Christopher S. Penn – Marketing AI Keynote Speaker

Blog

  • The Superheroes of PodCamp Boston 2

    The Superheroes of PodCamp Boston 2

    One of the problems with an event the size of PodCamp Boston 2 is that things get lost along the way and after. Events like that need a public face or two, but rarely does the rest of the group get publicity. I want to take a moment to single out six individuals who made PodCamp Boston 2 possible; without them, there would have been no event at all, period.

    Whitney Hoffman: if there’s a human being who can be said to epitomize the “organize” part of organizer, it’s Whitney. Without her, quite frankly, this ship would have been sunk. From smaller details like how many signs should be printed to large things like calling the Boston tourism bureau to secure the Seaport Hotel as a venue, Whitney made the vast majority of PodCamp Boston operations work seamlessly; but then, I would expect that of someone who both the ADA and the NFL have tapped to manage part of the Super Bowl’s operations.

    Steve Sherlock: Steve Sherlock was our true collaboration enabler, arranging weekly conference calls and providing detailed transcripts of who attended and takeaways from the meetings. Steve also co-piloted registration with Susan Kaup and made that just work, too. Hint for future event planners: the conference call is a GREAT idea, and second hint, if an organizer doesn’t make at least 50% of the calls, they’re not an organizer, just a tourist.

    someone: or Chel, as she’s more commonly known. Chel picked up a ton of administrative details, stuff that seems unimportant but will quickly grow to nightmarish proportions if left ignored, like contract dates, reminders, etc. Chel also took leadership of managing ALL the PodCamp Boston event entertainment on Saturday night, a mammoth undertaking given how many multiple, conflicting priorities there were. If you had any fun Saturday night, she’s to thank for it.

    Susan Kaup: or Sooz, depending on the context. Sooz brought us game day operations, including BostonNOW’s sponsorship of registration, and I swear she knocked over a Staples truck to bring as much stuff as she did. Sooz also organized our ad hoc volunteer teams and recruited additional people to help manage registration operations.

    Dave LaMorte: Dave stepped up and brought serious horsepower to game day, managing all the directionals, signage, and other organizational things that helped you find your way to where you needed or wanted to be, from lugging around aluminum meter boards to managing the posted grid.

    Last but certainly not least, Marni Shapiro of pulvermedia. You know the really nice venue we had, sponsored by VON, and the great A/V, seating, water, chairs and tables, sponsor setups, building interface, wireless, network connectivity, laptops for presenters, FANTASTIC audio systems with twice-daily soundchecks, frequent notices about building information, food court availability, and a billion other things you probably didn’t notice? All that stemmed from Marni’s desk in her role as VP of operations for VON and pulvermedia. If there was a compliment I could give her and her team, she’s VON’s Whitney Hoffman, who at the end of the day just gets it done, period. No excuses, no meandering, no bullshit. It’s done when you need it to be done, and that’s all there is to it.

    Now, this is not to say that other organizers didn’t contribute, because they certainly did, but I wanted to point out that these six folks went far, far beyond expectations to make PodCamp Boston 2 a success. If I ever wanted to run an events business (I don’t) or anything which required operational excellence, these people would get job offers immediately.

  • Google, OpenSocial, and Marketing

    Google, OpenSocial, and Marketing

    Google is announcing an open API for social networks. This has been widely reported on all the major tech news sites. It’s a strong, smart play by Google, as it lets them turn any participating site, effectively, into a Google App, and gives them access to index data that hasn’t been available in some cases.

    OpenSocial will allow data interchange among networks for three types of data:
    – Profile data
    – Friend data
    – Activity data

    Initial participating networks include Orkut, Salesforce, LinkedIn, Ning, Hi5, Plaxo, Friendster, Viadeo and Oracle.

    OpenSocial means something different to marketers, though. OpenSocial will immediately increase the value of each of the participating networks to marketers. Here’s an example.

    In context, I have very different friends and friend data on LinkedIn and Plaxo. My friends in turn have different friends and contexts on the various services. OpenSocial will let me aggregate all of my friend data across networks to a data store, and I can then get a better idea of what’s on my networks.

    More importantly – perhaps most important of all – I’ll be able to get common reference data across networks. This means, simply, that I will be able to cross reference data from one network to another. If a contact has a mailing address on LinkedIn, but is missing a ZIP code, and they have the ZIP on Plaxo, I will be able to aggregate the disparate pieces of data to develop a complete profile. Marketer’s dream? Heck yes.

