The time has come to embark on another search for two more starships to join our intergalactic fleet of rockets, interplanetary shuttles and lightspeed motherships. Ummmm. Yes.

We are looking for:

• A Junior Consultant – see Wired Sussex for the job ad and process
• A Senior Consultant (or even Board Director) – see Wired Sussex for the job ad and process

Please get in touch if you feel this might be you :)

Here’s some background reading on some of the differences about working at NixonMcInnes.

And please do forward to friends, associates and weak ties. Thank you.

Well done if you stopped.

If you are still reading do you ever wonder what makes it so difficult to stop? There seems to be something about the human being that makes us want to consume words – many of us seem to find it hard not to keep on pressing forward, seeking to find out what’s in the next sentence.

Perhaps this is what fuels our addiction to the (streaming) media?

It’s not just words of course. Moving images, and sound too. We watch. We listen. We consume.

In the light of some research on the use of the iPad in the home that our Insight practice is cooking up, I wondered whether we’re getting something wrong.

It took me years to give up watching TV. I still find it hard to pass a newspaper stand. And the constant chitter-chatter of the radio presenter still has an attraction even on a slow news day.

And what have I done? I’ve replaced those streams with others: Twitter, Facebook, email.

Of course, I celebrate the idea that we’ve at least loosened Big Media’s unique hold on our attention.

For a couple of years I worked in a company trying to change the way source information was delivered to consumers.

And, lo and behold, fifteen years later, a really popular app for the iPad is Flipboard – which allows the user to build their own newspaper out of their own Twitter and Facebook feeds – the totally personalised and customised newspaper dreamt of by media futurists for more than 30 years. And with content that may – or may not – be produced by a media professional; content direct from the source.

But what monster have we created? With the iPad, and the commodity-priced tablets that will follow, a way for anyone, including corporations of course, to reach directly into our homes. A way for anyone’s voice – even mine – to reach you.

And there’s the rub. What are we giving up by allowing our valuable time, our valuable headspace to be used up by the sound and fury of others voices?

Isn’t there value too in a bit of peace, a bit of quiet reflection. In staring into space. Listening to our own voices? Why the rush? What are we running away from? What are we scared of?

I know that in this new world we can create and produce too – I’m writing this post aren’t I?

But that is my problem; yours is that you are reading it.

So stop entertaining yourself to death. Why not go and sit quietly? Eat a peach? Ride a bike? And enjoy.

A bunch of links? Not the best name I know but in essence that’s what this is, a bunch of interesting links from across the web that I have perused this week. I’m planning on making this a weekly thing so if you see anything on the world wide webs that you think I might like then ping me on Twitter.

First up, http://what.time.zone.is.stev.ie/in/? just in case you need to know where abouts our developer Steve is. At the time of writing he is in Tennessee (as far as we know).

Next we have “how to make a golden Daft Punk helmet in 749 easy steps“, there’s more details over at the Volpin Props blog, check out his other projects too, some truly fantastic work!

I’m not entirely sure the next link is 100% true, it seems a little bit mad to me (and almost like some comedy sketch from the videos), but hey, its the internets right? Training mice to deal in ForEx trades.

The net seems to be all a buzz with posts on Gizmodo and a bunch of other blogs about a new physics engine by Lagoa Technologies, its pretty darn impressive! Makes me think about the Euphoria engine made by Natural Motion which is used in games like Grand Theft Auto, it blew my mind the first time I saw the demo.

A particualarly nerdy link next, The absolute bare minimum every programmer should know about regular expressions, title says it all really. A great guide to the basics of pattern matching.

A few weeks ago the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera blog posted up some great pictures of the Apollo 16 landing site. The post is a pretty interesting read… if you like that sort of thing!

The beginning of this week saw a flurry of social media madness from Gillian McKeith (the poo woman off Channel4) who was involved in a bit of a slinging match with Ben Goldacre of badscience.net, check out a (fairly biased) round up of the story over at Bad Science or a (slightly less biased) analysis by David Naylor.

Well, there we have it! :)

Earlier this week the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) launched a framework for Social Media Measurement.

The framework has been designed to help advertisers and agencies apply clarity, structure and standardization to social media measurement.

