The gist of the article was a that each type of content is different, and therefore should be written by different people. Not exactly groundbreaking. One thing that I said, though, which I guess not everyone agrees with, is that people should blog in their own voice, for themselves.

I got an e-mail from a professional copywriter who said that she often blogs and writes speeches for busy CEOs, and that they often are very happy because she can say things better than they can.

This was my response to her in my e-mail:

I understand your point about busy CEOs and such. My strong belief, though, is that (barring a gross inability to communicate [which is rare among successful leaders]) those busy people, from fortune 500 CEOs to small business owners, should find some of their other work to outsource before they give up expressing their own opinions/ideas/etc on their blogs and Social Media accounts-especially if Thought Leadership is an important goal. These are not press releases I’m talking about, or sales copy. This is not “Here’s how great the company is doing” PR blogging. I’m talking about giving the public a glimpse into the insight and inspiration that is driving the company. If the CEO/Founder/Owner/Director doesn’t have some kind of magic secret sauce unto herself that no one else (even a good writer) can copy, then why is she in charge? And why should the rest of us care?

You could get a lot of different points out of this. Certainly this exchange covers a number of issues, from what leadership should be doing, to the quality all for authentic communication, to the economic benefit of outsourcing.

If you read my blog long enough, you will start to get a sense of what I think about all of those topics.

But the one thing that I want to specifically draw your attention to, is the “secret sauce.”

Thought leadership is not about social media. It is not about blogging. It is not about networking. It is not about using the latest technology, or having an iPhone, or any of that other stuff that the media likes to talk about.

Thought Leadership is about the secret sauce.

Nobody subscribes to your blog or seeks you out at a conference or twitters with you based on your well-written press releases that tell the world about how great your company is, or how innovative you are, or what benefits the new features of your new gizmo will be most beneficial, or any of the other crap that corporate blogs like to talk about. People will not recognize you or your company as a thought leader based on good sales copy, or well-crafted corporate communications material, or any of the other things that you should be hiring professional writers to do for you.

Those things are important. You should have well-crafted press releases, and precise sales copy in your brochures, and carefully worded corporate communications. You need all those things.

But they are not Thought Leadership.

You are a thought leader because of your secret sauce. You’re a thought leader because you have something unique to say, something unique to contribute, something unique that no one else has. It could be your method, it could be your ideas, it could be your source of inspiration, it could be the peculiar way that you string words together. Whatever it is, it’s the thing that makes you qualified to be a CEO or a founder or an entrepreneur or a what ever. It’s the thing that makes you qualified to be a thought leader. If you have that, then you should be writing in your own voice. If you really truly have it, then it should be obvious that a writer, no matter how good they are, cannot simply copy you.

And if you don’t have it, then you are not a thought leader.

Trying to follow Chris Brogan’s advice to Grow Bigger Ears and engage with people and all that, I have a series of Google Alerts set up so on keywords that interest me. So I followed one of them to a post about self-publishing by a writer on Live Journal. I felt I had something to contribute, so I wrote a comment.

That’s when life started sucking for me. There are only three options for identifying yourself as a commenter:

• Anonymous
• Open ID
• Live Journal User (Become a member!)

I hate being anonymous- might as well not post. Open ID…. well, apparently I’m not a geek, since I don’t know how that works or whether I have it (going to the Open ID website DID NOT clear things up). Only option left was “Become a member!”

I should have stopped at this point, but I had already invested some time and thought into my comment. So I forged ahead. I clicked on the link. Filled out TWO PAGES of forms (they apparently want to know what kind of music I listen to). When that was over, I was not returned to my comment- the login process deadended. I had to use the back button on my browser to find my comment. Which I submitted, finally.

Except, wait, no- I haven’t verified my email account yet, so I can’t publish my comment. So I go back over to my email, click on the verification link. The page loads slowly. Why so slowly? OH! You want me to watch a video ad for Best Buy? Classy. And I can’t X out of it for 3…2…1 I CLOSE YOU NOW!

