OK Go’s latest video, the second they’ve produced for their song “This Too Shall Pass” sparked this post. My wife was catching up on the goings on around the web this morning at breakfast, and despite having been sent the video 100 times I’d yet to actually watch it. Mind you, I’ve followed the backstory and was totally aware of the motivations behind the move by the band. I’d just neglected to actually sit down and watch the damn thing. It’s good, and I’ve embedded below for those who, like me, were somehow living under a rock all week.

The driving force behind this post was to discuss the band’s deft use of transparency to create viral videos, promote their work, and singlehandedly become a household name through the use of social media and the Interwebs. I’ll get to all of that, because it’s fun. But first, a primer.

Media companies typically wrestle with issues of transparency, and to say that they “don’t get it” is an understatement. There are exceptions to every rule, but most of these exceptions extend from businesses and brands whose core business is closely linked to their consumers and customer support. Before we dive into this, let’s take a look at some of the brands that have successfully jumped onto the transparency wagon in positive and impacting ways.

Transparency comes easily for those connected to their customers

I apologize in advance, but many of these examples incorporate uses of everyone’s favorite network du jour — Twitter. But truthfully, Twitter is a tremendous enabler of transparent practices, but there is a thin grey line between transparency and self-promotion and Twitter remains fairly agnostic when it comes to uses of its platform. More on this later. For now, let’s take a look at three different use cases in brand transparency.

Sometimes, it’s about personality. Wait, it’s ALWAYS about personality.

Starbucks has skin in the game because the majority of their consumer base engages directly with a Starbucks employee on a daily basis in order to consume their product. Training someone to brew the perfect espresso is only a part of the process, their baristas and managers are also trained to engage, be personable, and be transparent as core fundamentals for their business. Sure, they aren’t given the freedom to divulge company financials or upcoming sales promotions if linked to bigger accounts, but when was the last time you asked a barista for a Pumpkin Spice Latte, were told that it was no longer available, and then given a vague and divisive response when you questioned why? Never. The answer you get is, “We run that drink seasonally” but it’s often accompanied with sentiment and empathy along the lines of, “I know! So many people ask us for that one, but it’s only a seasonal drink. I don’t know why we don’t make it a year round drink, it’s so popular!”

People want brands they can trust. Trust starts with listening. Actions need to show that you’re listening.

Companies like Southwest Airlines have a long history with customer service, and the company has prided itself on their practices for some time. When Twitter first began making waves with transparent communication, the airlines were amongst the first to dive into the platform for better or worse. Many have used the platform to post updates to flight schedules and delays, which is certainly helpful, but the real boon has come from monitoring brand mentions and addressing customer complaints. I’ve witnessed lost luggage snafus, cancelled flight clarifications, and many more issues that can be extremely aggravating for travelers resolved in 140 character snippets. Last month Southwest took some serious heat from Kevin Smith over their weight restrictions and policies for passengers on the airline. Say what you will about the policies themselves, you cannot deny that Southwest handled the situation well by posting several responses to the situation, clarifying their policies publicly, and most importantly, being transparent about the issue. They took some heat, sure, but their responses signaled one very important message to their customer base — we’re listening to our customers, and our customers are being heard.

Note: Anyone claiming that Kevin received special treatment need only look at their track record and Twitter stream — there are a lot of helpful tweets prior to Kevin-gate.

The little details add value.

Full disclosure: I am no longer a Comcast customer because, frankly, they charge way too much for their product. But that’s a story for another time. While I was a customer, the company’s use of Twitter was undeniably one of the high points. Frank Eliason has really done some tremendous work establishing a voice for Comcast online, and for a company with as many customer service issues as they’ve had in the past, it’s been pretty transformative. My last days as a Comcast customer were surprisingly better than I’d anticipated. Visiting their local office to turn in equipment introduced me to a completely revamped customer service center. But this is all rhetoric, Frank’s team responds in real time to customer issues sent their way. I’ve had my box reset via DM, and had speed and feed issues/questions clarified in 140 character bursts (and more importantly without any annoying muzak). It’s not just the service, but the level of clarification that sets Frank’s work apart. There were several times that Frank could have simply responded with, “There was an outage in your neighborhood,” but instead took the time to give ETA and details. Being transparent made me feel more included, more important…bottomline, more valued.

The thin grey line between transparency and promotion

So what does this all mean? Media companies, traditionally, are completely isolated from their customer base. In fact, their community and consumers are all data points tied to financial summaries. The movie industry conducts audience testing, but it’s hardly a worthwhile sampling. Television tracks viewership, but that’s not a two-way form of communication. Most measurement in media is done from the perspective of performance. If a movie sells a lot of tickets, then it was popular. If a TV show gets good ratings, then it’s successful. And so on. The problem is, these forms of measurement do not inform the production process. It’s a closed loop with no real form of iteration.

This has been extended to the way most media companies view the web, social media, and transparency. All of these are conduits of promotion in the eyes of media companies, not an opportunity for growth via meaningful engagement. This is where I close the loop with the practices of OK Go. This band is defying most of the conventional uses of the Internet with regards to media. They’ve publicly acknowledged the issues facing them with regards to the practices of their label.