Broadly speaking the framework suggests that you should first establish Intent (I) . This element demands that a set of objectives be established, which can then determine the key performance indicators (KPIs) that are most relevant to success.

The IAB framework then suggests that the KPIs are grouped according to the 4 As (A)– awareness, appreciations, action and advocacy.

Your intent will provide guidance on the relative weightings you accord to each of these and hence which KPIs you should focus on.

For example, if your intent is to create leads, then you should assign more weight to the action metrics. If your activity is designed to generate buzz and WOM, then you might focus on the awareness, appreciation and advocacy metrics.

Finally, the framework suggests that you benchmark (B). In other words you compare your metrics with other SM activity, channels, industry averages, competitors, historical data, etc to provide context and meaning.

Here at NMHQ, I’m always interested to see an attempt to provide some rigor to SM measurement and I genuinely appreciate that this is not an easy task, so this critique is intended to provide honest feedback and I hope that by outlining my impressions on this framework I am in some small part contributing to furthering the discussion rather than stifling it!

With that said here are my thoughts on the IAB Framework:

• Firstly, the fit to the IAB mnemonic seems a bit contrived. I think the elements that they propose are sound but it does make you wonder if subtleties were sacrificed for to achieve a zingy aide-memoire.

• The idea of weighting your metrics according to your intents gives some focus to the measurement – this is important; the lists of stats you could pull is endless and linking them back to your objectives means that you reach the ones that really matter.That’s not really rocket science in itself, but the core of what most measurement frameworks provide is a rationale and mechanism for applying this (the wonderful Jenni Lloyd terms these buckets – and this is by far the best metaphor that I’ve heard for this).

  The four As framework is a reasonable attempt at this, but you might prefer the Altimeter approach, which has ‘buckets’ for; fostering dialogue, promoting advocacy, facilitating support and spurring innovation.

  Or you might prefer Avinash Kaushik’s system that ties metrics directly to the core business variables of; price, cost, unit margins and unit volumes.

  I’m not sure it really matters which you choose as long as you tie your activity and metrics as tightly as you can to your objectives (use a double knot if you must!) and assign those metrics to the relevant buckets so you can prioritise them and give them some context against your bottom line.

• The real meat in the IAB framework is the way in which they define and allocate common KPIs. To do this, they assign KPIs using a combination of the 4 As, the social media platform and by soft metrics and hard financials.What they provide in practice is a set of tables identifying common KPIs and fitting them to their framework that you can use as a starting point for your own framework. Here is an example of their microblogging KPIs:

Now that’s useful! They also do this for social networks, blogs, blogger outreach, apps/widgets, sharing, SM advertising and podcasts – that’s a pretty handy toolkit!

• My final thought (and this applies to all of the frameworks I’ve seen thus far) is that the focus seems to be on measuring owned spaces.I can guess why this is – ‘ambient buzz’ (or conversation about your brand that happens in spaces other than that which you own or control) is notoriously hard to measure and even harder to assign hard financials to – after all, what is the cash value of a positive customer review or an averted PR crisis?However, one of the key teachings in Social Media 101 is that your customers will be having conversations about you in social spaces whether you like it, or not, and whether you choose to listen and engage, or not.

  We encourage our clients to listen to these conversations, to start dialogue with customers and to learn from them. We also assume that social media activity in owned spaces will have a positive brand impact that will be echoed in non-owned spaces.

  Not convinced? Think about all the ‘ambient buzz’ around Old Spice Man if you were the agency responsible you’d sure as hell want to include all that goodness in your reporting!

  With this in mind, I’ve borrowed the IAB model to try and create a KPI set for non-owned spaces.

  It’s more focused on soft metrics than hard financials. This is pretty contentious but I think it’s justified. Bear with me on this one…

  Firstly, the IAB has made an attempt to capture financial metrics for the owned spaces. This makes sense – the metrics are harder and the spend usually warrants this level of reporting.

  For non-owned spaces it is a little different. Because this is ambient buzz, there is no associated spend to justify (outside of engagement time, which is the one KPI I have attempted to attach a financial metric to).