I finally am able to post my comment. I’m so proud of myself, I could just spit.

If you are a blogger, writer, marketer, company, etc:
Do NOT put your primary presence somewhere it is hard to get to. LiveJournal, and places like it, are supposed to be obsolete in 2009. Why do you think they shut down GeoCities? No one wants to look at poorly designed websites cluttered with ads. And no one wants to go through hell just to post a comment. I would have abandoned ship early on, but I decided to see how far this would go (so I could write a blog post about it). Most of your visitors do not have my motivation.

If you are building a community, platform, service, etc:
Remove friction. Do not annoy me. Interruptive ads are not the best way to monetize.

If you are an advertiser:
NO ONE likes pop up ads. No one likes noise to suddenly start blasting out of their speakers. Stop it. Please stop it.

Bootstrapping, of course!

I hang out with a lot of lawyers, VC types, serial entrepreneurs, tech people, etc… When I go to networking events or roundtable discussions, I often hear people ask about getting funding. Sometimes they mean SBA loans, usually they mean venture capital- always they mean, “How can I build this business with other people’s money?” I think, implicitly, they are saying, “How can I build this business without putting my personal lifestyle at risk? And, oh yeah- I’m broke.”

Too often, the VC experts in the room indulge the asker by talking about what the capitalists are looking for, and discussing terms and so forth. The “entrepreneurs” take notes. They go to networking/educational events to learn about business plan writing, term sheets, all that stuff…

Not often enough does someone say, “IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN FOR YOU!”

• You can’t get an SBA loan unless you’re mostly established, which you aren’t.
• You’re not going to get VC funding unless there’s a clear, multi-million dollar exit strategy, which you don’t have.
• Even if you could get either one of those thing (which you can’t), you shouldn’t anyway.

An infusion of cash is more likely to ruin your business than it is to help it. Think about what happens when people win the lottery. Same deal.

Bootstrap it!

Spend very little, reinvest, don’t hire, retain control. Ignore the motivational gurus who tell you to spend money you don’t need to spend. They are usually suggesting you spend money on them.

I’m not saying don’t spend anything, but think real hard: An online startup needs a great website design, but probably could forgo the fancy letterhead and branded notepads. Spending 100 hours to learn PHP so you can build a little function is probably a waste- hire someone. Hiring someone to do basic data entry because you “value your time too much” is probably a waste- skip CSI:Miami and do it yourself.

And learn how to sell for goodness sake. Remember, the one, single reason for a business to exist is to sell something to someone. Large infusions of cash are likely to remove that understanding. Worse, hanging around VC startups and VC people can also skew your thinking on this matter. Complicated business plans obscure the point, too.

Bootstrapping forces you to realize that if you aren’t selling something you aren’t in business.

So, what now?

Stop reading blogs for the day and go work. By work, I mean, “Sell something.”
Use the money from that sale to buy/build the next thing you can sell.

That’s bootstrapping.

PS- I was inspired to write this post after reading this excellent post about Bootstrapping. You should read it too. It’s short, and has several great Bootstrapping tips.

First off- I continue to think that it’s fascinating that while we are all using Google search to find information, our behavior is, in the aggregate, creating new information. Meta-wow.

Google Zeitgeist lets the world know important things like:

• Searches for Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” surge around Halloween.
• Chili is the most sought after recipe.
• A lot of people want to know “how to kiss.”
• Everyone’s all freaked out about Swine Flu

Like a lot of trending information being created today, I feel compelled to know about it, and completely at a loss about how it helps me make money, be happy, or serve God (the three sieves of “useful”).

You can see the whole report here.

Thoughts?

Seth is a true Thought Leader- of all the people with that label, Seth lives up to it and embodies it more than anyone I can think of.

His posts are usually pretty good, but then- every now and then- he writes something really fantastic. I always prefer practical articles (here’s how) over theoretical articles (“Engage in the conversation!”), and today’s is perfect, especially for the kinds of clients I find myself working with.

Topic: How to start.