Their videos are rough while staged, and their fans get to see the lines still present in the finished product. When you watch their latest video, you’re not just watching the finished and produced product, as a viewer you are witnessing the moment at which the finished product was created while still enjoying the finished product. The viewer is the consumer, but is made to feel like a participant at the same time. By showing them the lines, OK Go includes their audience in the event, and ultimately uses transparency to break the fourth wall.

Their videos let their viewers see the lines.

Re-watch their latest video, and instead of focusing on the Rube Goldberg machine (which is marvelous), take a look at the rest of the stuff in the frame. Their bassist kicks off the video dressed in coveralls and goggles that are splattered with red paint. Broken TVs, pianos, and spare parts are littered around the workspace. This isn’t the work of a team concerned with a polished illusion, they want the process to be a part of the product. You can even catch glimpses of the band as they run into position for their next shot.

Audiences identify with this level of transparency, and it is this sort of the thing that transforms someone from a casual viewer into a a fan. This is how fandoms are grown.

In a media landscape still struggling to adjust to the transformations imposed by the growing influence of the web, only select artists, journalists, and content creators are truly grasping the importance of transparency when it comes to building a following. For the most part journalism, film, and music are still wrestling with this concept — and a major hurdle for most seems to be holding on firmly to the creative process. The traditional school of thought seems to be that art must be produced in private, the tricks of the trade must be guarded and concealed from the viewer, and the audience must not see the strings on the marionettes. To do otherwise would violate the cardinal rule of the trade, and prevent the consumer from enjoying the finished product.

The cold, hard truth is that publishing tools have all been openly distributed to the masses. Film, music, print — all of these methods of publishing are available to anyone interested in trying their hand at these trades. The differences between professionally trained content creators is simple — quality. Creators in this space are faced with balancing their creative processes with the ability to grow audiences, and many are uncomfortable losing any more advantage beyond access to publishing tools. This is why transparency is such an issue for many.

All of this said, those who appear to be more accessible, more open, and more interested in what their audiences have to say will grow stronger followings. But the first step is letting go, listening, and communicating. Unfortunately for some, that level of commitment is non-negotiable.

It’s time, once again, for another Community Speak Up! This time around we’re lucky to have the good folks at Google hosting.

I’m particularly excited about this, because based on some of recent happenings in the online community and social media space I’ve been itching to discuss the role transparency plays in helping build a community. No tool is more helpful in establishing credibility for those working with communities then open communication, but this powerful tool hardly comes without its share of complexities. Knowing when to communicate, how to communicate, and most importantly what to communicate are all keys to establishing an impacting and transparent dialogue with both internal teams and external members of your community.

We’ll discuss all of this, and more, at Google HQ on Tuesday. I really hope to see you there!

We’ll be trying something differing for this speak up, instead of meeting during the day, we’ll convene at 5pm and wrap up by 6:30pm, at which point our Google hosts have arranged for a treat to all attendees: Dinner at Google HQ!

If you wish to join in, please RSVP on Facebook or Upcoming. And, if you haven’t already, please make sure to join our Facebook group — Community Speak Up! One more thing, please invite a friend or two!

Directions

We will be meeting in the Benghazi conference room, located in Building 43. Here are directions to 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway:

Driving Directions from the North

Take 101 South Exit Rengstorff Ave. Turn Right onto Rengstorff from the off-ramp Turn Right onto Charleston (sign says Charleston/Garcia) Look for the Google sign on the left (after Landings Dr.) Turn Left into the driveway just past the Google sign

Driving Directions from the South

Take 101 North Exit at Amphitheatre Parkway Turn Right onto Charleston (the first light) Look for the Google sign on the left (after Landings Dr.) Turn Left into the driveway just past the Google sign.

Do you have suggestions for our discussion? Add them in the comments!

My early dalliances with online communities were not job related. I’ve participated in online forums, groups, and blogged in some capacity for far too many years to count. There is nothing particularly unique about this tidbit, except that the roles I typically opted to take on within these communities were clear indicators in hindsight.

These roles typically involved mediation, moderation, organization, and guidance. But when I think about these things, I’m reminded that these aspects extend well beyond online interactions for me.

Growing up, I was the kid on the block that plotted out complex daily story lines for the other kids growing up in my neighborhood. One example: I created a map, with points of interest around the neighborhood. We grew up in a court, so we had a nice amount of space, including front yards, backyards, etc. to play around with. I aged and buried the map in an open space, then I planted clues that led to the discovery of the map. Each point of interest offered either a reward, or another clue. For a solid week that map drove many backyard adventures, spurned arguments, resolved disputes, produced puzzles to solve, and centered on discovery and participation. As the game progressed, I changed my plans to cater to the needs of those involved, and finally planted prizes to be discovered at each point of interest on the map.

I was, to put a label on it, an obsessive geek.

