Communication guru Shel Israel touches on a compelling idea in a recent post on the relationship between personal brand(s) and corporate brand(s). I was particularly drawn by his comment on how people are becoming a central element of the corporate brand: “Personal brand is changing corporate and product brand in an increasing number of cases. This changes who shapes brand and why and how it is done. It changes how markets perceive brands and this is an area where little thought and conversation has emerged so far.”

Israel argues that traditional marketing messages focusing on “big brand” themes positioned through a corporate and/or homogenous voice are giving way to increasing personalization…and the humanization of corporate brands. This is being fueled by the advent of social media platforms that are based on individual participation and contributions. It’s interesting  to note Israel uses Dell as an example – which I experienced first hand as a member of the Dell social media team. Dell started to turns thing around when it started listening – really listening – to the online conversation but also because individual employees jumped into the conversation. All the platforms – both internal and external – were populated with real people who answered questions, shared ideas and tried to resolve complaints. Some of them – like Direct2Dell moderator Lionel – became key representatives of the Dell brand online.

This trend toward personalization is likely to gain momentum. After all, companies are engaging individual leaders (and sometimes employees) as blog authors, Facebook friends and Twitter voices.  Videos and podcasts feature company experts and guests in informal settings. Discussion boards are hosted by groups of company experts, some with large followings. Even websites are less impersonal, often featuring profiles and individual guides or hosts. As Israel notes, marketers are eager to leverage this movement towards the humanization of brands – since it’s inherently more credible and resonant with customers – but the very notion of diverse, individual voices makes this difficult. And that’s not a bad thing. For better or for worse, company reputations and identities will become more closely identified with the collective actions and voices of their employees, rather than paid advertising or impersonal PR campaigns.

A recent post by the folks at Melcrum in the UK provides evidence that more companies are adopting cloud-based collaboration platforms (in this case Google Apps) for their internal communications. Last week Jaguar and Land Rover announced they were also switching to Google. And Google isn’t the only big player in this emerging field: IBM recently introduced its own cloud collaboration suite.  (I haven’t even mentioned the host of new providers that offer services that go well beyond email, calendars and file-sharing – notably internal micro-blogging and networking tools.)

Anybody who has worked inside an organization is familiar with the debates that occur on this issue. For the cons, there are typically concerns about information security and integration with firewalls, while on the pro side the main motivations tend to be lower cost and a more efficient, integrated platform that is accessible through any Web connection. In  my experience, the naysayers are often in IT while proponents are employees looking for better ways to collaborate and communicate with peers. Coincidence? For many companies – slowed by balkanized email networks, weak IT governance and outdated infrastructure – going to a cloud platform is an easy way to start fresh using external resources, often at much lower cost than an infrastructure overhaul. For smaller companies, it’s almost a no-brainer. I’ve been involved in several start-ups in recent months and all of them are using cloud-based platforms for their email, file storage and collaboration needs – at no cost.

So why so much resistance? Likely a new version of the proverb that you can’t be fired for buying IBM – many prefer to play it safe. I’m certainly not a technical expert, but I suspect that the popular chestnuts about unreliable cloud networks and data risk are overblown. I’ve experienced far more problems with internal systems than the occasional blip with cloud-based applications. And is there a network anywhere that is more robust than Google? Companies should certainly do their due diligence, but when the status quo for many employees is working on creaky, inefficient systems – if they even have access to their network – there is no excuse for at least not considering the cloud.

I read a provocative article this week in BusinessWeek about a study of Boeing workers that suggests those laid-off from the company in recent years actually fared better – in terms of their morale if not pocketbook – than the so-called survivors. It’s long been accepted that after layoffs those left behind can have trouble adjusting to the staff turmoil and need careful attention to remain productive, but this study argues they often suffer more than those who are let go.

Based on my experience (which includes work for Boeing during the tumultuous years mentioned in the research) the critical factor in this equation is the workplace environment, rather than any staff changes. If the corporate environment is tense and depressing, the survivors may indeed be worse off than those who get a fresh start. And though the unemployed certainly have to face the myriad stresses that come with finding new jobs – often at lower pay – many benefit from a more positive, less stressful working environment. In effect, money and security can sometimes be outweighed by personal satisfaction and well-being.

