The Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) latest guidance (this link downloads a PDF of the guidance, by the way) on the application of social web tools by regulated businesses was issued a couple of weeks ago. Yesterday, I was given the chance to offer my view as part of BrightTalk’s Thought Leadership Live programme.

In The unsociable FSA’s Dr Pepper moment webcast, I explain why I think the FSA’s stance is counter-inuitive to its statutory objectives and principles, why the application of social tools can increase confidence in the market and improve consumer protection, and suggest three principles by which regulated businesses might consider adopting in their approach to the use of social media.

The FSA guidance suggests ’applying the rules to financial promotions made using new media is no different to financial promotions made using any other medium’. If that were the case, then the FSA wouldn’t feel compelled to issue guidance.

There’s a misunderstanding about the way this medium works. There is a big distinction between use of the social web to generate promotions for your business and using social web tools as a means of engaging with existing or new clients.

The concern is that the FSA’s implication that a tweet or Facebook status message may constitute a financial promotion will simply galvanise anxiety in the advice community, in particular, to use tools like Facebook as a means of maintaining contact with clients.

With 40% of the UK’s adult population likely to have a Facebook account, it is this medium – rather than more traditional media – that has huge potential to help consumers engage in their financial wellbeing.

The idea that tweets and status messages could require disclosure of risk information is misguided. The FSA is seeking to apply regulatory principles, designed with one communications model in mind, to an entirely different model.

Traditional media exists for companies to push promotions, while users – including regulated businesses – are adopting social tools in order to participate and share; there is a subtle but significant distinction.

Earlier this year, MRM wrote to AIFA suggesting the need for a debate about the application if social web tools for advisers. In an e-mail to Director General, Chris Cummings, we suggested that the FSA could deter access to a potentially significant and low-cost means of client communication.

This latest ‘guidance’ is a worrying development.

I was really pleased to be invited to present my slide-deck called ‘How to build a brand these days’ as a live webcast yesterday as part of BrightTalk’s Thought Leadership Live programme.

The presentation – which is roughly half presentation and half question and answer session – lasted approximately 45 minutes and is now available to view on demand.

Unless you already have, you’ll need to register with Thought Leadership Live or BrightTalk to view the full presentation.

To view it, just click here.

Right now, Nestle’s brand reputation among Facebook users is at dire risk of self-imploding.

You can take a look at Nestle’s Facebook Page itself to see the tone of the exchanges, but Nestle’s stance illustrates an issue that brand marketers more generally need to understand: In an age of the social web, who on earth suggested that your brand was your brand anymore?

When AOL rebranded last year, Wolff Olins‘s work on the AOL logo was getting a no-nonsense pasting at the Guardian’s PDA Digital Content blog on the comments board beneath a post detailing designer reaction to the new look.

The mindset displayed then by most commentators on AOL’s logo is precisely the mindset that Nestle are displaying at its Facebook page.

So I waded in with my view. And it is my advice today to brand marketers who are under the illusion that they have any control over their brand or its identity any more. Here’s what I posted:

“If I understand AOL’s CEO correctly, this isn’t a brand visual identity that’s designed for the linear world of the mass media model that we’ve all grown up with, it’s designed to underline the provenance of content distributed by this brand in a messy, fragmented, user-centred world.

Very soon branded content will compete with branded content to build equity from consumer pass-alongs; we’ll no longer be operating in a polite brand sits alongside brand mass-media modelled world where adherence to visual identity guidelines is sacrosanct.

Wolff Olins clearly understand this. And they also understand that brand identity, particularly for digital businesses, is secondary to the creation of distinctive signature brand interaction design

This is where AOL appears to be focusing its attention – interaction and service – and, judging from the comments on this board, it seems they’re right to do so.

I think this piece of work has the potential to deliver a really adaptable hallmark brand. Its success will be determined by the quality of its application and in tandem with products and services that really work well for users. That is where its brand reputation will be built and not built on what it looks like.

The idea that brands – even today – have any control over their visual identity once it passes beyond the boundaries of their own business environment, is naive. So the loose association between the imagery and the text really works well to mitigate the risks of damage to the ‘Aol.’ brand name which, in reality, doesn’t even need a prescriptive typeface.

I think it has the potential to be a powerful adaptive brand but only if the ambition of the idea is matched by the ambition of Wolff Olins’s client.”

Wolff Olins’ approach resonates with my increasingly acute sense that – pretty much – everything we’ve understood about marketing communications’ conventions is now being rapidly and unceremoniously tipped on its head.

It’s what led me to create this presentation last week. And why we posted this at MRM’s website just about two weeks ago.

What’s motivating people like Tim Armstrong is behaviour elsewhere in his marketplace like this.

Here’s some work that’s just been completed for Cofunds. It’s an animation that independent financial advisers (IFAs) and financial planners can share with clients to explain how its technology has transformed the way in which people can save for post-work life.

To bring the idea to life we worked collaboratively with design consultancy, Bond and Coyne, who took the narrative and translated it into this infomatic-style animation.

We hope you like it.

