have been observed taking part in a range of behaviors, including sharing content from white and gray active measures websites

Online hecklers, commonly referred to as trolls, energize Russia’s active measures. Ringleader accounts designed to look like real people push organized harassment — including threats of violence — designed to discredit or silence people who wield influence in targeted realms, such as foreign policy or the Syrian civil war. Once the organized hecklers select a target, a variety of volunteers will join in, often out of simple antisocial tendencies. Sometimes, they join in as a result of the target’s gender, religion, or ethnic background, with anti-Semitic and misogynistic trolling particularly prevalent at the moment. Our family members and colleagues have been targeted and trolled in this manner via Facebook and other social media.

Hecklers and honeypots can also overlap.

—————————–

The experts at WarontheRocks know their shit and I stored away their analysis.

The third ‘block’ occurred when a Bernie Sanders social media coordinator published a report of how he watched online trolls aggressively message against Clinton to Sanders supporters:

He <Mattes> put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

 But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.

Mattes and his friends didn’t know what to make of his findings. He couldn’t get his mind around the possibility that trolls overseas might be trying to sway a bunch of Southern Californians who supported Sanders’ run for president. “I may be a dark cynic and I may have been an investigative reporter for a long time, but this was too dark ― and too unbelievable and most upsetting,” he said. “What was I to do with this?”

By late October, Mattes said he’d traced 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites he saw popping up on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Others appeared to be based in Panama and the U.S., or were untraceable. He wondered, “Am I the only person that sees all this crap floating through these Bernie pages?”

And the final ‘block’ was an 84 page white paper issued by the cyber security firm, TrendMicro, which outlined how easy it was to implement a ‘fake news’ marketing campaign with costs & efforts taken by Russia to influence people not only in America but globally.

That did it for me.

Let me call my ‘4 blocks’ as the cornerstones of the building of proof. I am a marketing guy and an amateur behavioral studier with decades of experience and I can see a marketing campaign when there is one … and I can see when a good one is being implemented in ‘below-the-line’ tactics pushing & nudging & influencing people to do & think things … and I can see one once I have been presented the cornerstones of proof.

This is that. And this is a horrible thing to recognize.

Oddly enough … our founding fathers worried about this.

In constructing the Constitution the crafters were cognizant, and worried about, how easily people could be led, and led astray. That is why they constructed a three ‘power’ system <executive, judiciary & representative> to insure a President never had access to too much power. In some ways they assumed at some point in history American citizens would not choose wisely.

As a marketing guy I can honestly tell you that I have sat in hundreds of conference rooms viewing behavioral data pondering choice after choice people made that were reflections of “not in my best interest” … information that reflected time after time … people do not choose wisely.

While that is marketing stuff we should all remember what James Madison said … “liberties are more frequently lost by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power.” That is what the worst of worst marketing is about … making some people choose less than wisely through a gradual and silent encroachment into someone’s decision making process.

To be clear.

I think Trump is inept, incompetent and unqualified but this is not about that. This is about how Russia affected enough people’s attitudes to affect their behavior … and many of us quasi-experts, and many real experts, believe Russia conducted a marketing campaign that did just enough to affect people’s voting behavior to effectively put Trump in the oval office.

To be clear.

None of us know what to do with this understanding. This is a horrible position to be in. No one wants to suggest the current president is not legitimate and, yet, the truth is that he most likely gained his position through some shady illegitimate ways.

I almost wish I didn’t know this.

===================

“Fake news fabricated as truth that panders to its audience’s ideologies and promises an illusion of the future – enough to compel people to join an imagined cause.”

—

TrendMicro

================

“Advertising is fundamentally persuasion and persuasion happens to be not a science, but an art.”

—

Bill Bernbach

============

“As an advertiser we must assume responsibility for everything we do, because everything we do has the potential to make someone think something or do something.

And that ‘something’ can be good or bad. It is up to us to steer it toward good.”

—-

Bruce McTague

===================

Ok.

If I hear one more politician or troll commenter online say “not one vote was affected by Russian efforts during the Presidential campaign” I am gonna tear my hair out.

While I have talked about ‘fake news’ and the responsibility media has in reporting, I have avoided talking about how Russia influenced the Presidential campaign because it sounds political and politicians have made simplistic soundbites the discussion point by saying shit like “can anyone point to any evidence that one vote was changed”.

Well.

Today I am going to point … and I am not a politician and now I have a report to point to <which I will highlight in a couple of moments>.

