Business Models for Making Social Media Work

I've been thinking about ways to use the Internet to promote books lately. There are the obvious things to try, a website, MySpace/Facebook/Name-your-favorite social network, a blog, etc. But its clear that the choice of venue for your efforts is not the most important decision. You need to pick the combination of things that works both in terms of your resources and your audiences predilections.

That said, I really like the model Ariana Huffington employs at the Huffington Post. Here's an excerpt from an article from Fortune describing it in a nutshell

Unlike a conventional newspaper that devotes the majority of its resources to basic newsgathering, the Huffington Post instead devoted its scant editorial budget to hiring a few key editors, staff bloggers, and political reporters who post links to the day's stories and imbue the site with a dishy and slightly indignant sensibility, while giving the endless parade of invited bloggers co-star status on the Arianna Show. To date, some 1,600 bloggers have accepted Huffington's invitation to write. They are given a password to log into the site's publishing system and blog at will.

It's an ever-changing stew. On a given day John Cusack, Deepak Chopra, Nora Ephron, Bill Moyers, Al Franken, Bill Maher, Governor Bill Richardson, John Kerry, and scores of other politicos, actors, activists, and academics take to the digital pages of the Post with their views, causes, and beefs.

This model of drawing together a collection of interesting voices into an ever flowing "collage" of opinions and ideas characterizes many of my favorite web sites over the years. A good example I like to point out is worldchanging.org.
Gotta run to the fall festival...

The Dread Cancer of Stinginess?

I recently took over leadership of the missions ministry at my church, the Ann Arbor Vineyard, and one of the issues we're dealing with is how to balance the need of our sister churches with the fear of creating a dependency. As John Rowell points out in the beginning of his article The Dread Cancer of Stinginess | John Rowell | The Christian Vision Project

Few principles have been as central to the modern missions movement as the "three-self paradigm." This seminal framework was popularized in the 19th century by three notable leaders: Henry Venn, Rufus Anderson, and John Nevius. It proposes that truly indigenous churches should be self-governing, self-propagating and self-supporting. For 200 years the three-self ideal has been nearly axiomatic. Modern missiologists have placed particular emphasis on the last point, interpreting it to emphasize financial independence and developing a whole stream of thought trumpeting "the dangers of dependency." These missiologists want to prevent the unhealthy dynamics they presume are unavoidable when outside funds are introduced into any newly developing indigenous movement.

Indeed, a desire to avoid dependency is also a core part of the "Missiological Assumptions for The Vineyard—USA" which states:

Dependency exists when churches in another culture are not able to function on their own without assistance. The most common form of dependency is financial. While we recognize that some level of dependency is likely during the pioneering stage of church planting, we are committed to avoiding long-term dependency among our churches.

But like Rowell, I think there is a real danger of misapplying this principle due to biases inherent in our western mindset toward the world.

To be clear, I'm not in favor of indiscriminate handouts driven by guilt at having wealth. The ability to create wealth is a gift from God and I don't feel guilty about it. At the risk of heading down a rabbit trail I'll add that I have to balance this with a strong dose humility when I realize that my ability to build a business may be dependent in large part on structural imbalances in the world. Never the less, as Don Bromley so eloquently said from the pulpit this summer (and I paraphrase from memory): "It's great if you know how to create wealth...now go give it away to help the poor!"

But how do we do that without creating unhealthy dependency? Rowell proposes a “more interdependent” model where, quoteing Samuel Escobar, "churches from rich nations add their material resources to the spiritual resources of the churches in poor nations in order to reach out to a third area." He then points to YWAM as one example of such a model.

All well and good, but it doesn’t seem to me to address the core issue: How to avoid dependency? For me, answering this question has to overcome a number of ingrained biases.

Living in a wealthy society, we’ve all had experiences where we realize we were taken advantage of. The world is full of con-artists and people “working the system,” isn’t it? Likewise, for most of my adult life I had been a Reagan, trickle-down, “the welfare system propagates poverty” Republican. I emphasize “had been” because I’ve come to see that too often this perspective fails to address the real justice issues that exist in how our society is structured. Never-the-less, the fear of creating yet another systematic imbalance through hand-outs is legitimate.

But I really think we need to carefully check the prescription for our glasses when we we’re looking at poverty issues in the world. It’s too easy to forget the yellow-tint that’s formed from seeing the local dysfunctions within our own system. Regardless of your perspective on the US welfare system, it doesn’t compare to the endemic poverty that exists in much of the world. For the most part, we’re not talking about giving someone extra money they might use to by a Nintendo instead of food. Many of our brothers and sisters don’t even have running water, much less televisions!

So what’s the answer? I’m no expert and I’m only musing out loud, but over the coming months, here’s what I’ll be pondering:

Can we trust local leadership? Can we get on the same page with them regarding the problem of dependency?

If we’re dealing with an area where Christians are persecuted, should we give more? Or give less because the perception that they’re beholden to “western” money endangers them?

Is there a way to give that fosters economic development such as micro-loans, etc.?

And finally, if dependency is such a big deal, why didn’t Paul address the topic in his letters? He clearly did on the local church level, but when talking about intra-church giving his advice was to give generously. Period.

A great TV Commercial

I watch so little TV that I miss out on all the good ads. This one is a few years old but I'm just now discovering it. I love it (and so did my son, Robert).