    What’s your marketing strategy for OpenSocial? Mine is to continue building and growing my presence on individual networks, targeting them for their demographics, and as the first OpenSocial developer applications come out, I’ll aggregate all the data together.

    If you’re doing a targeted campaign, such as social network marketing, OpenSocial will make this process easier and faster. You’ll be able to amplify your marketing power across many networks, rather than just one, much in the same way TubeMogul lets you post your videos to 9 different video sharing sites at once.

    Are you ready for OpenSocial?

  • Silly business term: thought leader

    I’m always amused when I see someone bill themselves as a thought leader in their field (heck, my own company’s marketing department does it to me), mostly because the term thought leader is a joke. You are either a leader or you are not. It’d be like having a thought quarterback in the NFL, a thought pitcher in Fenway Park, a thought general on the battlefield. Do leaders need to think? Of course! But then they need to demonstrate the true leadership part and do.

    Brilliant execution of a good plan beats no execution of a great plan every time.

    My final turn of phrase on this silly term that needs to be retired: a thought leader is someone who is thinking about leading – but probably never will.

  • The Revocation of PodCamp Rule Four

    The Revocation of PodCamp Rule Four

    In the beginning, there were seven rules of BarCamp.

    1st Rule: You do talk/blog about BarCamp. (this later broke into two separate rules)
    2nd Rule: If you want to present, you must write your topic and name in a presentation slot.
    3rd Rule: Only three word intros.
    4th Rule: As many presentations at a time as facilities allow for.
    5th Rule: No pre-scheduled presentations, no tourists.
    6th Rule: Presentations will go on as long as they have to or until they run into another presentation slot.
    7th Rule: If this is your first time at BarCamp, you HAVE to present.

    PodCamp Boston 1 changed a lot of these rules, as Chris Brogan and I found at least at BarCamp Boston that they either weren’t adhered to or they made people unnecessarily uncomfortable, particularly rules 5 and 7.

    The rules of PodCamp evolved to:

    1. All attendees must be treated equally.
    2. All content must be released under Creative Commons.
    3. All attendees must be allowed to participate.
    4. All sessions and events must be free of charge to attend.
    5. All sessions must obey the Law of 2 Feet.
    6. The event must be new-media focused.
    7. The financials must be fully disclosed in an open ledger.

    At PodCamp Boston 2, rule 4 was revoked.

    1. All attendees must be treated equally.
    2. All content must be released under Creative Commons.
    3. All attendees must be allowed to participate.

    5. All sessions must obey the Law of 2 Feet.
    6. The event must be new-media focused.
    7. The financials must be fully disclosed in an open ledger.

    Our reasoning for the revocation of rule 4 is based on feedback from the session on PodCamp Retrospective and Prospective: Where Do We Go From Here, as well as the hallway session on the state of new media, plus healthy discussions with folks throughout the weekend.

    Some additional numbers and facts:

    1,357 people registered for PodCamp Boston 2 (sponsored by VON, thank you!)
    Approximately 650 attended, or 52.1% no show rate.

    212 people registered for the Saturday night party.
    Virtually all plus an additional 25 at the door actually attended (paying 20 cash), making for almost zero no-show rate, even with a9.99 expense coverage fee.

    To give you some additional perspective, 1,036 shirts were printed (paid for by Foneshow, thank you!), as well as 1,200 name badges, 1,500 lanyards, etc. The name badges are headed straight for a recycling center; the lanyards don’t take up much space and will be stuffed in my office at the Student Loan Network. The shirts are likely to head either to Father Bill’s Day Shelter or Pine Street Inn for dispersal to the homeless.

    Each of those things cost money and generated overage which has a financial and environmental impact.

    Some final, more personal numbers. PodCamp Boston organization really ramped up in June of this year for me. For 3 – 5 hours per night (more on the weekends, and more as the event got closer), PodCamp Boston -was- my life. Just about everything outside of work and family took a major hit in order to gather the resources, people, and materials to make it happen. 147 days, or about 90 work-days’ time (assuming 8 hour days) to make it happen, and that’s just my time, not counting the other organizers who busted their asses to make it happen.

    Why was rule 4 revoked, and what does it mean?

    Rule 4 was revoked to give PodCamp organizers more freedom, more choice, and more options for how they want their events to be run, and how they want to deal with the very real and tangible costs of operating an event.

    Rule 4 also gives organizers a way to encourage commitment to the events that they work relentlessly to create.