Other factors that play a role in which side suffers most include:

• Who leaves and who’s left behind – are the layoffs perceived as a talent drain…are popular, talented stars part of the exodus?
• How are the layoffs communicated – are employees kept well informed of the process (and rationale) and given a chance to air their concerns and questions?
• Do the layoffs appear to be part of a logical, solid business strategy or a knee-jerk move to cut costs?
• Is there a transparent, credible process for determining who gets laid-off, or is the process capricious and opaque?
• Has leadership laid out a clear timetable and strategy for addressing market challenges (and reducing the need for future layoffs?)
• Can the remaining employees rally around a compelling vision and benefit from a dynamic, positive culture?

Many successful companies navigate through layoffs without long-term damage, so cutting staff is not a corporate death sentence. The key is for companies to handle staff changes in a humane, candid way and sustain their culture and employee value proposition through good times and bad.

If companies needed any more reasons to get off the sidelines and start thinking about social media…

Reason #1: Staying Ahead of New FTC Regulations

The recently announced FTC guidelines on testimonials in advertising provide the first specific guidance from government on endorsements and disclosure in social media. Bob Pearson from the WeissComm Group suggests companies will be held more accountable for the behavior of their employees, so they should familiarize themselves with the regulations and ensure they take steps to limit their liability. In effect, companies will no longer be able to skirt (or flaunt) informal Web etiquette and will be held responsible for their online communication activities. Bob suggests all companies – big or small – follow this short checklist:

1. Require truthfulness and disclosure in all social media outreach

2. Monitor the conversation and correct misstatements

3. Create social media policies (with clear transparency and disclosure rules) and training programs

[Full disclosure: Bob is a friend and my former boss at Dell.]

Reason #2: Getting Ready for Real-Time Search

In recent weeks, there’s been plenty of online discussion about the emergence (and importance) of real-time search, which captures live updates on networks like Twitter and Facebook. A recent New York Times article posits that announcements by Google and Microsoft that their search platforms will include Twitter is just the latest evidence of this trend. (FYI: Facebook public updates will soon be available on Microsoft’s Bing.) Though the NYT article focuses on the potential revenue implications of real-time search, companies would do well to also study the PR impact of this trend on their own search results.  BusinessWeek recently posted a good summary on this topic.

What I thought was the most insightful take on this issue came from Charlene Li at Altimeter, who in her post on the topic writes: This trend towards micro media requires companies to pay attention to the real-time and social web for marketing, support, and competitive strategies. Here’s why. First, Google and Bing will filter search results based partly on timing and authority (as well as location.) Li argues this means consumers will more easily be able to influence search results through Twitter content, links and re-tweets. Conversely, companies will no longer be able to rely on their traditional page ranking, fueled by their SEO strategies. So even for companies not active on Twitter, their customers (or critics) can more easily influence search results related to the company in question. Li suggests a recipe to address this shift in search strategy:

• Develop a nimble, comprehensive listening strategy that includes social networks and incorporates internal processes, roles as well as robust analytical tools
• Change the marketing mindset that says generating more positive (self-serving) content will tilt the search balance, since the search filters will leave out irrelevant messages with no authority or following
• Marketers must focus on building relationships with people who have influence and authority on networks like Twitter – which means fostering relevant discussions with consumers and followers/friends

Even for companies with a defensive mindset who hesitate to jump into social media, these and other developments suggest their time as spectators is coming to an end.

It’s become accepted dogma that in the booming internet economy customer rankings and comments heavily influence brand reputation and purchase decisions. (Check out one recent study here and another by Forrester here, as well as an article on the phenomena in the New York Times .) A story last week in BusinessWeek suggests that for Amazon.com – the pioneer in customer reviews – the consumer ratings have become a key reason for the site’s popularity, and the company’s enviable reputation. Over the years, the online retailer has expanded its community feedback features to include personal “wish lists” (that can be shared) and various discussion hubs to facilitate consumer conversations on broad or specific topics. (Check out the variety of review options using the example of the new Microsoft 7 OS here.)

The BusinessWeek article argues that this trove of consumer generated content (in this case reviews) has become a main attraction for viewers – and an important competitive advantage for Amazon.com. With one of the world’s largest collections of consumer reviews, the site is a magnet for users intent on getting information or browsing for products. The article describes the new breed of “information-based shoppers” as a major shift in the retail environment, reflecting a stronger focus on due diligence (largely through the internet) and increased cynicism about traditional advertising or marketing. The focus on finding impartial information and value fits it perfectly with the emergence of a new consumer frugality.