  Anyhow, here it is – this is not yet complete, and I’d love your input – but it’s a start!

Image credit: Misstinykitten

• We try to ever-develop an open culture, where for example people share their rewards – see illustration!
• We try to harness the innate potential of our people through democratic practices – see video!
• We try to do all of this in a way that translates into happiness benefits AND financial benefits – read blog post!

But – alas – it’s not all candy floss and kittens in our world.

The more we practice what we do, the more aware I become of the challenges in doing what we do.

Here’s a few we wrestle with:

1. Stress from openness and reality
2. Honesty & conflict
3. Non-participation
4. Dealing with other people’s perceptions
5. Managing messiness
6. UK employment law
7. Perceived slowness
8. De-programming new people
9. The need for personal change
10. Forgetting how different it is

1. Stress from openness and reality

I think we all feel we’d like to know what’s really going on at work. But actually, it’s pretty stressful sometimes. Reality bites, and there’s probably a reality biting in every workplace but in ours it’s a special kind of ‘this is really real’ reality – be that new business data, financial information, having to share in big crunchy decisions, having to bear the load of big responsibilities and solving tough problems. I guess people that have or do work in start ups can absolutely identify with this, and probably freelancers and independent consultants too. But often when you live in a bigger organisation, this kinda thing is hidden away.

So the emphasis on openness is actually pretty tough to live with. As one team member put it when he first joined, “it’s like having the honesty volume turned up”. Good, but not easy.

2. Honesty & conflict

Being in an honest environment leads to more conflict. Hopefully more positive, and open conflict (as opposed to concealed, disguised, poisonous conflict) but conflict all the same. In reality, we don’t have enough positive conflict at NixonMcInnes in my opinion, and we’re taking responsibility for that and trying to work on it. But it’s hard. (A good book on this is Crucial Confrontations).

But as British people, as nice people, sensitive people, I think most of us find conflict very very scary. Especially in a professional environment. It’s hard!

3. Non-participation

You think the issue matters or that the opportunity to contribute is wonderful – you open up the floor – and then nothing. No participation, no contribution, no care. One of the thing that new starters find hardest is that simply asking for input doesn’t always work. People here are busy, capable and empowered – so they behave more like volunteers. You need to enlist them, excite one another with the mission, call and engage. An email won’t get it. Sometimes our guest board seats go unfilled, much to our chagrin. Just because you say it’s participatory, doesn’t mean it is!

4. Dealing with other people’s perceptions

One I find very hard. When I describe our working practices, culture and values to people, they usually don’t get it. Maybe it’s how I communicate it? But senior agency people and clients look at me like I’m a bit mad, a bit goofy and actually totally insane. They say things like ‘well, if that works for you….’ and ‘do they know how much YOU earn’…. and ‘but isn’t just like management by committee’ and perhaps worst ‘wow…ummm…that sounds really nice’.

It’s especially different with other agency professionals: to them it just feels alien and a total lack of respect for authority. But it can also be an overhead for family and friends and normal people – it’s hard because it’s different. But it can make for a lonely experience.

5. Managing messiness

Difficult to explain without sounding like a new-age-business-writer-twerp, but it goes something like this: we believe in participation, we believe in being networked rather than command-and-control, and in empowerment rather than over-hierarchy.

The result of this combination is that when someone says ‘who do I need to talk to about this’ the answer can often be ‘try Lasy and see what Tom says, and then speak to Max’. When someone phones up and says ‘who is the person that manages XYZ functional responsibility?’ the answer may not always be simple.

So some of the good stuff does result in a kind of functioning and effective messiness, which we’ve learnt some people just can’t tolerate. Some people – good people – have been attracted to the promise of our culture, but in the end repelled by the lack of simple answers to sometimes simple questions :)

6. UK employment law

UK employment law is a tricky thing for any company. I understand what it is attempting to do, and protecting people is a very important thing to do. Our issue at NM is that we feel we often put people before the company finances (which of course has a long-term benefit of translating into positive financial results) but that the law is an absolute blocker, minefield and inflexible mallet of an instrument.

Put simply, democratic principles and UK employment law are definitely not peas in a happy pod. A challenge.

