For a while, it felt like social media was under the radar for many companies. Something they gave to interns or outsourced to agencies. The better companies experimented with being more transparent than ever before, overlooking the typical safety nets around corporate communication.

Lately though I've sensed a backlash brewing about potential liabilities around corporate social media. For a start, there are the the big regulatory SEC issues, like those in this WSJ article.

The article talks about eBay hiring a "social-media veteran to be an 'internal reporter' to increase transparency and put a face on the company." Ultimately, the experiment proved too transparent and they had to muzzle the social-media veteran so they didn't violate SEC disclosure rules. 

"There's much more of a microscope on what I'm doing now," he said.

I sense that this microscope is broader than just SEC concerns and will start to guide many companies to be more risk-adverse with social media. In a meeting recently, I heard someone say that the "summer of free social media love" was going to come to an end.

It will be interesting to watch. I actually think this microscope creates an incredible opportunity for companies still willing to put themselves out there. For companies with something interesting to share and the courage to say it, social media can amplify their voice far louder than their size. The microscope will keep others mute.

Compare the voice of @howiescardigan, Cardigan Bay's third largest clothing company, with the silence of @LeviStraussCo, to see how David can leverage social media against Goliath.

In 2003, Levi Strauss (revenue £2.8bn) threatened to sue Howies (revenue £300K) because they claimed Howies jeans infringed a patent. Howies leveraged its transparency and openness against the legal risk aversion of Levi Strauss to win the contest in an hysterical battle they called "Operation Tickle".

"We introduced a colour-blind test for people buying our jeans. Just to make sure they could tell the difference between grey (ours) and theirs (red). We also introduced a spelling test, too. We asked our customers to spell corporation, oppression, Machiavellian etc. Of course they had to spell Levis and howies as well. If people failed the spell test, we refused to sell them the jeans"

The growing social media microscope will help distinguish companies that are willing to openly interact with their customers with real honesty. This is David's new slingshot.

I stumbled across a great maxim recently: "a camel is a horse designed by committee."

It reminded me of this great spoof video from 2006 that imagines the packaging that would have resulted if Microsoft had launched the iPod instead of Apple.

What is most remarkable about this video is that Microsoft eventually confessed that Microsoft's own packaging department created it:

"It was an internal-only video clip commissioned by our packaging [team] to humorously highlight the challenges we have faced RE: packaging and to educate marketers here about the pitfalls of packaging/branding."

The video picked up such viral momentum, I doubt there's a packaging team in the world that didn't share it with their marketing team at some point as a cautionary tale.

Design is one of the most powerful tools that a brand has at its disposal, yet it is so often squandered. Many companies have effectively neutered their internal design teams and agencies by relegating them to minor supporting roles.

Great design can make the difference between remarkable products and commodity soup, but many design teams are only used for cosmetic window-dressing.

I like this method quote: "most companies draw distinction between strategy and creativity. We intentionally blur the lines."

In the same Fast Company article I discovered the maxim about the camel, Brett Lovelady offered "Seven Truths in Designing". Here's my favorite:

"Design is not a democracy. Democracies are fine, mainly for collecting diverse input. But they can kill design. Often too many opinions water down the clarity of the design intent. I've had many clients where there are way too many brilliant people involved in programs. They find it their duty to provide all the alternative solutions or insights to every program--always broadening the thinking--instead of focusing on decision-making. If not for the benevolent dictatorship of the program director in these programs, they would never reach the goal. Design requires focused leadership, not democratic consensus."

It's only fitting that I found inspiration for this social media cartoon from something I read on Twitter.  @KathySierra writes, "Please, businesses, don't DO 'social media'. Do 'user happiness', which may, or may not require use of social media tools."

It's interesting to watch the varying ways that business embraces social media.  For brands with the right mindset and something useful to say, social media can empower their most evangelical consumers.  See the frequent, personal, and transparent approach that innocent follows on facebook (including how they handle criticism on the recent investment by Coke).

As web 2.0 pundit/cartoonist Hugh Macleod says, social media is "a good way to make things happen indirectly, a point lost on many corporate types."

Too often, brand managers treat social media like direct marketing, with the goal of interrupting a demographic rather than contributing to a meaningful conversation.