    Before the firestorm really gets going, here’s what rule 4’s elimination does NOT mean:

    – PodCamp organizers are not required to charge money. They are given the option to do so.
    – PodCamp organizers do not have to sell tickets. A variety of commitment mechanisms have been discussed, such as a refundable deposit paid back to attendees after the event begins.
    – PodCamp organizers do not have to have a set price. Something as simple as “pay what you think it’s worth, as long as it’s greater than 1 cent” might be effective.
    – PodCamp does not need to become a formal conference, such as the excellent VON and Video on the Net conferences.

    Rule 4’s revocation may significantly reduce the number of people who no-show for a PodCamp should organizers choose to charge money, and that’s not a bad thing at all. I’d rather sit in a small room with 100 committed, smart people and jam together than be in a convention center the size of an aircraft carrier with 1,200 people, half of whom are there because there’s nothing more exciting to do on that weekend in town.

    Rule 4’s revocation is no more written in stone than the original was, either. If there’s a case where organizers of a PodCamp behave badly, Chris Brogan and I reserve the right to reinstate it.

    Laura Fitton said it best in a discussion thread on CC Chapman‘s blog:

    The event isn’t, and from what little I understand, never was FREE. In a way, no event ever is. It is subsidized by sponsors and by volunteer hours. You attend for free, because somebody else paid your way. Simple as that.

    A final thought. BarCamp, the event by which many compare PodCamp, has in its rules many things, but no requirement that organizers make it free.

    The problem posed to the community is this:

    How do you reduce the number of no-shows (52.1% attendees, 10% presenters) to under, let’s say, 10%? Solutions and discussions welcome.

  • Initial Thoughts After PodCamp Boston 2

    Initial Thoughts After PodCamp Boston 2

    PodCamp Boston 2 is over, and I find myself more optimistic, more energized about the potential of new media than ever before, despite being physically exhausted. I’m proud of what our organizer team pulled together, and deeply grateful to all the volunteers who stepped up and helped out with registration, filled empty sessions, and made the experience a seamless one for the many new PodCampers.

    I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention our sponsors, headlined by the exceptionally generous Jeff Pulver and pulvermedia teams whose efforts made PodCamp Boston 2 an amazing and well run experience.

    New media really is at the beginning of the roller coaster, despite all the progress that has been made in the last couple of years. It’s like 1994 on the Web still, and that means great opportunities, as well as a few stumbles along the way.

    Ironically, I was so busy running around doing stuff that for a new media conference, I have relatively little media I created. Like a wedding, I’ll have to relive this through other people’s media.

    Thanks to all.

  • Exile

    In a few private conversations today, some folks have wondered – what’s the most painful thing you can do to someone in new media? There is the example of the modern day pirates off the coast of Sumatra, who will tie your children to a boat anchor and slowly submerge them, then cut off your fingers joint by joint, but electronically, there’s not much that has an impact except a very, very old punishment – exile. In any kind of community in the old days, exile was tantamount to a death sentence, since it meant you had to forage and survive on your own.

    Suppose you were to exile someone from the new media community? What would that look like?

    • Immediate deletion from your address book
    • Immediate deletion from every form of contact you have with them – defriend them on Facebook, stop following on Twitter, remove Google Alerts about them
    • Add their email addresses to your spam blacklist, sift through your WordPress/Typepad comments and flag all their comments as spam
    • Remove or rewrite any links you’ve given them on your blogs to someone else or digital oblivion
    • Fire off a note to anyone you’ve connected them with on LinkedIn or similar reputation/trust services, telling the connection that the person has been exiled from your community and you can no longer vouch for them or consider them trustworthy
    • Delete their name and any relevant content from your blogs, sites, and social networks, unsubscribe from their materials and presentations
    • Block them on your instant messenger services by using the block or abuse feature
    • Most important of all, team up with the rest of your personal network and ask others to exile the person as well

    Exile from the digital community might or might not have an impact on the person’s life, but some measures (flagging things they do as spam, for example) might have tangible effects. Obviously, digital exile would be reserved only for the most serious violations of community standards, just as it was in pre-modern times. You’re essentially declaring the subject a non-person.

    Food for thought.

  • Please stop calling Bum Rush the Charts mine

    I’m thrilled to see so many people running with flash mob ideas, like Joseph Jaffe and his new book, Join the Conversation; Joseph’s campaign was called Bum Rush the Amazon Charts, inspired by Scott Sigler and the original Bum Rush the Charts. That said, I want to reiterate something – the inspiration behind, the creator of Bum Rush the Charts is not me. Never was, never will be. That honor, and the ideas that went along with it, belong to Mark Yoshimoto Nemcoff and Michael Yusi, when they announced it on February 16, 2007.