7. Perceived slowness

When you have to involve people, it can feel slow. The pressure is on, you just need to get something done, the thought of canvassing opinions and experiences and inviting feedback is basically a very unpleasant idea. It FEELS slow.

So maybe you short cut it.

You don’t involve the people, you save the time, make the decision and go go go. BLAM!! Then, bit by bit, people ask the same questions, want to know the whys and wherefores, or perhaps just waste time while they wonder what’s really going on and why.

Involving people can feel slow – lots of contributions, lots of feedback, lots of input. But we feel the results are actually faster – once committed, people commit more fully. HR professionals say that employee engagement is the magic key – engagement = results = profits = win. We believe participation is the magic key to engagement. It can feel slower in the early stages, but the benefits come next and keep coming.

8. De-programming new people

It seems to take about 6 months for people to really get how things work culturally in NixonMcInnes. For people to work out how they can behave, how they can dress, how they can participate and voice their feelings and ideas. You can actually ’see’ it happening, I feel. It’s like deprogramming from a different way. I’m probably underestimating how much this happens whichever new work environment people go into. But it feels big when I observe it, so I’m listing it as a challenge.

The way we deal with the challenge is simple, fortunately: just patience. It happens.

9. The need for personal change

Lots of these other challenges end up resulting in the need for some kind of personal change: changing to cope with extra doses of openness, with more responsibility than normal, with a messier, more networked working structure, with the need to be honest to others, even though you (we / I) really, really would rather swerve it or take the edge off of it or grit and smile through it.

Perhaps this is the hardest of all the challenges? Changing is damn hard. I can’t think of an NM team member who hasn’t really changed since they’ve been here. Being a rose-tinted fanboy, of course I see it as positive change, as evolving, but I really believe it.

And perhaps I can talk with most strength about me. Because I’ve changed massively, thanks to the way things are here. I’ve become more confident and a bit less brash, learnt new communication skills which I occasionally remember to apply, learnt how to change and cope with change, how to help other people do the same. It’s been good. But not easy.

10. Forgetting how different this is

Finally, another big challenge with all this different culture gubbins is starting to take it for granted, forgetting that it’s different and special and ours, and just assuming that’s how life is out there in the working world. And that I believe is a little bit dangerous and a lot of a shame. As a professional service organisation, we achieve our results for and through our clients. To do that, we have to be cognisant of their environment, their pressures and needs and meet them halfway. We do that. But we don’t always remember how different this thing here is.

Lots to do, lots to learn, and at least 10 nice challenges to keep us on our toes.

When clearing through some of my old books recently I stumbled across this little charity shop find I’d got a few years ago.  At the time I was just fascinated with old books, but stumbling across it now this book has a new resonance for me. Having worked with Channel 4 for the last couple of years and more recently the BBC, television and the development of technology are subjects that are at the forefront of my mind everyday.  The most fascinating section of this book is a double-page spread at the end, which gives us a vision of the future as it was at 1978:

Lets take a closer look and see how accurate we were back then…

1. Videos & DVDs… and today, Sky+

‘Videotapes and cassettes’ reared their tangly-ribboned heads as VHS and ‘Videodiscs’ revealed themselves as DVDs.  So this little prediction was pretty spot on.  But they hadn’t yet seen a future where we wouldn’t necessarily need physical media containers to hold and record onto, now we can simply record TV onto our Sky+ boxes and there’s no need for physical video libraries.

2. Video games and flatscreen TVs

A large flatscreen? Spot on. Although perhaps not quite so large in the average household. And ‘telegames’?  Again, pretty accurate, but without the whizzy futuristic name of telegames.

3. Pay-per-view and VoD

“Thousands of programmes are stored at a central video library. To select one, a viewer drops a coin in a slot and dials a code”

Nice. And pretty accurate, but without the physical coin slot.  Think pay-per-view on your digital TV service, micropayments for shows on itunes and even free VoD services we have now such as 4oD and iPlayer.  I particularly like this lady’s outfit too.

4. Multi-platform content

“…a viewer presses a button on the TV and it prints out a recipe for a dish which has just been shown on screen.”