What if your organization or your client has done nothing?

What if they’ve just watched the last fourteen years go by? No real website, no social media, no permission assets. What if now they’re ready and they ask your advice? And, by the way, they have no real cash to spend…

That describes 90% of small businesses, I think. His advice- move forward. Don’t talk too much, don’t plan too much- just start doing stuff. (Good business advice always, I think). I won’t summarize the whole article- go read it yourself.

You can read the whole story online with the San Francisco Chronicle.

It’s amazing to me that any publicly traded company is willing to look past the next two quarters and keep an eye on the long term viability of their market and industry.

We should all learn from this.

What are you doing in your business to ensure that your business will continue to have a viable market next year and next decade?

The basic story: Romy Maxwell was building a mashup of Craigslist data that displayed listings on a map. The project, called Flippity, seems pretty cool. It’s non-commercial, and uses data that Craigslist publicly syndicates through its RSS feed. But apparently, as soon as Craigslist found out about it, they blocked the application, as well as any other applications built using Yahoo Pipes.

You can read the more about the story on Romy’s blog, and at Tech Crunch on the Washington Post.

Of course, a lot had has already been written about this.

Here’s my question:
What’s the point?

Craigslist doesn’t charge for the vast majority of their content. They generally allow anyone to use their RSS feed for non-commercial purposes. It seems to be in their economic interest to further syndicate their content so that more people are engaging with them and their brand.

So… why?

Any guesses?

This reminds me of another current, high-profile case of online protectionism. Murdoch’s ad judgement at least makes sense- he’s “Big Content,” steeped in the old way of doing things. But Craigslist is supposed to be a shining example of the new way of doing things. They give away a bunch of stuff, give everyone access to it for free, and then charge below market rates for the one small subset of their “product” (job listings in a few large metro areas), and they make a fortune.

So, what gives?

I’m into details, and my wife is REALLY into details. I think they’re important, she actually can notice them. It works well, since she’s the graphic design half of our enterprise here.

Branding consistency is really about a mindset which says, “NO! We are not using that font for this presentation. Our body-text font is X.” You have to understand that one shade of blue is not the same as another shade of blue. My wife and I have moved an apostrophe we thought was too high, and even once shrunk a single letter of a font (U) because it was slightly fatter than it should have been.

Related to consistency is a personal branding strategy I use…

The Social Bootstrap brand is color and texture rich. Our logo has seven different colors (plus black), all of which have a gradient, and are then placed over a concrete background. I do my best to reflect this color-rich idea in my clothing.

I don’t want to go overboard and wear the seven colors of my logo (that would not be subtle), I do try to (tastefully) wear as many different colors and textures as I can. This is easiest in the fall and winter (more articles of clothing to wear).
For example, I recently wore:

• navy blue pants
• orange dress shirt shirt
• olive green sweater vest
• light khaki suit jacket
• dark khaki socks
• reddish-brown leather shoes and belt
• scarf in several shades of brown and khaki

This is pretty typical of my clothing. While none of those colors is exactly a Social Bootstrap color, the richness of having more colors than most people wear contributes to the personal brand identity I am building. The colors come together in a way that doesn’t stick out or look outrageous, but is different enough to give people a sense of what kind of person I am, and what kind of company I run.

What do you think?
What branding strategies do you use? How do you feel about consistency?
Do you consider your clothing a part of your personal brand?

This post is part of the Brogan 100.
Learn more here and here.

What would you do?

This post is part of the Brogan 100.
Learn more here and here.

The debate about Free rages on…

On the side of Free:

• Social Media, and its ridiculous valuations.
• Google, and its ridiculous revenue.
• Seth Godin, with the “Books are Souvenirs” publishing model
• Chris Anderson, the evangelist of Free

On the side of not-Free

• Traditional Publishers of Content
• 37 Signals
• Old-school businesses that can’t figure out what the hell to do
• Malcolm Gladwell

Whoa.