See the Habitat faux-pas when they exploited Twitter hashtags to insert irrelevant marketing messages into conversations on the election in Iran.  That doesn't just show bad taste.  It shows a traditional marketing mindset at play in a social media world.

The pointer from Kathy Sierra on "user happiness" is exactly right.  In contemplating social media, the first question to ask is whether yours is a brand worth sharing.  If yes, then social media tools can enable that sharing.  If not, it's time to redirect your energy back to question number one.

This topic reminds me of this other cartoon I drew on buzz marketing a few years ago (which, I just saw from the footer, was the first cartoon I drew after our youngest was born).  Takes me back.

I gave a talk last week on challenger brand thinking, so I've had David and Goliath on my mind. I talked about the importance of changing the game when you're the little guy so that you're not playing by the rules of Goliath. Changing the game can level the playing field.

Last month, I read a fascinating article from Malcolm Gladwell on "How David Beats Goliath". Malcolm researched classic David versus Goliath match-ups in history and confirmed statistically that David triumphs over Goliath much more frequently when they change the game.

"In the Biblical story of David and Goliath, David initially put on a coat of mail and a brass helmet and girded himself with a sword: he prepared to wage a conventional battle of swords against Goliath. But then he stopped. “I cannot walk in these, for I am unused to it,” he said, and picked up those five smooth stones. When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath’s rules, they win, 'even when everything we think we know about power says they shouldn’t.'"

It reminded me of something that Eric always says at method: "you can't out-Clorox Clorox." This is essential in remaining a challenger brand. Method can't start to follow the same playbook as big brands or it loses exactly what put method on the map in the first place.

In "Eating the Big Fish", Adam Morgan calls this challenger brand archetype the "Scrappy David". But, as Scrappy David starts to grow up, there is pressure to start playing more conventional rules. Scrappy behavior can be inefficient and messy after all. It is certainly important to become more professional. But it is also important not to confuse growing up with imitating Goliath. It is important not to give up the slingshot and pick up the sword, even as you become more professional in your attack. From Malcolm's article:

"When an underdog fought like David, he usually won. But most of the time underdogs didn’t fight like David. Of the two hundred and two lopsided conflicts in Arreguín-Toft’s database, the underdog chose to go toe to toe with Goliath the conventional way a hundred and fifty-two times—and lost a hundred and nineteen times ... when the world has to play on Goliath’s terms, Goliath wins."

I think this "Goliath Envy" creates a real tension for small challenger brands that are maturing. Adam Morgan argues that challenger brands frequently evolve from the Scrappy David to eleven other challenger brand archetypes: The People's Champion (Virgin Atlantic), the Real and Human Challenger (Ben & Jerry's), the Missionary (JetBlue), etc. Adam actually puts method in The Visionary camp (not the Scrappy David), because it "sets out higher vision that transcends category nature."

These challenger brand archetypes offer guideposts on how to evolve your brand over time. But the key, I think, is not to evolve into Goliath itself (even if you are Goliath). I actually think that any brand (large or small) has the capability to think of itself as a challenger brand and find ways to break the conventional rules of doing things (finding your inner David). There is opportunity for any brand to change the rules.

But, when you're an underdog, it's absolutely essential.

To help prove my point, I'm showing this photo from a typical British grocery store.  I call this "Where's Waldo" merchandising because it's so hard to shop (particularly for a master brand like method because the store puts window cleaners in one section and bathroom cleaners in another, etc.)  "Where's Waldo" (known as "Where's Wally" in the UK) is that classic children's book showing a crowd of people on every page with Waldo hidden in plain sight.

There are 8 different method products on these shelves, but you'd never know it without a magnifying glass and a lot of time on your hands.  Certainly more time than the 4-5 seconds an average consumer spends at shelf.  In contrast, Ocado (as an online retailer) has intelligent merchandising and opportunities to tell your brand stories.

Ocado is smaller than most traditional retail chains in the UK.  As a result, many brands overlook them as an opportunity to build their business and instead put their major focus on their bigger customers.  Even though a thousand other brands are doing exactly the same thing.  For all that effort, these brands wind up treading water alongside their competitors in a big bowl of commodity soup.

I would much rather invest in a smaller opportunity where our brand can make a genuine impact than a bigger one where we just get lost in the clutter. 