The functionality here makes me think of cross platform content – we don’t need to print out recipes for Jamie Oliver’s programme, we can just go to 4food on the Channel 4 website for recipes that accompany the series.  Or even pressing the red dot on digital TV to get more content surrounding what you’re watching.

5. iPhone

Look at matey lugging around all that equipment to take to a carnival. Nowadays, he can do all of that with an iPhone. As for the girl leaving a message on a TV screen when everyone is out, not really sure where we’d see this nowadays. Perhaps at a footballers Cheshire mansion?

Beth tells me she has another book from this series somewhere at home, so expect a similar blogpost from her sometime soon…

This term was coined in the 1960s in the US and widely adopted in the UK in the 1970s to describe a situation where an entire organisation, rather than just one or two individuals within it, collectively fail a particular group of people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. In the UK the term was used to describe the police after a number of high-profile events such those at the Brixton riots, Broadwater Farm and so on.

The idea is that, at least to some extent, the inappropriate behaviours and attitudes of individuals are so widely adopted within the group that they become social norms – because they are so prevalent, no one questions them. Of if they do question them, their questions fall on deaf ears.

I guess it’s another example of group conformity in action.

Sometimes I wonder whether some organisations today suffer from institutional corruption.

We all know the extreme examples: Enron, BCCI, Satyam, and so on. Companies where, ultimately, criminal behavior crashed the companies to the ground.

But isn’t corruption sometimes more subtle, and more pervasive? A few days ago, and this is going to begin to sound like an episode from Money Box, my insurance company sent me a renewal notice for my household insurance. Something made me check – and I discovered that they had increased the premium by 30% compared to last year.

When I called them, as soon as they heard the problem was “price” they put me on to their “loyalty team”. When the salesman heard the price he quickly recomputed it (without apologising) and said it would be the same as last year.

Now my guess is that probably quite a few customers can’t be bothered to check last year’s premium and automatically renew. Personally, I think the company’s behaviour is verging on the criminal. Imagine if I was leaving a shop and the shopkeeper tried to overcharge me by 30%.

When I enter into a relationship with a company I expect to be dealt with honestly – I want to trust that company and have them reward my trust. Would that shopkeeper retain my trust?

Is it possible, then, that an entire company can be institutionally corrupt? Is it possible that the salesman thinks of his role as an upstanding member of the “loyalty” team – when actually he’s in the “covering up our corruption” team?

That his managers and others in the company think that this kind of behaviour is so normal that it’s “commercial best practice”. Is it possible that even the senior management, and the CEO, are so institutionally blind that they believe it right and proper to accept large compensation packages even while their employees are behaving in ways that verge on the criminal?

Could this institutional corruption extend beyond the company to the whole industry? To other companies? To its regulators? To the media? Sometimes there’s not a critical voice to be heard, anywhere – “this is just the way it is in this industry”.

When the UK police were accused of institutional racism I can still remember the confused, questioning voices from their representatives: “You can’t be talking about us? We’re not racist”. It took a long, long time for the idea to really sink in.

The irony, is of course, that as with the police force, or any other organisation, the public recognise this institutional racism, or corruption, or whatever it is. It feels wrong; but the fact that everyone else is telling you it’s right makes it harder to put a name to it.

Of course, businesses that are institutionally corrupt will lose loyalty in the long-run, especially in a social-web-enabled world. My insurance company has already lost mine.

But how do we get beyond this – to a better world?

• MeasurementCamp – what it is, what I learnt about managing an offline community
• Channel 4, the Chop or Not project and the ‘two screen experience’
• NM’s recent playing with an iPad
• Twitter friendships – are they real? how do they differ from ‘normal’ relationships?
• UK politics and the social web
• US politics, and the US / UK divide on boldness and willingness to innovate
• Organisational change in the context of the social web
• Which agency disciplines are ‘right’
• The Hollywood model of loosely joined networks

It’s not Clay Shirky at the RSA – put it that way – but do let me know if it throws up any questions or reactions :)

And thanks to Kelvin.

It’s this year’s Young Rewired State, a week-long event to give 15-18 year-olds the opportunity to put their skills into practice, supported by experienced professional developers and designers.