On both sides of this debate are incredible thinkers, incredibly smart and successful companies, and a lot of profits. Also, on both sides, are some real stinkers. Everyone is convinced that they are right, that history is on their side, that the laws of economics and psychology will win out in the end (vindicating their position).

Here’s the thing about all this…

You people keep forgetting that there is more than one way to make money.

The Case Against Anti-Free

The anti-free people keep pointing out that Twitter is free and doesn’t make any money, so therefore you shouldn’t give stuff away. The problem with Twitter (and all the other money-losing Social Media platforms) isn’t that they give stuff away. The problem is that they never (as far as we know) thought through how to make money.

Google gives away (almost) everything. Free search. Free email. Free maps. Free analytics. Free documents. Free everything. Oh… wait. You want to buy some ads? Awesome. Just pay, like, a nickel. Great.

WordPress, the most awesome blogging and CMS platform ever, is free. Free software, free support forums, free themes, free plugins. Automattic seems to be making a profit. Hmm…..

When I lived in Florida, I got to shop at the world’s most wonderful grocery store, Publix. They gave out a lot free samples, something almost every week. Around the holidays they threw in-store parties. Free food. Not just samples, either. Plates of turkey, ham, ice cream, pie, mashed potatoes, peanut brittle, cheese, sushi. Wine, egg nog, hot cocoa. Live music. All of it free. You didn’t have to buy anything. But you know, as long as you’re here…

The case against pro-Free

The anti-free people lambaste the free people with “shouldn’t you get paid for your time and effort?”

Yeah, yeah. Whatever.

The real problem with the “everything is free” people is that they talk (and think?) like we live in the matrix and everything is digital information. They talk about moving away from atoms and towards bits. They talk about how the cost of delivery approaches zero. They talk and talk.

Um… I can’t eat bits. I can’t fuel my car with bits. I can’t live under bits.

Free only works with media… information and entertainment.
You can give away free samples of food, but only for so long.

Writers, bloggers, Social Media gurus, computer nerds, and all the other people who lead this conversation (on both sides, really) mostly make their money in media, information, entertainment, and other bit-driven industries. That’s fine. Free movies? Great! Free news? Of course!

Free software? Well… maybe.

Free food? Sure… but here’s a coupon for that mustard you’re eating.

Free oil? Not on your life.

The digital economy of consumerist America is great and all, but it’s really just a way to move money around and keep everyone occupied. The essentials (food, shelter, heat) and the near-essentials (communication, transportation) will never- can never- be free. If you’re wondering why China is getting all rich and powerful- it’s because they make things. Actual real things. Things that have mass and displace water.

If China is the future (a lot of people think so), then clearly an economic model based on producing fake things that don’t cost anything to copy is not the way forward.

So, what then…

Macro

(That means the world.)
While the high-level emphasis on value-add, knowledge work seems forward thinking, the only way to reclaim/retain economic dominance is through making things we can export for money.

Make things. Export them for money.

Micro

(That means you.)
Free is, obviously, not a revenue model. Without revenue, you don’t have a business.

So, what does that mean?

Free has to be thought of as a Marketing tool. Like the free samples at Publix, only turbocharged.

But you have to have something to market. Whether it’s souvenir books, consulting services, advertisements, or speaking engagments, Free is only viable if there is a sensible monetization plan. You can market Nothing if you want, and market it quite effectively. But it’s impossible to build a business on that. At best, you have a hobby. At worst, you have a multi-billion dollar not-funny joke.

Don’t be scared of Free. Or suspicious.
Or in love.

Free is another tool. You can take out ads in the Yellow pages. You can hire a blimp to fly your logo. You can cold-call people at dinner time. You can sponsor a public radio show. You can make a funny YouTube video. You can get a celebrity to wear your stuff. You can…

There’s an almost infinite number of things you can do to market what you sell. Free is one of them. Use it if it works. Don’t use it if doesn’t.

Stop arguing.

Okay, wait-
Don’t stop arguing.

Please move your arguments to the comment section of this post.

It’s free!

This post is part of the Brogan 100.
Learn more here and here.