There are numerous lessons here for retailers – and communication professionals – but perhaps the most important is to remember the outcry when Amazon.com originally decided to post the consumer reviews – both good and bad. This was seen as heresy to some marketers intent on presenting their products under the best light and stifling any negative feedback. While there is still debate whether a product can survive negative reviews, there is little discussion about the importance of allowing consumer comments and rankings.

Very interesting presentation by Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker (yes, that Mary Meeker) at the recent Web 2.0 Conference in San Francisco. Check out this article and the actual presentation here. Besides a fairly healthy prognosis for internet (and related business) growth, the salient theme is that the mobile internet is big…and booming – led in part by “explosive” growth in iPhone and iTouch devices. Indeed, a major fuel to this growth is the sheer increase in cloud-based mobile devices using platforms like GPS, 3G, wi-fi and Bluetooth. According to Meeker (who backs her arguments with mountains of statistics), mobile internet growth is far out-pacing historic desktop internet adoption.

Some of the stats in the report are pretty overwhelming, notably those on the size and growth of major Web platforms:

• YouTube – 445 million users, 35% Y/Y growth, #2 global search engine
• Facebook – 390 million users, 153% Y/Y growth, #1 site in time spent (6 billion minutes spent each day)
• Twitter – 55 million users, 1,171% Y/Y growth, 5 thousand tweets per second during peak times
• demandMedia – 55 million users, 46% Y/Y growth

According to Meeker, the “secret sauce” to mobile internet growth is the ability to localize data in real-time. The combination of this instant localization with a multi-media, mobile device (like the iPhone) and platforms like Facebook – which allow for integrated, multi-purpose content and applications — creates a highly attractive combination.

And if we needed any more confirmation of the obvious, Meeker argues that next generation platforms (social networks and mobile applications) are driving unprecedented changes in communication and commerce. She writes:

Plenty of other good information in the presentation on the implications of these changes on broadband providers and device manufacturers; the message is there will be big winners and losers as a result of these seismic shifts.

Thanks to my friend – and University of Texas alum – Paul Walker for the tip on this report.

Technorati’s annual “State of the Blogosphere” is full of interesting findings, but the headline is that the influence of the blogosphere on everything from politics to marketing continues to grow. [Note: the survey is limited to bloggers and data from the U.S.] Here are select findings:

• The blogosphere (in the U.S.) is doubling in size every 230 days
• Hobbyists (who blog for fun) make up 72% of bloggers
• Though Pros (who blog full-time for a company/organization) make up only 4% of bloggers, they are becoming more prolific and influential
• Twitter has had a big impact on the blogosphere, fueling the dramatic rise of micro-blogging…up to 74% of bloggers now use Twitter
• The blogosphere continues to take over turf historically owned by traditional media sources and journalists
• Self-expression and sharing expertise continue to be the primary motivations for bloggers, and 70% of all respondents say that personal satisfaction is how they measure the success of their blog
• For pros, the key measure of success is traffic – or unique visitors
• Blogs cover a wide and diverse range of topics – including many niche subjects
• Most bloggers describe themselves as “sincere”
• Reasons for blogging range from sharing opinions and expertise (popular with hobbyists) to attracting new clients or business opportunities (more important for the pros)
• 30% of respondents say it’s important they conceal their real identity – most for fear or harassment
• Most bloggers are positive about the impact of their blogging on their personal and/or business lives

No real surprises for me in these findings, though the relatively small number of core professional bloggers seems disproportionate to their profile and influence. Then again, this tendency mirrors the trend of the small minority of people who contribute or comment on blogs. The one finding that seemed dissonant is the plurality of bloggers who feel compelled to conceal their identity. I’m not sure how this fits with the ethos of transparency, but they clearly feel compelled to separate their blogger persona from their personal identity.

FYI: Technorati is posting additional comments and articles, so look for updates in the days ahead. A couple of third-party comments on the report are here and here.

An article in USA Today yesterday provides a good overview of the popularity of online games on social networks and related Web sites – or “social gaming”. According to the  article, the rapid growth and huge audience numbers of some games and applications is shaking up the gaming industry. Gaming is now the most popular category on Facebook and MySpace. The difference between the new games and perennial online favorites – like World of Warcraft or Sims – is that they are free, widely available and easy to play.

