emergencemarketing.com

Humans, like all other species, have been driven to leave a genetic legacy on this earth. Then we became the only species to develop culture to deal with change. Cultural evolution developed a symbiotic relation with genetic evolution, with humans being the main agents of cultural evolution, but with culture also impacting genetic evolution by favoring certain traits, such as non-aggressiveness.

In modern history, humans have also increasingly been driven by not only leaving a genetic legacy, but also a cultural legacy. While it used to be the purview of the cultural elite — the published writers, famous artists, architects, wealthy art benefactors, and political leaders –, the democratization of culture through the web and cheap technologies that allow anyone to become content/culture creators, has created an environment where everyone can leave a cultural legacy.

Of course, and as many leading thinkers agree, the web is not flat, and new hierarchies that curate real cultural legacies are emerging — we just don’t know who the new cultural kingmakers are.

A good example of cultural vs. genetic legacy is that of Abraham Lincoln. His gene line died off in the early 80′s but his cultural legacy will live on for many more generations.

Many companies have employer brands (that part of the brand that you show to prospective talent) that are different from their consumer brands (that part of the brand that you show to customers and prospects).

In fact research that we conducted in partnership with The Society for New Communications Research found that almost 20% of companies have an employer brand that is different from their consumer brand. And almost 70% of those that said there was a difference between the brands, also said that their organization was not attempting to make them similar.

Worse than having a different brand is when organizations show prospective employees a different organizational brand during the recruiting process as compared to the brand they experience after they are hired – they account for 15% of all companies that participated in our research (1,000+).

Having an employer brand that is different from your consumer brand may in fact not be such a great idea, and here is why:

1. A consumer brand promise in embedded in a company’s culture and how they behave behind the firewall

With more and more employees interacting with customers and prospects, your internal culture will inevitably become part of your perceived brand promise.

As John Kennedy, the head of corporate marketing at IBM said during a recent CMO 2.0 Conversation: “It is this whole intersection between not only what marketers promise and how a product may or may not perform, but also what the company is like behind the brand.” Or as Phil Clement, the CMO at Aon said during another CMO 2.0 Conversation, when he described how Aon spent two years building the brand from the inside out before taking it out to the marketplace, convinced that their consumer brand is in fact an externalization of their internal values and beliefs: “And then (we) spent about two years building consensus around the company that those characteristics were true, and built credibility around them, so that when we started to talk the talk, the employees and teammates and colleagues would be walking the walk.”

And these are not the only CMO’s that believe that, so do the CMO’s at SAP, Kimpton, Con-Way, and Macys.

2. The numbers show that is a bad idea to keep them separate

The same research study mentioned higher found that companies that show a unified employer and consumer brand can expect the following benefits compared to those that maintain separate brands:

• 1.6X higher employee satisfaction
• 3.5X higher employee loyalty
• 2.7X the number of self-directed employees
• 1.7X the number of new employees who have a positive impression of the company
• 1.5X the number of employees who are proud to tell others that they work with their organization
• 1.5-3X being more attractive to recent college grads

Those numbers are even worse for those organizations that show a different organizational brand during the recruiting process than they really have once an employee joins the company.

It pays to have consistent brands!

I have recently had the pleasure to interview several CMO’s and CIO’s, including the CMO’s at SAP, Macy’s and Aon and the CIO for the US GSA, and the VP of innovation at IBM. You can listen to the podcasts on the CMO 2.0 site and the CIO 2.0 site.

Here are some common themes that seem to emerge when talking to CIO’s and CMO’s:

1. Companies with strong shared beliefs and values do not have to compensate for local cultures — for them, the work culture trumps the local culture.
2. All CMO’s and CIO’s who I have recently interviewed think that understanding employee culture is an important aspect of their success. Many CMO’s are also starting to pay more attention to consumer cultures.
3. Most CMO’s who I recently interviewed are trying to humanize their brands by having people whose job is not marketing or sales to engage with their customers.
4. Most CMO’s who I recently interviewed are trying to promote global brands while staying locally relevant.
5. Every single CMO and CIO who I interviewed is metrics-driven.

If you have suggestions for other CMO’s or CIO’s to interview, please let me know.

Really — do you? What is the ROI on your phone system, or your conference room?

A recent set of articles such as this one in Digiday or this one in Fast Company tackle the issue of social and ROi — a real interesting topic.