I reckon my old school friends are just like the average IFA’s client bank.

There are a lot of them, I only manage to stay in regular touch with a few and – until recently – the time and effort required to stay in touch with the rest was just too great to practically contemplate.

However, over the past two years, I have effortlessly rekindled connections with almost 230 former friends and colleagues, simply by signing up to Facebook and LinkedIn.

Now, I promise I’m not going to waste your time banging on about how Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube are the best things since sliced bread.

But I will suggest three reasons why IFAs should not overlook Facebook fan pages as one of the most practical means of staying connected
with potentially a substantial chunk of your client-base, which is – for now at least – free of charge.

1. Facebook vs The Press

Your clients are more likely to use Facebook each week than read the Sunday money sections.

Let’s suppose you have 100 clients. Based on published circulation figures, 21 of them may read the Sunday newspaper money sections each week, but 39 of them will visit their Facebook account at least once a week.

That’s according to data gathered for the Government’s 2009 Digital Britain report, which said that 40 per cent1 of the UK population have Facebook accounts. Other studies support the figures claiming that 39 per cent of 16-65 year olds in the UK maintain a social web account.

Either way, at least 19 million consumers in Britain have an account with Facebook.

2. Fan pages = free connections

The real power of Facebook is the way it allows you to establish and maintain connections with clients who already have a Facebook account. So it offers a cost-free, effort-free way for both you and your clients to connect and stay connected.

But why would clients connect?

Because you have something in common with each other – your client’s financial plan.

What’s more, you have experience, expertise and information that is both useful and interesting for your clients. If you publish content on your Facebook fan page – like presentations or PDFs – you are able to continually demonstrate it.

Of course, maintaining connections also means that you won’t lose contact with clients; you won’t lose their postal or email addresses, nor will your clients forget your web address and contact information.

3. Traffic for your content

Your website content stands more chance of being read, viewed or listened to through a Facebook fan page. Unless it is designed to deliver client services – or is at least as interesting as Facebook – it’s unlikely you can rely on regular traffic to your site. But Facebook has the ability to generate traffic to your content 24 hours a day.

So, instead of regarding your website as an online destination for information about your business, think of it as a means of distributing that content elsewhere on the web. By connecting your website or blog’s content to a Facebook fan page, for instance, you can share business news and views in at least two places at once, as well as link to content like presentations, video and audio that is published elsewhere on the web.

First published in Cofunds’ Perspectives magazine (March 2010)

To join the conversation, search ‘IFAs and the social web’ fan page at Facebook or follow Ian on www.twitter.com/mrianthomas

According to the New York Daily News, Google made the decision following a ‘torrent of slams’ from Twitter users while Mashable published its own post citing the NY Daily News’ story – ‘Google Pulls Olympic Luge Logo After Backlash’. So far, Mashable’s post has been retweeted almost 1,000 times.

To a less sensationalist extent, ZDNet was also in on the act.

The problem is, I am not convinced that the story is true.

By coincidence, I’d planned to write a post about the fine editorial line between what public taste considers ‘OK’ and ‘Not so OK’ based on the alleged ‘backlash’ against Google’s choice of homepage image.

So I was scouring web tools like Social Mention, Topsy, Tweetmeme, Bing and Google to trace the timeline of the story.

Having tried to discover all the tweets I can – and I admit that I’m not necessarily using all-singing-all-dancing analytics applications here – there is precious little evidence of an alleged ‘backlash’ against the Google homepage at all; certainly not enough to claim Google had cracked under pressure.

Yes there were plenty of exclamations of surprise at the choice of illustration, but retweets of Mashable’s story outstrips these relatively neutral mentions by at least 10 to 1.

So I am not convinced that Google did make a decision to withdraw the image as the NY Daily News – and subsequently Mashable – claim in their headlines.

I am all the more uncertain because of the final paragraph in the New York Daily News article which reads:

“Google did not respond to an e-mail about the logo on Saturday, when the search engine turned up 121,000 matches for the late luger’s name.”

Put that statement at the top of the story and the story should fall flat on its face.

So this appears to be a claim by the New York Daily News citing a handful of tweets and with no statement from Google to either confirm or deny that they made a decision to withdraw the homepage image. The claim has been repeated by Mashable and – subesequently – by close to 1,000 people on Twitter.

Why am I so bothered about it?

Just imagine if it was an individual’s reputation – your reputation – that was subject to the same experience rather than a huge brand like Google.

Maybe Google did make a decision. But where is evidence?

I’ve no idea about the reputation of the New York Daily News, but Mashable – which is generally good at labelling rumours rumours – is an important source of news for the social web community. It is important that editorial brands like these safeguard their own reputations by respecting the reputation of others – no matter how newsworthy.

Both should forfeit the clicks by sticking to the principle that comment is free, but facts are sacred.

This post was published earlier today at my personal blog – New Traditionalist – and at US-based arts, media and culture site Lounge Nouvelle.

On Saturday, we published our very own Facebook Page so, if you’re signed up to Facebook, you can now ‘become a Fan’ of MRM. (And, naturally, we’d be delighted if you did.)