Suffice it to say since the election of Donald J Trump and following the widespread debate about how fake news on social media may have contributed to his victory I have racked my brain on how to point out to people how, if done effectively, a Russian media campaign <fake news initiative> could have certainly impacted behavior at the election booth.

I wanted to do so not because I know for sure that votes were affected but rather because by not even considering, or acknowledging, that people may have been affected enough to influence their vote means we diminish the potential impact of a real propaganda campaign.

While non advertising people most often speak of “advertising creates awareness” <at best> or “I am not impacted by advertising” <at worst> … they are wrong.

The truth <inside the hallways of advertising agencies around the world> is that we speak of influencing real behavior – change brand preferences, convince someone to try, affect attitudes toward a particular brand or product <your own or a competitor>, shift preferences from one brand or product to another and even educate to create an impact in terms of behavior.

Advertising and professional communications is business … the business of persuading people to think things and do things. It may be immediate actions or it may be the process of engaging to ultimately affect actions … but I cannot think of one business spending one dollar on professional communications who does not desire to persuade people to think at least one thing with the intent to create at least one type of behavior.

I have sat through hundreds of meetings analyzing shifts in attitudes & behavior <linked to sales of my business as well as shifts in competitors business> scouring information with regard to perceptions, persuasion, purchase intent, impact of influencers, etc.

I have sat through thousands of hours of discussion on ideas, impressions and attitudes about a brand or product all with the intent to find something that will predispose someone to see it in some positive light in which it will compel someone to buy it versus something else.

I say all of this because it is absolutely nuts to suggest an effective propaganda or fake news <or let’s call it what it really was … an advertising campaign driven by social media> cannot affect people’s behaviors & attitudes.

Absolutely nuts.

Now.

I wrote today because a company called Trend Micro, a cybersecurity firm, just issued an 81 page study called Fake News and Cyber Propaganda: The Use and Abuse of Social Media.

They call it “forward thinking threat research” … I would have suggested they could have contacted any global advertising agency who could have shown them study after study with regard to how advertising can affect behavior & change attitudes.

That said.

The report does do what I have been unable to unearth in all my files of Attitude & Usage studies and communications research … they show specific tactics and plans and costs and results. They show you what a communication plan, done effectively, can do.

And, suffice it to say, it doesn’t take a shitload of money to effectively propagate lies, false narratives and fake news.

They provide an analysis focusing on fake news and alternative storylines and the use of influencers <influencers & influencer campaigns: is what every Public Relations agency in the world does for their clients every single day> as well as the overall effect in manipulating social behavior.

Their report is actually quite similar to what we in the advertising & communications business look at every week … except we do so in much more detail picking apart the minutiae in order to see what button we can push to … well … push someone a little closer to doing what we would like them to do.

With regard to the Presidential campaign, I want to be clear, what effective propaganda can do:

• It can make someone seem smarter
• It can make someone seem worse than they are

If those are two separate someones, you have created a distinction gap between the someones. I could argue that the Russians did exactly that … made an ‘incompetent someone’ edge a little closer to appearing competent and made a ‘flawed someone’ edge a little closer to being worse than flawed.

Uhm.

That can make a difference when market share equals millions of dollars or thousands of votes, not millions, equals a presidency.

Anyway.

Some people will never be convinced that a propaganda effort, or an advertising campaign, can actually affect how they think and what they do.

That is too bad.

They would be wrong … but purposefully ignorant type wrong.

But I do believe everyone would agree that discerning truth from fiction is more difficult today than it has ever been and I tend to believe everyone doesn’t like that. Which means it is increasingly important that people not only think a little more about what they are absorbing information wise but maybe we need to become better at helping people question what they see.

This is where leaders & influencers really do matter.

They need to stop undermining good sources of truth simply because that source may not support some narrative they want. Politifacts and maybe Snopes and a variety of other locations do a really nice job of sifting through fact versus fiction in a mostly unbiased way. And, yet, enough people diminish their value when it don’t match their narrative that they remain slotted as a viable source for some people and not a viable source for others. We need to find some universally accepted locations of truth.

Sure.

Some people will not be happy about what they see but the real enemy is fake news and created fictional narrative and not half-truths or misused facts.

But all people should be happy with truth … and not being fooled by fake news and cyber propaganda.

The Russians did affect the 2016 election. I cannot tell you how much or if it represented a different result than would have happened if they had not been involved <although my gut professional instincts suggest they shifted the dial enough to make a difference>. I will tell anyone reading this if you gave MillwardBrown (or any viable advertising agency which has some programmatic planning) maybe $50k and all the county data & all the media information they could clearly, and unequivocally, show vote results in counties with Russia-driven messaging versus non-Russian messaging counties. Shit. That’s what they do in any media review meeting.