Let’s start by taking a closer look at what it means. In our book, The Hyper-Social Organization, we define companies that are successful at leveraging the social as those that have been able to turn their business processes into social processes. That does not mean slapping those processes on top of social media — but it means powering those processes with people, or humans, and to anchor those processes in what we termed human 1.0 characteristics like reciprocity, fairness, status and power, tribal social instincts and the like. So in a way, succeeding at leveraging the social is allowing your employees to behave like humans with customers, prospects, partners and potential employees. Some call it humanizing your company.

Those companies that are able to humanize their company derive unbelievable benefits compared to those that continue the old ways of behaving in the marketplace — more loyal customers, more positive word of mouth (which leads to twice the amount of new business than traditional marketing programs), and more loyal and passionate employees.

Which brings us back to the ROI question — how do you calculate the ROI of becoming human in the workplace once again? You don’t.

Now what people talk about when they think ROI of social media programs is the ROI associated with traditional marketing programs run on top of social media platforms. But succeeding at leveraging the social in business is fundamentally much more profound than running traditional marketing program like couponing on top of those social platforms.

What do you think?

The students at Baruch College’s Executive MBA Cohort 31 read our book, The Hyper-Social Organization, and authored a detailed blog post with 9 principles to build a successful social business (http://baruchemba31.blogspot.com/2012/01/principles-for-building-successful.html#comment-form). They invited me to engage in the conversation with them, so here are some of the comments I have on their great piece.

On the first principle — Objectives Should Complement Strengths and Help Overcome Weaknesses –I would add that a social business strategy can humanize a brand and therefore make it more appealing to people. People relate better with other people than they do with organizations, which are a relatively new concept when compared to human evolution ( I wrote an article on this here: http://www.imediaconnection.com/article_full.aspx?id=29788 and also here in terms of how to think of social and brands – http://www.emergencemarketing.com/2011/06/25/creating-unified-customer-experiences/)

On Point II — An Executive Sponsor (VP Social Business) Should Champion Social Business Strategy and Lead Culture Change – I agree. For many (older) companies this will mean a real change management process — and that can be painful.

But I do not agree with Point III — A Single Department Should Own Social Media. I think that when successful, social needs to become part of the fabric of the company. If you give “ownership” to a department then you will end up with one more silo. Customer support needs to embrace it, IT needs to embrace it for their knowledge management and innovation, HR needs to get on board, product development. It is not just marketing and communications. You want to be like IBM, where there is no corporate twitter feed, no corporate blog, but where the employees — all employees — are encouraged to be the face of the company. See my interview with Erin Nelson, the former CMO at Dell where she talks about that http://www.cmotwo.com/2010/03/04/cmo-20-conversation-with-erin-nelson-cmo-at-dell-and-manish-mehta-vp-of-social-media-and-communities/).

I agree with point IV — A Social Media Policy and Process Toolkit is Necessary–, but you cannot be too rigid. Policies need to viewed as guiderails more so than as rigid “do this and DON’T DO THAT or else” type tools. Again, at IBM they developed guidelines, in partnership with the employees, which are encouraging rather than discouraging. The same happened at other companies like Xerox. Because the risks of screwing up are egalitarian (e.g., the CEO is as likely to mess up as the junior communications employee, and the personal risks are as high as the company risks), there is a great opportunity to mitigate risk through education.

On Point V — Technology Platforms and Investment Decisions Must be Identified Early –, I agree, but would caution not to start with technology. My partner, Scott Wilder, who used to run all communities at Intuit, used to say – if your community would not survive in a Yahoo! Group, it will probably not survive anywhere. Companies tend to start with the tools and technology, where they really should start with the tribes and their shared passion, pain and interest. They then need to pay attention at what the day in the life of a user would look like if this were to be successful. It is really product management 101 to determine the features and then select technology that will meet that need.

I agree on VI — A Communications Hub Should be Created by the Social Business Dept –, although many companies give in to the loudest megaphones on social platform and they fix the problems of the individual loudmouths instead of focusing on fixing the problems that affect everyone. A company that truly gets that is JetBlue.

I agree with VII — Trust, Train, and Certify –, although I would say that what you want to do is to allow employees to act as humans again in the work environment — and humans know how to behave as humans. Look at your families and circles of friends — it can get messy, and some people will screw up, but we know how to deal with that. So TRUST is maybe the most important aspect to focus on. Don’t build the system for the 1% of people who will screw up — build it for the 99% who will benefit from it.

On Point VIII — Be Human, Be Transparent – transparency is important, but the more important characteristic is fairness. Sometimes a company cannot be transparent, but as long as that is explained in a fair way, employees and customers will understand.