    These two gentlemen did a fine job of creating and launching the idea, and bringing in lots of people to participate in it, making it one of the biggest flash mob events in podcasting. I was glad to help and be a part of that team, but please understand that it was not my creation, and any credit, praise, etc. belongs to them, not me.

  • The Horseradish of Julien Smith

    “To a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish.”
    – Yiddish idiom

    Julien Smith writes about the implied violence in rap music and real violence:

    when this implied (though explicit) violence turns to real violence, we all of a sudden switch from being really impressed to being horrified.

    Why?

    This is an important question, because there’s a serious disconnect between media and reality – in both mainstream media and new media. The disconnect is even more powerful in new media because of its intimate nature.

    Why are people impressed with media violence? Media violence feeds on human flaws, human weaknesses. Male egos – and I fully and wholly admit to being an American guy with an American guy ego – have been trained since birth to believe that manliness and masculinity requires physical domination of someone else. That may even be hardwired into us, as evidenced by ten thousand years of nearly constant war. We believe that to be a man has violent implications, and the media, in its perfectly rational quest to sell more stuff (ads, merchandise, etc.) serves up things that reinforce our existing views.

    Think about it for a second. Why do newspapers serve up bad news? Why are so many forms of media infused with sex and violence? Because they sell. They sell, sell, sell, and if you’re the recipient of the money machine, you want it to keep cranking out money for you, even at the expense of the society you live in.

    Here’s the catch. Violence begets violence. Yes, it’s trite, it’s cliche, but it’s also very true. If you surround yourself with violent images and sounds, if you immerse yourself in violence ideas, words, and actions, you will act violently. You program your mind every time you pop the earbuds in, every time you turn on the TV or fire up the browser or boot up iTunes. When you need to solve a problem, your mind draws upon its knowledge like a carpenter opening up a toolbox. If the majority of your mind’s resources are based in violence, it should be no surprise to anyone that you resort to violent solutions to problems. As the expression goes, the world is horseradish to you.

    It’s amusing, in a dark sort of way, that our culture will spend billions of dollars and countless, obsessive hours on what we put in our mouths, but we give no thought to what we put in our minds.

    New media is doubly important in this respect. When you produce a podcast, a blog, or another form of consumable media, you have an intimate relationship with your audience. The earbuds and the iPod-sized screen require focus. I know lots of people who leave the TV on in the background but comparatively few who turn YouTube on in the background. New media asks and receives focus from the people who enjoy it – and because they’re focused on it, their minds are automatically more receptive to what they’re listening to, reading, or watching than traditional media. This means that new media producers have that much more influence over their audiences and that much more influence in the audience’s lives.

    If you produce new media, think carefully about what you produce. When you turn on the mic or uncap the lens, how are you going to change lives?

  • Did you know?

    One of my favorite videos, redone by XPLANE, originally by Karl Fisch of Arapahoe High School. Watch it. Think about it. The implications are enormous and potentially devastating or liberating.

    [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U[/youtube]

  • A quick rant about PodCamp co-organizers

    A quick rant about PodCamp co-organizers

    Just a quickie, two things I want to get off of my plate.

    1. Just because it doesn’t come from Chris Penn or Chris Brogan doesn’t mean you should ignore it.

    Chris Brogan and I founded PodCamp, true. However, our co-organizers are every bit as important, if not MORE important, than we are, because an event like PodCamp Boston is a HUGE team effort. If you get messages from other organizers like Steve Garfield, someone, Whitney Hoffman, etc., please give them as much attention and importance as a message from Mr. Brogan or me.

    Our co-organizers are legitimately our equals, not our lieutenants.

    2. If one organizer says no, do not ask others to say yes.

    We’re a team. Yes, we can be uncoordinated at times, and yes, we can occasionally get mixed up, but by and large, if an organizer has stepped up and taken responsibility for a part of PodCamp, they own that piece. If someone is unhappy with a PR piece, you need to talk to Doug Haslam. Chris Brogan and I will NOT override the authority and responsibility that our co-organizers have willingly taken on. If someone is unhappy with the music arrangements, someone is the final word on that. If someone doesn’t like that registration is a certain way, that’s Susan Kaup’s authority to change or not.

    I wholly and fully endorse our co-organizers, and gratefully acknowledge that despite day jobs, families, and to-do lists that are legendary, they can still find the time to make PodCamp Boston 2 a great event. Please do not ask Chris Brogan or me to treat them with disrespect or dishonor their commitment to the new media community by overriding decisions in areas of responsibility they have willingly shouldered.

    Thanks.

Pin It on Pinterest