But, at this point, we shouldn’t debate the result we should be discussing how efforts like this, when done effectively, can impact our view on things, ideas and people. Because if we can all admit that, well, we are halfway to getting closer toward real truth.

And, to me, that sounds good – not a fake goal.

——————

======

source:

Fake News and Cyber Propaganda: The Use and Abuse of Social Media 

The report from Trend Micro, a cybersecurity firm, is 81 pages long but if you have the time … worth every second to read.

The Fake News Machine research paper comes at a time of increasing concern across the globe about the hacking of elections and the ways that fake news on social media has manipulated voters. The report delves into the underground marketplaces that can allow campaigns, political parties, private companies and other entities to strategically create and distribute fake content to shift public perceptions.

===============

“As humans, we tend to search for reassurance in all the wrong places.”

–

ke-ndallgrace

===============

“We believe in the wrong things. That’s what frustrates me the most. Not the lack of belief, but the belief in the wrong things.

You want meaning? Well, the meanings are out there. We’re just so damn good at reading them wrong.”

–

Rachel Cohn

=====================

So.

We make thousands of decisions every day.

Okay.

Let’s say thousands of little Life ones and maybe hundreds in the office throughout the work day.

Some of these are fairly inconsequential decisions and some are fairly consequential decisions <albeit telling which is which in the moment, while incredibly consequential, is incredibly difficult>.

What that all means is unless you are a completely narcissistic arrogant asshat you will end up seeking some reassurance at some point to make sure you aren’t a complete fuckup.

But let me go back to the thousands and hundreds.

Why?

That’s a lot.

What that means to most of us in that we do not seek reassurance on everything we elect to do but rather either <a> on things we deem extremely consequential or <b> random moments to serve as touchstones on some reality we are not a complete fuckup.

And what does that mean?

Well.

For the most part we will seek to find reassurance where we believe reassurance will be found. I imagine I could point out that is a slightly warped way to go about making sure you have actually made the right, or best, choice but I will not <because I believe everyone can recognize that>.

Regardless of whether this is the best way to seek reassurance … this is what most of us will do.

Sure.

On occasion you find a touchstone person who you think may offer a real touchstone and you seek them out on occasion – but even that is no guarantee.

Why?

They let you down.

Shit.

I am guilty of it.

Let’s say I have a hundred things to do and someone steps into my office and asks me what I think. My initial internal response is “not what I would do” but as that response weaves its way through all my other internal filters I kind of reach a conclusion that it doesn’t really affect me and maybe someone else will step in at some point and say “that’s kind of a bad idea.” So all I say is “sure” and move on to the next thing on my never-ending 100 to-do list.

Someone sought viable reassurance and I failed them <note: I, personally, try and remind myself that “37 seconds, well used, is a lifetime” as often as I can>.

All that said.

We tend to find reassurance in the wrong places — either from the wrong people or at the wrong time or even with the wrong intention.

I could point out here that the best judge of your own actions is yourself but I will not in this case because … well … reassurance is actually a good thing on occasion.

It really, honestly, can provide some honest-to-god reassurance you are not a fuck up <and this actually translates into better decision making in the future>.

We should all seek some reassurance at some point and … well … we do. I cannot offer much wisdom with regard to how to avoid seeking reassurance in the wrong places. The best I can do on that is just try and make sure you don’t always seek out people you know will give you the answer you want.

My real advice goes to all of us who provide reassurance <which, I assume, is pretty much everyone>.

Assume everyone seeks reassurance at some point them, well, at some point not only will you seek reassurance but someone will seek you out for reassurance.

Look.

I tell people all the time that decisions and choices are not really like crossroads where paths diverge but rather they are more like black holes. Almost every decision you make is like stepping into some form of black hole. You may be fairly sure about what resides on the other side of the black hole let alone what is actually in the black hole … but you cannot be 100% sure.

Let’s say your confidence, surety, is somewhere between 5% and 90% <and you try and avoid the 5%’s as often as you can>.

Uhm. That’s a big gap.

But that is what it is.

If you buy what I just offered you then you, as someone who provides reassurance, should be seeking to make the black hole as small as it can be.

==============

“This is the best of all things we can do for one another:

Make the dark small.”

–

Dean Koontz

===============

So while almost all of us will seek reassurance in the all the wrong places I imagine it is up to those of us who provide the reassurance to assume to some responsibility. The responsibility to actually make it the right place.

