I feared that I was naive. I gave up a bit on social media being anything more than a cheap marketing tool. I didn’t think this way, years ago I wrote a piece about social media being more a movement than a market . The message in that piece is that social media has much more potential than pushing multi-level marketing efforts so your friends can get 50% off teeth whitening.

The potential that keeps me going is the idea of cultures learning more about each other. Not necessarily a means to push western views, but a way to better understand other humans. With this desire to learn about other members of our species, perhaps will result in a better society. Communication is a cornerstone of freedom.

Here’s a video I did a couple of years ago with Robert Scoble and Gina Bianchini. What do you think, is freedom social?

Time 21:37

I have said for a long time that social media is more a movement than a market.

So when I heard the authors of Millennial Makeover Michael Hais and Morley Winograd interviewed on the News Hour talking about how YouTube, et al social media was going to impact the future of American Politics, I had to reach out to them as guests on the Marketing Edge podcast.

The nature of social media and the timing of this technology fits perfectly with the Millennial generation. The millennial generation is comprised of individuals born in the 80s and early 90s. During their upbringing they were taught to share, play nice, not keep score, and that they were special by their parents, Barney and Mr. Rogers among others.

I also assert that there is a confluence of hardball politics, greater media segmentation spawning like-minded echo chambers and the dissolution of mainstream journalism that has prompted millions of people to connect outside of traditional institutions. They are turning to social media, blogs, twitter, Facebook and many others.

This book and our conversation is not just about politics however, social media is, well social. It can not be segmented like other forms of marketing or communications. The civic minded, and ultra connected Millennial generation are buyers, business leaders, and in a neighborhood near you. Combine this generation with other age demographics that are using social networks like LinkedIn and iGoogle, and you have a whole new paradigm for communications.

If you want to get a chance to win the Millennial Makeover book send me an email to Marketingedge@providentpartners.net with the word Makeover in the subject line.

I copied these 5 Rules for Successful Brands from a wonderful post at Gigacom http://gigaom.com/2007/10/26/5-simple-rules-of-branding/ The writer is Carleen Hawn

The rules are from John Quelch. Mr. Quelch is a non-executive director of WPP Group plc, the world’s second largest marketing services company, and of Pepsi Bottling Group. He served previously as a director of Reebok International. He writes an excellent blog on branding for Harvard Business Publishing.

Hawn’s article was originally posted on October 26, 2007. Quelch poses a clean, concise list of 5 major rules for branding that I have chosen to apply to the 2008 presidential Democrat ticket, specifically with the idea as some are advocating that an Obama/Clinton ticket is a smart choice.

Senator Obama, here is a perspective of what Clinton does for your brand.

Quelch’s 5 Rules for Successful (global) Brands: Quelch’s rules are numbered, my Obama/Clinton commentary for each rule follow.

1. The same positioning worldwide. (For F|R: this means in every market.) This provides a combination of functional product quality and innovation with emotional appeal. Think Coca-Cola.

For Obama this means selecting Clinton after her harsh words and the guaranteed soundbites that will be used in ads during the general election campaign are likely to undermine your position.

2. A focus on a single product category. Think Nokia and Intel.

For Obama this means you lose your Obama product category and take on a second product line, not good and will lead to product confusion. No one ever voted for the bottom of the ticket and don’t let them convince you it is going to start now.

3. The company name is the brand name. All marketing dollars are concentrated on that one brand. Think GE and IBM. (F|R: Hewlett-Packard learned this the hard way!)

For Obama this means diluting his message and potentially having an under current of a Co-presidency. That’s not a good idea for a strong brand. Yup, it might not be diplomatic, but when it comes to Presidential candidates, it’s either my way or the highway.

4. Access to the (global) village. Consuming the brand equals membership in a global club. Think IBM’s “solutions for a small planet.” (F|R says: replace “global club” with social network.)

For Obama this means you get a warm and comfortable feeling in Denver. That’s nice, but it is a dream if you think it will last. This dream ticket does not live in a vacuum. You are not in high school and you can’t break up and still be friends. This is called leadership and with it, there are leaders and followers, period. Oh and speaking of a global village how does Clinton reconcile the whole lunch with Ahmadinejād thing. Nope, Obama it’s your world view, stick with it.

5. Social responsibility. Consumers expect global brands to lead on corporate social responsibility, leveraging their technology to solve the world’s problems. Think Nestle and clean water. (Or F|R might say: think Google.)

For Obama this means you should expect Clinton to step aside at this time, not concede for opportunistic reasons. Clinton must understand that it is in the Obama brand’s best interest for a clean break, not take the approach of, “I won’t make this messy if I get what I want? Brands are better when they are clearly defined, even with the potential rough edge he may create if Obama does not choose Clinton as VP. In fact, I’d argue that decisive an edge will serve the Obama brand better in the long run.

A personal note here, this blog discusses marketing, communications, and social media issues. I try very hard not to express political views here. I use politics as an illustration of social media, messaging, and brands. However, I do not want to give the impression that I support Barack Obama. I do admire how his campaign has defined him and seek only to comment about him from a communications perspective.

On the Republican side, I believe John McCain’s brand is rich in leadership. An example would be a candidate for the republican nomination that is not afraid to have Joe Lieberman, officially listed as an Independent Democrat, at his side during his primary campaign. This, however, is a story for another time.

Time 21:28

You’ve probably heard about Eliot Spitzer and his, well, lapse in judgment. We’re not going to spend too much time rehashing the ins and outs of what happened and the political significance (or lack thereof, depending on your perspective). Instead, my colleague Mike Keliher, who heads our PR practice here at Provident Partners, and I are going to analyze this situation from a PR perspective and share some thoughts on crisis communication.

As I’ve mentioned before, I worked in politics for a long time, which included a stint as the press secretary for the Republican National Committee. So I’ve been around the block on political communication. In this podcast, we talk about the important considerations in planning crisis communication, using the political example as a teaching point for corporate situations.