Now – once upon a time – publishing a Facebook Page might have seemed more like vanity than business publishing. But with approximately 40 per cent of UK adults possessing a social web profile (so it’s fair to assume most of them will be on Facebook), these days it’s potentially one of the most effective ways of enabling people to stay in touch with what your business is doing.

In other words, why should you have to visit this website to stay in touch with what we’re doing when you can simply browse through content that you’ve opted into at your own convenience via Facebook?

Our Facebook Page will stream most of the content that you can view here at our website. But because Fans will have the ability to share links and content they like, it follows that there will be plenty more stuff to enjoy as more and more people ‘become a Fan’. (At least that’s what we hope.)

So take a moment to visit our Facebook Page. We’d love it if you joined in.

Today we have decided to publish it on MRM’s site because the debate has already moved on in the echo of Google’s decision.

In fact, having tuned into the debate involving Tom Watson MP on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, there are really significant consequences for businesses – particularly service-based businesses that:

1. Misunderstand the likely effects of socialised media on the nature of their relationships with customers and other stakeholders; and
2. Claim to operate a ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) programme

Look out for a post by my colleague at MRM – Jenny Crossland – on the end of ‘CSR’ soon. In the meantime, here’s the brand perspective on Google’s decision that I posted last week:

The political effect – as well as the effect upon brands – of socialised media has been a source of constant fascination for me over the course of the past 18 months. I’ve pasted below an excerpt from a post I published last July that alluded to the topic.

The post’s content is relevant because, today, Google has delivered an absolute blinder of a case study, the consequences of which may be pored over by generations to come.

By declaring that it will no longer censor search results Google (a ‘virtual’ state) and China (a ‘nation’ state) are at loggerheads over territorial encroachment.

If you read Google’s statement, just note its tone.

This isn’t a brand speaking; it’s a supra-national organisation that is leveraging its power to make a diplomatic point by rapping the civil liberty and political conduct knuckles of a global military and economic superpower.

Despite the fact that Google is dwarfed by the perceived scale and power of the Chinese state, that doesn’t prevent it from trying out its developing diplomatic muscles, and nor does it lessen its chances of bringing its diplomatic influence to bear. (After all, the United Kingdom has been disproportionately influential in global diplomacy for generations despite it being a small island without an empire as pervasive as Google’s.)

That’s the point I made in my original post excerpt; and that’s the the significance of Google’s move today. ‘States’ are ‘imagined communities’ with populations. In China’s case, it’s inhabitants of a physical area; in Google’s its users – and not ‘consumers’ – in an imagined space. What’s more, Google’s population of users is likely to be considerably higher than China’s.

Naturally, Google will benefit from the backing of world governments over its stance, but it won’t be represented by them.

That is because Google’s currency is realisable knowledge which transcends national boundaries in a way that physical branded products simply cannot. So, while Google may have been founded in the United States, its cultural roots and population is worldwide. If Coca Cola made a similar stand, it just wouldn’t muster a fraction of the global gasp that Google’s announcement has caused.

Here’s what I wrote back in July:

What’s really going on: The new socialism

What’s really happening, though, is fascinating and takes me back to one of the few books I read at university which struck me as interesting.

It was called ‘Imagined Communities’ by a guy called Benedict Anderson. It was about political nationalism, but his thesis still stands today – in fact, it’s probably more pertinent – because he suggested that the media (print) had been the primary dynamic enabling the concept of ‘nations’ to thrive. It follows that, if the media becomes fragmented but easily accessible to most people, then there’s a corresponding fragmentation and proliferation of ‘imagined communities’.

It’s why nations like China are paranoid about the power of Google to spread ideas that have the potential to create dissonance between compli ance to the state and pursuit of personal ambition – Uighurs/Han Chinese unrest may be an early indication of this.

It’s also why sects do weird things – because their imagined community transcends the consensual imagined community of most of the people around them.

Your imagined community shifts and changes throughout the day, depending on context. So you might be part of a work-based community right now, or a member of a profession this afternoon, a commuter at the end of the day, an actor in amateur theatre tonight, a father, a sister or brother or friend. If you’re in the UK, its unlikely that you’ll be English or British, unless events take a remark able turn, but you may well be a towny, villager or seasider.

So what’s happening has been described by Kevin Kelly at Wired as a ‘new socialism’; technology is enabling people to realise the potential of social connections, of whichever hue, for all sorts of different reasons and outcomes.

So we’re living through an ism, but it’s not ideological; it’s sociological.

And I think it’s brilliant because the desire to apply rational segmentation models to deeply unpredictable human beings is being challenged by the diversity and accessibility of media.

Here’s the original post (you”ll need to scroll down to see where the excerpt featured)

The issue I was asked to address was ‘How to build an IFA brand’. These visuals are my way of addressing the issue.

Given the changing nature of the communications landscape – which we’ve already covered in our recent post here – it struck me that businesses of any size are now in a much stronger position to build sustainable brands. The visuals suggests what to concentrate on to build a brand – any brand – in such a dynamic consumer environment.