I am fairly sure someone is gonna send me a note and say that I am putting too much faith in people to do the right thing and care when they need to care and pay attention when they should pay attention and not be too much of asshat to always just push their own point of view … and they may be right.

But what I am 100% confident in is that 100% of us seek some reassurance at some point.

And I am fairly sure 100% of us would like the person providing the reassurance to have our welfare as their priority when providing the reassurance.

And, if that is so, I am fairly sure we understand the concept of we tend to get what we give.

======================

“Life … is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.”

―

William Shakespeare, Macbeth

==================

Dear Mr. President,

I just wanted to write you a letter to bring it to your attention, in case you have not noticed; you really are the president … now.

Yes. You did get elected.

Yes. That new office you get your diet coke in is oval because all US Presidents have sat in that oval office.

Yes. That big eagle on your floor rug is not really your style <albeit I believe it does have gold in it> but it is a sign that, yes, you got elected and that emblem is part of the seal of the United State of America.

I have been meaning to write this to you for quite some time, but I felt compelled to write this letter to you today because yesterday, in the wake of the London terrorist attacks, you seemed to forget you were president for a while.

And that seems indicative of, well, all your behavior since last November <with some small moments in which we got tantalizing glimpses you actually recognized that you were now responsible for 330 million people>.

Last night you took the opportunity while watching the attacks unfold to retweet a Drudge article and a personal tweet about your own travel ban. I am tempted to suggest they were simply tweets of an ignorant idiot, full of sound and fury, simplifying nothing … but I will not. I will use the tweets to remind you that you really are now a president and the president of a certain country called “The United State of America.”

A while back I told you how to do your job because you seemed to be struggling and I thought there were some simple things you could do to rectify your current situation.  Today I will simply remind you of some things you may not know about your new job:

Tweets

I really wouldn’t mind you tweeting if you didn’t tweet like a bitter husband drunk late at night just after his wife had left him. The problem is that you do … and you are not drunk and for some reason your wife has not left you. I have given up trying to convince you that words matter <even the ones you make up> so maybe we could have you work on thinking a little less like an idiotic bitter drunk husband and maybe have you think about the fact you really are a President who shouldn’t be bitter about anything and whose wife has not left him <yet>.

I do take some solace in the fact that, for the most part, your drunken bitter idiot-in-chief tweets are becoming irrelevant to the outside world. Beyond media … most simply ignore you the best they can. My main proof? You offer some word salad twisted thought and Wall Street barely responds these days.

On that note. I would suggest that being President and being ignored kind of suggests you are becoming irrelevant. That seems bad <sad>.

I would never suggest you stop tweeting. Hell. It is the best entertainment we have had in years. Maybe you could just consider in the future to just be a little less bitter, maybe sound a little less drunk, and maybe a little less “I am unwanted and unworthy of the love that has left me” and more … well … “holy shit, I am the President.”

That’s all I ask. But I am just an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

Infinite resources

I am dependent upon ‘fair & balanced’ FoxNews, NBC, fake news CNN, Drudge, National Review, Reuters, Guardian and even the failing NY Times for my information.

You are not.

………… Trump picking up phone …….

Mr. President you can actually push a little button right there on the phone next to your canopied bed with throw pillows that have those ruffles you like and maroon sateen sheets and you can most likely have the worlds best intelligence community brief you on what may be happening. You even have a Homeland Security department who could most likely tell you if there are any existing threats which you could tweet America about to calm nerves <and I bet they have a button too>.

In addition you have an Environmental Agency who has a multitude of well researched analysis to offer numbers and results from. You have a Labor Department who has an incredible history of measuring the workplace environment which you have access to for numbers and information <those last two are probably not worthy of buttons on your phone … sorry>.

You may not know it but you also have a State Department with real people in real buildings <some people call them embassies> who have real on-the-ground knowledge of where they are that are most likely to be delighted to speak with you 24/7.

I imagine my real point, Mr. President, is … well … you are no longer an everyday schmuck dependent upon whatever information you can scrounge up on your own surfing the world wide web <yes, it is now worldwide> or scanning FoxNews in the morning. You are the President and you have dozens of departments with thousands of extremely qualified people who have reams of knowledge and data and information at their fingertips at the simple push of a button <and they even know more shit before the people on TV do>.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

One dollar bill suggestion

Mr. President, just a suggestion. Tape a dollar bill to your desk <and, under my breath, ‘read it you asshat’>:

E Pluribus Unum.

Out of many, one.