What struck me about this article is not the growth of these virtual games – I’ve been inundated with invites and suggestions on Facebook and Twitter that range from whimsical to ridiculous – but rather the increasing focus on having fun. This trend is repeated in the thousands of apps available for the iPhone and other mobile devices…where bite-sized, novel games or tools (many of them good mostly for a laugh) are a popular download for many users.

For years the communication profession has frowned on fun, inferring that information can’t be credible or understood unless it’s serious and laden with facts. I’ve long believed that fun – injected in the right measure and manner – can make communication more memorable and effective. It’s worked well in advertising for years, but PR has mostly shut the door except for soft product marketing campaigns. Now that social media has further blurred the lines between work and play – and corporate and personal information – the battle rages on. The same debate is happening in training, where some e-learning advocates push for creative, interactive modules that feature plenty of smart humor, and more traditional HR practitioners who continue to promote face-to-face sessions supported by pedantic slides and toolkits. Fun need not be trivial, of course, but rather an attempt to inject some excitement, imagination and intellect into the training exercise. Somebody I worked with in my Dell days, Anders Gronstedt, has been promoting the use of virtual worlds like Second Life and on-demand digital content as a better alternative for training and communication. [Full disclosure, Anders is a good friend of mine and once shared my tent during a two-week climb of Kilimanjaro.]

We’ve all heard the axiom that people absorb  information better through a combination of senses – pictures, sounds, touch and words – than just speakers or words on a slide. I would argue the same logic should apply to adding an element of fun to traditional communication content – whether it be on a website, a memo or even an activity. Clearly, consumers are telling us they value entertaining content and modules, even if they serve a useful purpose. It’s time to pay attention to what our audience is telling us.

In a recent post, noted communication blogger Shel Holtz highlights the findings of a recent survey of U.S.-based CIOs that found 54% of companies do not allow their employees any access to external social networks, and 19% do so only for limited “business purposes”. Check out a summary of the original research by Robert Half here.

Holtz argues this stance is fueled more by irrational fear than logic, and furthermore that it undercuts the external social media strategy – since in many cases employees are the best ambassadors or advocates for an organization. One of Holtz’s key points is “the presumption of most companies blocking access is that employees are being unproductive, wasting time. In fact, the lines have blurred so much that even an employee spending a few minutes online to take a break from work could wind up having an interaction that benefits the company“.

I would add that a fundamental flaw in the logic of these restrictions is that they focus on the channel, rather than the underlying rules on communications and disclosure – which should theoretically apply to any communication platform. The issue is not Facebook or Twitter – though the immediacy and reach of those platforms is certainly relevant – but rather ensuring employees understand what they can/can’t communicate externally and the policies on online conduct – whether as employees or outside of work.

Add this survey to the pile of empirical data suggesting organizations have decidedly mixed feelings about social media. In this case, the dichotomy is that while more companies are increasingly keen to engage in dialog with external audiences (notably customers) they are still reluctant to allow their own employees to participate in these same conversations. And based on my experience many companies are even hesitant to allow networking and conversation within their organizations. Many employees probably see this as lack of confidence in their ability to do the right (and smart) thing, and a not-so-subtle message from management that they can’t be trusted. Not exactly the message you want to send while simultaneously asking for more productivity and loyalty.

The recent criticism aimed at IKEA in recent weeks – much of it on Twitter – is just the latest reminder that companies change their iconic brands or products at their own peril…particularly when they do so without consulting their most ardent fans. IKEA’s apparent misstep? Switching the font in its catalogs to the more pedestrian (some say ugly) Verdana font, from the original customized Futura. Check out  this account of the debate in Maclean’s magazine, and others in Time and a popular blog.  Keep in mind, folks, that we’re talking about changing the font – not a price or product – and only on the printed catalog, not the web platforms.

This story brought to life a few axioms we like to throw out over discussions on marketing:

• It’s great to have passionate fans, but it’s often the most committed customers that react negatively with “their” favorite brand changes
• Design and visual identity is as much a part of corporate identity as products or advertising – with fonts and logos being the focal point
• Surprising your most ardent fans with important news is rarely a good idea
• Social networks are as effective in spreading bad news as good news
• Everything matters when it comes to brand image – look, font, music, color, tone…etc.

The most important lesson here may be that companies need to consider their fan base – as much as possible – in any decision involving products or the brand. IKEA likely thought they were making a fairly innocuous change – seems very logical when you read their explanation – but they would likely have detected instant and strong opposition had they tested the idea with customers or influential third-parties. If we needed another reminder, customers  really are co-owners of the brand.