On Point  IX — Social Analytics Must Drive Key Strategic Decisions — I am not sure that I completely agree. Yes, social analytics are important. But more important is to measure the impact of a social program on a process the same way as you measure the impact of other programs on the process. So for example — if you leverage social programs as part of customer support, measure the impact the same way as you would measure the impact of the call center on customer support; if you use social programs for lead gen purposes, measure the impact the same way as you measure the impact of email marketing, etc.

But the point that you are making about mining the big data that comes with social and digital marketing is a great one. Companies need to stop storing, securing and serving up that data in fancy reports and instead mine it for actionable insights like pricing strategy, marketing strategy, distribution strategy and product development strategies.

Dan Greller, the former CIO at Legg Mason, and currently technology innovation consultant, speaker and writer (with a great blog), was kind enough to join me for my second CIO 2.0 Conversation.

Dan has 30 years of experience managing global technology organizations, mostly within the financial services industry. Having first entered the job market when the debate between mainframe and desktop computing was raging, Dan has seen his share of technology innovation battles – which made it particularly interesting to discuss this latest battle between innovation and control taking place within most companies around adopting new technologies.

According to Dan, that balance between innovation and control has remained the hardest balance for CIO’s to manage. Between the increasing demands that organizations put on their IT departments and their CIO’s, the accelerating pace of change, and the ease with which employees can now bypass their IT department – that balance will become harder to manage, not easier.

The consumerization of IT, which refers to the phenomenon that consumer technology innovations are increasingly driving enterprise tools development, and also to the fact that many employees now expect their personal tools – their phone, tablet and home laptops – to work within their work environment, is clearly here to stay. The user experience that enterprise tools provide sorely lacks the experience that consumer services provide. Think of doing a Google search vs searching for content in your corporate knowledge management system, compare your corporate procurement process with the Amazon buying process, or look at how your corporate software provisioning differs from the experience you have in the iPhone or Android app stores. There is no comparison, and it is that difference in experience that leads to the consumerization of IT. CIO’s react to these forces in different ways – some say NO, and some put their head in the sand. Clearly neither one of those strategies is a workable strategy. Both will leave your users dissatisfied and relegate your IT department to irrelevance. CIO’s need to partner with key constituents and business unit owners and decide on strategic technical directions that match the culture of the company and deal with the risks associated with those strategies – human resource (HR) risks, compliance risks, legal risks, reputation risks, security risks, IP leakage risks, etc.

Risks are a thorny issue for many companies, and one that can stop innovations in their tracks. Many people, who by nature are averse to change, will hide behind potential risks, often unreal ones, to avoid having to deal with that change. In assessing risks, Dan suggests that people look at the Netflix manifesto about their culture, where they talk about a concept called the waterline. The way they look at decision-making and risk is that they think of their company as a boat, and they think of decisions being above or below the waterline. If a decision is below the waterline, then the risks of having something go wrong is much higher than if the decision is above the waterline.

We then talked about the changing role of IT and CIO’s as it relates to shifting their position from order takers to strategic business partners. CIO’s need to be the leaders who understand technologies and how they apply to the business. They need to be the ones that recommend and provide guidance on how to leverage social computing, mobility, universal access, cloud computing and “big data” as part of business processes.

Social computing should be on every CIO’s agenda, not because it’s a fad, but because eventually it will have to become part of every enterprise process and the systems that support them.

On the topic of measurements, Dan believes that there are two types of measurements – hard measurements and the anecdotal comparisons with peers. And while Dan is not a big proponent of hard benchmarks, which would require the ability to compare apples with apples, something that is virtually impossible in diverse organizations,  he does believe that comparisons with other people and companies in your industry are important. This makes sense in a competitive environment where the winner is the one that can stay ahead of the others. One of the most important measurement criteria for IT departments should be customer satisfaction, but that needs to be balanced with metrics that reflect the increasing strategic partnership that needs to exist between IT departments and the business units.

Culture trumps all and CIO’s should be thinking about culture as part of everything they do. It is what motivates people to do what they do, and it is what ultimately determines the effectiveness of all organizations. Dan believes that companies should listen to Daniel Pink when he says that people have three motivations, autonomy, mastery and purpose. They want to have a say in their destiny, they want to be recognized as a master in certain fields, and they want to be connected to a higher purpose. It’s important to have a culture that understands and promotes those values, both for your employees and also for your customers.