Sony BRAVIA - Balls - The Advert

It isn't supposed to be this way

I came across this C.S. Lewis quote reading Dick Staub's latest blog entry on the meaning of lost:

No man knows how bad he is until he tries to be good…Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is…That is why bad people know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means—the only complete realist.

...we only know how bad we are until we try to be good...too true...too true...Lord have mercy.

Give the Future More Power than the Past

The Reverend Robert Giannini, canon theologian with the Episcopal Diocese of Indianapolis, wrote a compact summary of N.T. Wright's book "Evil and the Justice of God" in the Indy Star this morning. It's a great book that I've read and discussed with my fellow Questers. Here's a thoughful quote fron Giannini:

Forgiveness, for Wright, is a matter of granting more power to the future than to the past, even though the future may be seen only dimly. It is to live actively according to the principles of a world of justice and peace that we hope humanity can someday inhabit rather than dwell in a world that remains saturated with the dregs of old evils. It is to make the moral choice to live presently as if the hoped for future has already been inaugurated.

Heinz Gets Good Resulst from User Generated Advertising

How many people are there willing to spend the time and energy required to produce an enjoyable 30-second commercial? Heinz will tell you quite a few.

When several advertisers made waves this year with user-generated advertising contests for spots that would run during the Super Bowl, some people questioned whether user-generated advertising would work. Dorito's put a stake in the ground when its contest produced a winner that was very funny, despite its $1000 production costs and last minute entry.

Since then there have been other companies with no such luck like the controversial Malibu Caribbean Rum contest that had less than 100 qualified entrants despite a $25,000 prize.

Heinz, though, seems to have gotten it right. Offering $57,000 for the winner and exposure on the Primetime Emmy Awards, they received 8000 submissions. Its worth a few minutes to view the 15 semi-finalists Heinz Top This TV Challenge website. The field was strong enough that Heinz also showed the 4 runner-ups on NBC's Today Show this morning. (The runner-ups received $5,700).

The winner, "Heinz: The Kissable Ketchup" by Andrew Dodson, is cute but not my favorite. I think "Heinz Worldwide" by Jeremiah Jones is wonderful with a good beat and an international flavor.

Having played with claymation in high-school I'm partial to animation, which several entrants used. "Heinz Always sunnyside up" by Michael Thelin is pleasant and "Uncap the smile" by Joseph Garner does a wonderful job of integrating CGI into a "Toy Story" like scene. "Heinz 'Moments' Competition" by Robert Castillo has a great story but seems like a 45 second spot crammed into 30 seconds by the time its finished.

It's less clear what the ROI will be for Heinz. To get the results they did took much more than $80,000 in prize money. They had an extensive demand generating campaign with in-store promotions, announcements on packaging and an on-line and off-line advertising campaign.

Amid War, Passion for TV Chefs, Soaps and Idols - New York Times

...I started to write this 6 weeks ago but never posted. I either need to write faster, or more often or post unfinished thoughts...today I choose the last option...

Amid War, Passion for TV Chefs, Soaps and Idols - New York Times
Today's NYT article on the popularity of television gives a fascinating perspective on the power and potential of television to influence populations. It looks at television in Afghanistan, a country where "according to the government’s latest surveys, only 43 percent of all households have nonleaking windows and roofs, 31 percent have safe drinking water and 7 percent have sanitary toilets."

Even though "a mere 14 percent of the population has access to public electricity," people find a way to electrify their lives. Nearly 1 in 5 Afghan households own a television which is all the more "remarkable" since "owning a TV was a crime under the Taliban." The times reports that city dwellers are even more addicted to the tube, citing "a study this year of Afghanistan’s five most urban provinces, two-thirds of all people said they watched TV every day or almost every day."

More interesting quotes....

“People watch television because there is nothing else to do.”

Reading is certainly less an option; only 28 percent of the population is literate. “Where else can one find amusement?” Mr. Akhgar asked.

Each night, people in Kabul obey the beckoning of prime time much as they might otherwise answer the call to prayer. “As you can see, there is truth on the television, because all over the world the mother-in-law is always provoking a fight,” said Muhammad Farid, a man sitting in a run-down restaurant beside the Pul-i-Khishti Mosque, his attention fixed on an Indian soap opera that had been dubbed into Dari.

Women, whose public outings are constrained by custom, most often watch their favorite shows at home. Men, on the other hand, are free to make TV a communal ritual. In one restaurant after another, with deft fingers dipping into mounds of steaming rice, patrons sit cross-legged on carpeted platforms, their eyes fixed on a television set perched near the ceiling. Profound metaphysical questions hover in the dim light: Will Prerna find happiness with Mr. Bajaj, who is after all not the father of her child?

“These are problems that teach you about life,” said Sayed Agha, who sells fresh vegetables from a pushcart by day and views warmed-over melodramas by night.

What to watch is rarely contested. At 7:30, the dial is turned to Tolo TV for “Prerna,” a soap opera colloquially known by the name of its female protagonist. At 8, the channel is switched for “The Thief of Baghdad.” At 8:30, it is back to Tolo for the intrafamily and extramarital warfare waged on “Tulsi,” the nickname for a show whose title literally means “Because the Mother-in-Law Was Once the Daughter-in-Law.”

What will the Afghanis see of American TV....

“We’ve just bought the rights to ‘24,’ the American show,” he said. “We had some concerns. Most of the bad guys are Muslims, but we did focus groups and it turns out most people didn’t care about that so long as the villains weren’t Afghans.”