They’ll spend a week in the offices of a business, exploring how they can turn the mountain of information on Data.gov.uk into websites, applications, visualisations (digital or not), which they’ll present back via a live stream to people in Government.

At the moment we’re looking to get some local interest in taking part at NM HQ in central Brighton – so if you are, or know someone who is:

• between 15 and 18 years old
• can code or design to a reasonable standard
• is excited by the opportunity to work with others to create stuff…

…then sign up (or ask the person you know to sign up) on the Young Rewired State page

I’m also after Brighton-digital-type-people, to introduce our group to as wide an array of talent as possible and give our group some extra support, either with advice on coding or design layouts, or showing them something they’ve done that might give them some inspiration. If this sounds like you, give me a ring or drop me an email

I proffered NM as a centre because I think this is a brilliant opportunity, not just for young people to get some practical experience and exposure, but for the digital community to play an active part in nurturing talent and instilling a passion for web democracy in the next generation.

If you agree, help me out and spread the word.

In the meantime, here are some photos from last year’s event up at Google HQ.

I guess we all routinely blame our colleagues, our customers, our competitors. We routinely blame the economy, the government and even the weather.

I really don’t suppose the weather does it on purpose. I know, when I think about it for a moment, that the weather really hasn’t got it in for me.

So why would I blame it? Or the government, or the economy, or our customers, or our competitors? Why do I think, if something doesn’t work out the way I want it to, that it is my colleague’s fault? It’s always their fault. And rarely anything I did.

Two concepts really help me around blame.

The first is the concept of contribution. If I accept that in any situation, I contributed something to it, and so did others, I start to move away from an attitude of blaming towards something more useful.

Blaming is often associated, for me at least, with unhelpful emotions – like anger. By accepting my contribution to a situation, not only do I start to accept those emotions, but I also start to move to a position where I can regain some influence over the situation.

When I am in a position of blame it is all so much easier. I don’t have to do anything, or change anything, because clearly it’s someone else’s fault. Nothing to do with me.

Which leads to the second concept: influence. Steven Covey put it best many years ago when he described our circle of concern, and our circle of influence.

The first contains those things we hold a position of blame about: what the government does, what the economy does, what the weather does, and maybe even what our competitors, customers, and colleagues do. These are things that upset us, but we don’t really have any control or influence over.

The second circle – influence – contains the list of things we can control, that we do have influence over. Blaming my colleague for something they did puts their action in my circle of concern. Thinking about what I did that triggered (or contributed) to the situation puts their action in my circle of influence.

As soon as I put something into my circle of influence, or as Covey suggests, take action to grow my circle of influence, I take back the power I need to start to change my world. I assume a position of self-responsibility. I start to work out what I can do about it.

So, that’s blame. What about accountability? Does accepting that I contribute to and have an influence on everything, yes everything, that happens to me mean that accountability goes out the window? How do I hold colleagues to account if I don’t blame them?

I think of accountability as a process, not an event, not a characteristic.

First, it involves commitment. Often commitments are made so rashly and loosely, that you really wouldn’t want to be held accountable for them.

I say “I’ll fix such-and-such by Wednesday”, knowing full-well, if I think for a second, that I’ve got a hundred and one more important things to do before then. Knowing that, from experience, it’ll take much longer than I said.

Knowing, again from experience, that things rarely work out the way I plan them – nearly always something unexpected happens just at the very worst moment. It’s true for me – it’s true for you.

So the first stage in accountability is making a proper commitment – something that I am happy to be held account for. I can make this easier for myself by challenging myself before I commit; or someone else can help me get there by challenging my rash or loose commitments.

The second stage is challenging. This is where accountability so often goes wrong. Because we so easily step into blaming.

Cue “contribution” and “influence”. If we can avoid blame, then accountability is simply the process of observing accurately what happened. You said you’d do such and such, and then you didn’t. What happened?  Who did what? What didn’t we do? What else contributed? And crucially what can we learn?

This is hard because blame and the emotion that goes with it is just so damn attractive. It’s so much easier to blame. And the emotion feels so good.

So much easier to blame Sepp Blatter and FIFA for failing to introduce goal-line technology. Than work on our own game.