To create or change a corporate culture, you need to articulate where you want the culture to be, communicate it clearly with your employees, walk the talk, and reward and recognize behavior that supports that culture. The latter is especially important for IT departments, where metrics around on-time delivery and zero tolerance for failure have often stood in the way of creating a collaborative and innovative culture.

Dan ended the conversation with a few pieces of advice for IT professionals – don’t just focus on the bits and bytes, but focus on humans, their cultures and their biases; reach out to other disciplines like psychology and economics; think beyond your technical expertise when you think about the competencies that are needed to get your job done.

Well said.

Other things that we discussed include:

• How smart companies now deal with risks through a combination of education and guiderails rather than through policies alone
• The importance of e-discovery and archival systems in regulated markets
• The positive aspects of operating in regulated environments where everything gets recorded on business communications
• The importance for CIO’s to stay abreast of what happens to their industry by networking with peers
• How companies and individuals deal with innate human/cognitive biases like the confirmation bias

As usual, you can listen to the actual podcast at the CMO 2.0 Site.

I truly enjoyed my CMO 2.0 Influencer conversation with Tom Asacker – who I consider a friend and also admire as an original marketing thinker. Tom is the author of multiple books, including Opportunity Screams: Unlocking Hearts and Minds in Today’s Idea Economy, and also blogs at A Clear Eye. Before becoming a successful author and speaker, Tom started his career at GE, where he participated in a management buyout of an electronics firm. After that he became the founder and CEO for a medical devices company.

The first topic we tackled is that of marketing in a world where everyone, including executives, is increasingly overwhelmed with the amount of information that is coming at them. Tom is convinced that most executives need to pause and rethink their purpose and how they will execute that purpose. While the priorities of marketing have not changed all that much  - drive top line growth and grow marketshare -, those are results that come from understanding and feeding the hungers of your audiences and the customer insights, and from better defining one’s brand and how to deliver a differentiated value proposition. Marketing executives cannot optimize their way to success by measuring everything and everyone to death. They need to care deeply about their audience and create unique value that improves their audience’s lives. You cannot expect results from spreading messages all over the place hoping that somehow you will connect with the feelings of your audience – you have to really care.

Marketers also have to rethink their content, and develop it in a way that it will travel in those circles where buying recommendations are being made. That means that we have to understand what value people will derive from using the content we develop with others. After all, most people only do what they value – and that is true for making recommendations and reusing vendor content. Marketers need to switch from their traditional inside-out perspective and start looking at everything they do through the eyes of their audiences.

People need to realize that everything in the marketplace has changed – the amount of products and services is overwhelming, and the amount of information is overwhelming, buyers’ attitudes about how they filter and process information and how they are making their decisions has changed.

Next we switched to one of Tom’s favorite topics – branding. Branding is of course something that exists in the mind of a customer – it’s an expectation of value that gets created through interactions in the marketplace. Those interactions can include advertising, pricing, social exchanges with other users, packaging, financing options or interactions with company employees. As you can see, many of these interactions are happening with touch points that are somewhat controlled by the company. So to say that the consumer owns the brand is a fallacy. Tom wishes we would have a Deming-like figure in the branding space – someone who could influence how everyone in a company feels responsible for the brand.

About engagement, Tom said: “People at successful companies love what they do, they believe in what it is they get up in the morning and go to work to do every day. Secondly they love who they do it for; the’re interested in in their audience and what they’re all about and how to improve their lives and how to make things better. And the third thing, is which I call engagement, is that they like the process of keeping what they do and what they love connected to others: others’ interest and others’ values. They love the idea of injecting energy into their idea and bringing it to life for everyone’s benefit.” How is that for a definition of engagement? Much better than most definitions being bantered around in the agency space if you ask me.

Continuing on the topic of engagement, Tom described the three steps you need to follow to engage people – three steps that are described in more detail in his latest book “Opportunity Screams: Unlocking Hearts and Minds in Today’s Idea Economy.” The first step is you want to engage people’s conscious attention. How do you get someone to stop and think about what’s being presented? You do that by charming them and by providing some cue to value. Once you feed their hungers and you’re reflective of them and their self-identities, you entice them to participate. All they want to do then is believe, and you can help them believe in what you do by conveying purpose through your actions, by stimulating interaction and sharing like you discuss all the time. But you always have to have value and unfortunately most businesses don’t believe in the distinctive value they add to people’s lives.