I could dig deeper into examples, but I think you get the point. In college I became a Resident Advisor, and eventually an Asst. Resident Director. There is something about the mix of entertainment, participation, and problem solving that allures me to these types of roles.

All of this is Community Management related.

When I arrived at Yahoo!, as a Search Editor, I was pretty surprised to find elements of this in my editorial work — understanding and identifying user needs, crafting means to influence rather than direct, and making product recommendations to drive participation while addressing community issues. I carried a lot of this over into my product management role, as well.

The more I talk with others working in online communities, the more I find that the same holds true: the entry point is typically not directly into community, but through some sort of evolving process leading up to a community role. These discussions bring another point to the forefront: everyone’s experiences vary from community to community (and product to product), yet there is a real desire to have some sort of support system in place.

This was the catalyst. Our field is growing increasingly more prominent…and crowded. Claims of expertise from self-proclaimed “social media and community gurus” can make things even more confusing. The resources are out there, but they are far more piecemeal than they should be. Additionally, while so much of our work takes place behind a desk, basking in the soft glow of a laptop screen or monitor, there is still a good portion that should (and could) benefit from stepping away from that grind and discussing these issues face to face, outside of the bustle of large conferences.

So, that birthed the Community Speak Up: an effort to gather a group of community inclined individuals together on a monthly basis in a “no bullshit” and “no judgment” environment to share and discuss issues that really matter. Don’t worry, this is an open discussion so boundaries and comfort levels will be respected. Essentially, we would like to open the discussion up to whatever topic comes to mind.

Here are a few we’ve been chewing on lately:

• The evolution and growth of the Community Management field.
• Standards, best practices, and tips.
• What it takes to work in online communities.
• Career growth.
• Fostering support and resources.

These are just a few things that come to mind, but the ongoing agenda would ultimately be up to you. What do you want to discuss? How can we work together to support one another?

I hope you’ll join us on October 28, 2009 at 12pm at the Current SF offices (located in the SOMA across from the ballpark). Seating will be limited, and we are asking that you bring lunch with you (thanks!). Please RSVP here, and please help spread the word by using the hashtag #communityspeakup when you tweet.

this Labor Day weekend comprised of a long road trip out to Visalia for a family gathering. road trips = music, and since my daughter has been on such a They Might Be Giants kick lately i decided to spool up anything from the self-titled pink album all the way through their latest release, Here Comes Science. (incidentally, if you haven’t listened to the new album yet, it’s excellent).

at some point along the way home we were knee deep into John Henry when I Should Be Allowed To Think popped on. inadvertently, i thought of work — specifically how the song relates to online community entitlement issues.

here are the lyrics:

I saw the best minds of my generation
Destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical
I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think

I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
And I should be allowed to blurt the merest idea
If, by random whim, one occurs to me
If necessary, leave paper stains on the gray utility pole

I saw the worst bands of my generation
Applied by magic marker to dry wall
I should be allowed to shoot my mouth off
I should have a call-in show

I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
And I should be allowed to blurt the merest idea
If by random whim, one occurs to me
If necessary, leave paper stains on the gray utility pole

I am not allowed
To ever come up with a single original thought
I am not allowed
To meet the criminal government agent who oppresses me

I was the worst hope of my generation
Destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical
I should be allowed to share my feelings
I should be allowed to feel

I should be allowed to glue my poster
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
I should be allowed to think
And I should be allowed to blurt the merest idea
If by random whim, one occurs to me
But sadly, this can never be

I am not allowed to think
I am not allowed to think
I am not allowed to think (I am not allowed to think)
I am not allowed to think (I am not allowed to think)
I am not allowed to think (I am not allowed to think)
I am not allowed to think (I am not allowed to think)

Give it a listen over on Blip.fm:

i’m certain that Linnell didn’t have the sort of self-entitlement we deal with in online communities in mind when he wrote this song, but ultimately online self-entitlement stems from the same place as the self-entitlement Linnell chides in the song. after all, online communities are rooted in the same DNA as their real world counterparts — and this is community-centric song.

back in 1994 there were several city-wide ordinances aimed at improving the quality of city living that began cropping up on both coasts (New York and Seattle both come to mind). essentially, several garage and indie bands were subject to these ordinances because they were now restricted from promoting their shows by pasting fliers in public places (read: gray utility poles).

of course, many reacted to these cases by citing “freedom of speech” and likening these ordinances to censorship. naturally, the attempt to keep these posts off of public property had no connection whatsoever to the subject matter of the individual posters, or the ideological views of the bands, their art, or any statement they wished to have. we are faced with this, time and time again, in online communities. the misuse of “freedom of speech” is an ongoing struggle for CMs the world over. of course, it’s amplified by the instantaneous and anonymous nature of the web, but that’s somewhat moot. the bottom line is, all communities (whether real world or online) have boundaries. some reside within the confines of written laws, others revolve around set guidelines and terms of use online.

before anyone starts misappropriating the words of Alan Ginsberg, remember this: you may not be able to glue your poster, but you’re always allowed to think.