It got me thinking that marketers live in a "Where's Waldo" world.  Many of the "tried-and-true" marketing tactics no longer work because everyone is doing them.  Like Waldo, many brands are hidden in plain sight. 

Instead of camoflaging your brand in the comfort of the crowd, find those overlooked opportunities where there isn't as much of a crowd, and make a name for yourself there.

I've been a little reluctant to try twitter, because I worried I would lose all self control.  Like when my wife and I thought we would casually watch "24" and then found ourselves at 2 in the morning asking each other if we could watch just one more episode.

But then I realized twitter is kind of like my sketchpads.  I can just jot down cartoon ideas as I go.  And unlike my sketchpads, these rough ideas can be easily shared and added on by others.  I see it as a form of wikitooning.  So, I'm giving it a shot.  Hopefully you like it.  Follow me at tomfishburne if you'd like to peek in the sketchpads.  Bring your own pencil.

I found useful perspective from Tim Ferriss in his post on "How to Use Twitter without Twitter Owning You."  Top tip: "Don’t post unless you add more value than the attention you consume (both yours and others’)"

It's a constant tug-o-war between global consistency and local adaptation.  Recently, I had coffee with Patrick Cairns, CEO of Plum Baby, who spent a lot of time in global roles with Unilever.  He described the standard dichotomy as being either "mindlessly global" or "hopelessly local". 

Far too often, the global brand manager assumes one-size-fits-all and the local brand manager assumes his or her particular market necessitates the creation of something completely unique.

I developed a visual storytelling project with a large global company recently, and we talked a lot about this theme.  In the process, we characterized the "mindlessly global" mindset as testing in three random markets like "Laos, Lesotho, and Luxembourg" and assuming the results would give you confidence in the rest of the world (thanks, Simon and Alastair).  I liked the line so much, I used it again in this cartoon.

Years ago, I interviewed with Apple and got in an argument with a director about the importance of taking local market needs into account (they love argumentative stress interviews at Apple).  He said that local customization was a cop-out and a sign of failure.  He argued that a consumer insight should be universal if you distill it far enough.  If your consumer insight isn't universal, it's not a good enough consumer insight.  In other words, being "hopelessly local" is lazy.

When I arrived in the UK, I was interested to see virtually the same Apple ads, but with local British actors (the guys in the middle).  Out of curiosity, I found the Japanese version (the guys on the right).  Same consumer insight, same campaign, right down to the slouching posture of the Mac guy. 

After two years of sliding along the global/local continuum, I think the goal involves inverting the standard dichotomy: being "mindfully global" and "selectively local". The problem is that this is really hard to do.  It takes a lot of discipline and coordination on both sides of the table.  When the two sides have very different priorities, each views the other as a cumbersome burden. 

Like most things in business, it's about progress, not perfection.  Becoming a global brand that resonates locally should feel like an opportunity not a burden.  But it involves thinking global up front, so you don't have to act local quite so much.

This image popped to mind recently when I was thinking about the marketing ivory tower.  It's really easy for a marketer (particularly in a large company) to start wearing blinders and only see the immediate stimulus of the office around them.  There's such a steady diet of research reports, agency reviews, focus group results, and internal meetings that it's sometimes difficult to actually see the wider world.  You start breathing your own exhaust.

Some of the wider activities of the company (the factory, the sales team, the call center) can appear as specks in the distance.  Even further away appears the world outside the company, the retail shelves and actual consumers.

Mark Addicks, the CMO of General Mills, used to say the smartest member of the brand team is the one who has just joined.  Their eyes are still open, and they aren't filtering their own observations and insights through the deeply rooted company understanding of how the brand works.  They're willing to actually question the dogma of the brand.

Mark used to encourage everyone to write down all of their thinking and insights about a brand before they actually join a brand team.  Before they start drinking the Kool-Aid and parroting the same stock consumer archetype definitions and brand promise statements.  That notebook of virgin observations becomes a handy reminder to refer to later when you're fully embedded.

I also think it's useful to spend as much time in the field as you can.  But I don't mean the luxe Soho offices of the ad agency.  The real observations of the brand can be found by stocking shelves alongside a field sales rep, or talking to the store manager of a small Midwestern grocery chain, or spending a few hours answering calls in the call center, or putting on a hair net and hard hat and talking to a production line engineer as the 4am shift starts.  All of those activities can teach you a thing or two.  And all of them could become marketing tactics.