You cannot have a conversation with Tom without talking about culture and so we talked about this whole notion that culture trumps strategy, and what that means for older companies that may not have ideal cultures to roll out new strategies. In older companies you often have what Tom calls cultural immune systems that end up blocking new ideas and new perspectives. Leaders need to be aware of this and be willing to take off their cultural glasses and expose themselves to new ideas (Note that we will be conducting a research project on culture and strategy in partnership with the Schulich School of Business at York University, email me if interested).

“Business is about people, it’s about culture, it’s about feelings, it’s a way to help people feel prosperity and well being. It’s not about numbers,” said Tom, and I must say that I could not agree more.

We talked about a lot more things than can be captured in this blog post. I hope you will find the time to listen to the podcast.

Other things we discussed include:

• How Drucker’s moto that business is marketing never materialized
• The importance of the last transaction on the brand perception
• How the expectations that we have from brands has soared
• The role (or lack thereof) of agencies in meaning making
• How engagement is not the same as sustained attention
• The resistance of middle management to cultural changes
• Ways to change corporate cultures that do not involve a near-death experience
• The importance of finding meaning at work and being able to bring passion to work

As usual you can listen to the full conversation at the CMO 2.0 Site.

[update 5/17/11] – the editor for the magazine got back with me, apologized and rectified the situation. I removed their name from the title of he post.

At some point in time tonight, I got a Google Alert about the Tribalization of Business Study, a study which I co-founded with Deloitte and the Society for New Communications Research and which is in its 4th year.

The article, written by Marco Ciobo, a Principal at AT Kearney, claimed that “A study by AT Kearney in 2009, called The Tribalization of Business, found that the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies in the US investigated, and then relegated, social media to the marketing department, which was also given responsibility for imposing tight policy controls on its use.” (screenshot here)

I immediately posted a comment on the Business Spectator Article, alerting them to the fact that the study was not done by AT Kearney, but by Human 1.0 (formerly Beeline Labs), Deloitte and the Society for New Communications Research. I also tweeted my indignation with the obvious plagiarism. After all, the study made for the foundation of our award winning book, The Hyper-Social Organization, which was published by McGraw-Hill last year.

The comment was not approved, but the article was modified to say that “A study by Deloitte and the Society for New Communications Research, in 2009, called The Tribalization of Business*” – without any mention that:

• The article had been modified
• Human 1.0/Beeline Labs is a founding sponsor and a driving force behind the study

In my book, this is a bad practice all around, violating most Human 1.0 principles we discovered through the Tribalization of Business study.

Everyone knows what word of mouth means (WOM) – it means a positive or negative recommendation about a product by another user, a friend, a trusted resource, or a stranger. Observational learning (OL) is another phenomenon that influences our buying behavior and relates to observing others use a product or service. Observational learning works on us because we are a herding species that tend to copy others. So if you have a lot of information about a restaurant and you go there, only to find a line at another restaurant across the street, you are likely to go stand in that line and use the observation of others preferring that place instead of your own data.

This new research, Online Social Interactions: A Natural Experiment of Word of Mouth Versus Observational Learning, published in the April 2011 Journal of Marketing Research, has some interesting findings and quotes, including:

• 71% of US adults who purchase online use consumer product reviews for their purchases (according to a recent Wall Street Journal Survey)
• Negative WOM  information is more diagnostic, and researchers have found it to have a greater impact on consumers’ adoption decisions than positive WOM information
• Both WOM and OL  have a larger impact on buying decisions early on in a product lifecycle
• There is an asymmetrical impact of OL on sales - meaning that a lot of OL will drive a lot of sales while a lack of OL for niche products does not hurt sales of those niche products – so while negative WOM is more influential than positive WOM, positive OL is more influential than negative OL
• The amount of WOM strengthens the impact of OL information (i.e., they are complementary)

So what does that mean for your business? Try to encourage as much WOM as you can and if you can show potential buyers OL from others, do it in conjunction with your WOM efforts.

This post is a follow up to last week’s Innochat with the Innocat tribe. The chat was so fast and furious that I had a hard time keeping up – so this is an attempt to continue the conversation asynchronously.