I make this suggestion because I know you love money above everything else and maybe the one dollar bill can help, well, center you a little.

It is a fabulous little document in and of itself … think of it as a PowerPoint slide with few words and a killer image.

I would also note the second Latin motto on that same image … novus ordo seclorum <a new order of the ages> which signifies “the beginning of the new American Era.”

Both of those thoughts may remind you that you represent 330 million or so and, well , a country. It may also help to keep this humble little one dollar nearby as a symbol of small certainty as you, I would imagine, are a little uncertain as you try and make the giant leap from everyday schmuck to President.

Now.

I will admit, Mr. President, while I am sympathetic to your uncertainty I wish you would get a grip on it because it, well, creates a sense of uncertainty in the country.

I would ask you to remember, in general, uncertainty is certainly a bitch to a general population. The larger issue is that uncertainty makes people feel poorer <even when they are not>, more divided <even when they are not>, less safe <even though they are not> and less hopeful with regard to the future <even when they should see signs of hope>.

I would also suggest that, in this time & place, this uncertainty has been compounded by the fact we don’t trust anyone on anything <media included> … don’t trust anyone to do what they are supposed to do <government included> … and don’t even trust what was done when they actually do what they were supposed to do <anyone associated with any institution>. Uhm. I hesitate to tell you this but, whew, a shitload of people don’t really trust you either.

All that said. You know what everyone trusts in this wretched place where no one does anything right and is stupid or dishonest or corrupt? The one dollar bill. It is a simplistic symbol of certainty and trust. It may be that you could use his taped one dollar bill to focus you a little.

Now. You may not know it but there was a guy named Booker Washington who said … ““… be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress” <just a note: this guys is dead>. I know that may be a big thought for you so maybe I can dumb it down for you … think of it as if you have 5 one dollar bills, you can also then have a $5 dollar bill. Separate as ones but one as a $5. You see what I mean? Maybe if you look at that one dollar bill every day maybe you can start thinking ‘out of many one’ and be a President for all the $5’s, $20’s & $50’s rather than just a couple of ones.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

Thank you for your time today.

I am sorry I didn’t include bullet points and killer images & graphs <which I hear you like> but maybe Melania can read this to you.

Dear Mr. President, I cannot promise I will leave you alone after this letter. You seem to not only not know how to do your fucking job but you also seem to forget you are not an everyday schmuck <no matter how many of us wished you were>. I promise I will leave you alone when you fully recognize that you are now a big bad powerful man. You now not only lead America but, if you would elect to do so, you could actually lead in the world.

I do worry, on occasion, that your view of leadership and mine do not really coincide. You seem to feel that creating a transactional relationship is the same thing as creating a “leadership” relationship. That kind of feels like the same logic some misguide businesses use to recruit talented young people with cool laptops, flex time, free lunches … and not vision. Frankly, that doesn’t really foster any type of loyalty, it doesn’t really drive any company value and … well … it is killing the idea of leadership by a thousand cuts.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

I also worry that by choosing to remain an everyday schmuck you are finding whatever scraps in what you have done to make yourself believe you are doing good things … and you are holding on to them tightly like your teddy bear at night for comfort <in your canopied bed with sateen sheets>. I can assure you that you will need those scraps for comfort at some point if you don’t realize that is what we everyday schmucks do to comfort ourselves … but presidents kind of need to find more than scraps to hold onto.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

And, lastly, dear Mr. President, I worry that many of the world’s leaders are realizing you are just bluster and bullshit. I am fairly sure they weren’t sure in the beginning but now they know. But, Mr. President, I know you are better than that <I say with fingers crossed> and all of a sudden you will realize you are not an everyday schmuck but rather the President.

But what do I know … I am everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

I am sending you my letter today hoping that my sincere thoughts help you realize this.

Mr. President, you have probably done over 100 things, okay, thousands of things over the past year or so which make me sure you are unqualified to be the country leader <and make me doubt you could lead a turd out of a flushed toilet>, makes me sure I dislike your business acumen and makes me sure your moral compass <assuming you even have one> is not working.

I would imagine if you remain an everyday schmuck, in your own mind you will, well, feel exactly the same way.

But … you really are the President. You really did get elected. You can start acting like a President any time you want and most of us every day schmucks will line up behind you when you do because, well, you really are the President of the United States.

All the best.

Bruce.

P.S. – Mr. President, as I read some of your tweets this morning, the morning after the London terror attacks, I have to ask you … what is wrong with you?

===================

“Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.“

—-

Aristotle

 

===================