A few years ago, I interviewed someone for a supply chain role and asked what he would do personally to increase consumer advocacy.  Rather than shunt this question off as "not my job," he came up with an idea to print jokes on the sides of the brown corrugate cases that hold the products on the way to the store.  He thought that if your gave the stock room guys a rare chuckle, they would take particular care in stocking your product on the shelf.  This would lead to better merchandising in store.  And because you have to print on the cases anyway, it doesn't cost any more. 

The best brands are made up of a "1000 nice little touches" like these.  But you have to keep your eyes open to find them.

While I'm sure there's some efficiency to be found (particularly with agencies that work across many businesses within a large client), I think some of the heavy-handed tactics are short-sighted.

Unlike something like soybeans, agencies vary widely in ability, talent, and potential to help ignite your business.

If you treat your agency like a commodity, don't be surprised if you end up with commodity results.  All agencies have "A teams" and "B teams" (and even "C teams").  The "A teams" rarely go to accounts that shunt off the agency through centralized purchasing.

If you want your agency to deliver exceptional results, you have to treat your agencies exceptionally.  It is (and should be) a combined effort.  Clients are often quick to scapegoat the agency for mediocre work, but the first look should be in the mirror.

It reminds me of something I read by Adam Morgan a few years ago.  He was describing the phenomenon that one agency can produce provocative work for some clients while only producing safe and predictable work for others.  Sometimes the safe client complains that he never sees any provocative work.  Yet, when shown provocative work, that same client will water down the idea until it looks safe and predictable.

Adam compared this phenomenon to a kitchen, which inspired this other cartoon a few years ago.

In France, there's a lot of talk about the "American McDonaldization" of culture and I was curious to see what had changed in eight years. The last time I was here, we wondered if Starbucks would eventually take over and ruin the quintessential French café culture. While I only saw one or two Starbucks on this trip (and only in the touristy areas), what struck me was how many cafés have now resorted to advertising on every available surface. The French café has "Starbucked" itself; it didn't need Seattle.

This may not be new, but it surprised me to have an espresso in a quiet cafe overlooking an ancient market square, only to notice that my tabletop was composed of a loud consumer products ad for a sweetener now containing folic acid that can be found at your local supermarché.

As a marketer, I respected the connection between this coffee ritual and a sweetener brand, and that this would be a nice "aperture" to reach my target consumer. But, as a consumer (albeit a temporary one), I saw it as an unwelcome interruption. If the café had actually offered this sweetener in addition to the sugar, I might have appreciated the implied endorsement. But, it was just an ad like any other. It just happened to be on my table.

It all got me thinking about "urban spam", a term I discovered via Russell Davies (who had these cards designed to give out to urban spammers). In the land grab to advertise on every available space, it's a slippery slope to the the world feeling like a Ryan Air cabin. And because most of these ads are largely generic, they just add to the clutter.

When an ad feels like an unwelcome interruption or even just ambient noise, is it really doing the brand any favors? I think the key, like everything else, is to be remarkable in execution.

The beauty brand, Yes to Carrots, recently launched in Paris, and they executed a one-day stunt using media space that had never been used before. Paris has an automated system of bicycles that Parisians can rent by the hour to get around town. Each bike has a basket to use for groceries. The bikes are unbranded, but ubiquitous. A Yes to Carrots team turned up early one morning and filled every bicycle basket in Paris with free carrots and information on their launch in Sephora. It wasn't technically legal, so they rode bicycles over to the proper ministry afterwards to pay a fine (which was built into the cost of the promotion).

I found this stunt pretty remarkable. While it was a form of interruption, it feels like a welcome one. The free carrots were a gift (many Parisians use the bikes for grocery shopping anyway), and it was unexpected because it hadn't been done before.

Yet, it now becomes just one more media space frontier that has been crossed. Once Paris starts to officially sell bicycle media space, a bicycle basket ad alone will no longer be remarkable. Not intrinsically anyway. It will become as commonplace as advertising on a grocery cart basket. It will become even more "urban spam". The definition of what's remarkable is a moving bar. And if you can't be remarkable at it, I think you have to question whether it's really worth doing.