The first unanswered question came from @bpluskowski where he asked to define what “successfully” meant when I said that Hyper-Social organizations are those organizations that have successfully baked the social as part of their DNA. When we talk about “successfully” baking the social as part of their DNA we mean companies that have embedded the social as part of everything they do: customer engagement, employee engagement, new product innovation, etc. , as opposed to companies that have discreet programs (often times marketing programs) that somehow leverage “social” media. To succeed with social it must become part of the fabric of your company culture – like Erin Nelson, ex CMO at Dell said when I interviewed her “Compared to other CMO’s I consider myself lucky. Dell Hell put our brand under pressure and  so to engage in social media  was actually a question of survival….you cannot get into social media by just putting a toe in the water – you are either all in and it becomes part of your culture, or you’re not.”

Some people had questions regarding the Human 1.0 principles – reciprocity, fairness, need for status and power, wanting to be with others that are just like us, being a herding species, etc. Those are not learned behaviors, they are reflexes and hardwired behaviors that have been explained by evolutionary biologists. We developed reciprocity as a reflex because if we can get strangers to care for our offspring as if it were their own, when we go hunting and gathering, there is a higher likelihood that our gene-line will survive. If we are not willing to pay a personal toll to punish someone who treats us unfairly, then freeloaders could bring down our reciprocal society. We love power and status because it used to get us access to better mates and more food. We like to hoard status and power because it ensures better mates and more food for our offspring. We are herding and self-herding because we are driven by a need to preserve energy, and if we can safe energy by not making decisions and instead take those of our tribe members as a proxy we will do so.

There were lot’s of questions and comments about the tribe concept. Tribes are different from psychographics because understanding tribes requires you to understand the tribe’s culture. Psychographics touch on behavioral characteristics, but they only focus on individual behavioral characteristics, not cultural/group behavioral characteristics.

Tribes and communities are the same – tribes is a term that anthropologist use and communities one that sociologists use to mean the same thing.

During the conversations some people started talking about fans and ambassadors. Fans are a tribe, but with sometimes very different characteristics that other consumer tribes. Ambassadors are what I sometimes refer to as the leaders of your tribes. Besides understanding the culture of your tribes, it is very important to understand their leaders and find ways to engage them. And yes, you do self-select to be in modern tribes, and you can voluntary leave them, making it tricky to exert too much top-down control in tribal environments.

As to how many tribes we can belong to, I think the answer is different depending on the person. But it is safe to say that most people will only belong to one tribe per interest. That points to the fact that there is a true first mover advantage for those companies that can tap into their tribes. As long as Fiskars does not screw up the Fiskateers, it will be very hard for others to create another vibrant scrap-booker community.

@dscofield made the point that many companies seem to find their external tribes but few find enable their internal tribes. That is so true, and the power that you can get from matching your internal tribes with your external tribes (put people from within your company with a shared interest, shared passion or pain in touch with people on the outside) is tremendous.

We found examples of companies turning business processes into social processes for every imaginable process, except finance and legal. I think that we may never find them, but would love to document them if they exist. The reason why I think we won’t find them is because successful Hyper-Social organizations stop being company or product centric. They instead become 100% customer, employee or human-centric, like Fiskars, Jeep or Mini (see this blog post). @bpluskowski disagreed with that point and listed microfinancing and venture funding as examples of social financial processes. I do not disagree with that point, but the point I was trying to make is that we have not found internal finance processes to be social. So the internal financial department within a microfinancing organization or venture fund is unlikely to be social.

There were some comments and questions around the differences between B2B and B2C. Our research has found no difference between the success criteria of B2B or B2C companies that turned themselves into Hyper-Social organizations. The reason for that is that when it works, it’s not B’s talking to B’s or C’s – it’s people talking to people.

We talked about Netnography being a good methodology to understand/study online tribes. The founder of Netnography, @kozinets, was kind enough to post a white paper about netnography after our chat – thanks Rob!

Thank you all for the great chat – I did learn a few things as usual - @Renee_Hopkins, @AndreaMeyer, @bpluskowski, @dscofield, @MWCemily, @lindanaiman, @ken_rosen, @stevemassi, @greggfraley, @adhansen, @bo, @CreativeSage, @SteveKoss, @gnosisarts, @bikespoke, @innovKelli, @sourcepov, @DrewCM, @blogbrevity, @DavidWLocke, @Note_to_CMO, @futurescape, @MaxMckeown, @thehealthmaven, @adivik2000, @thebrandbuilder, @YKabakibo, @pprothe, @johntodor, @thotstr, @tomasacker, @webby2001, @LadyZhere, @mambomedia, @marydpadilla, @pavanvoice, @TomOB, @4byoung, @TheB2BModel, @Adrianaology, @Chris_Eh_Young, @megheuer, @T_C_P, @quality1