In the practice what you preach category comes the following anecdote on the value of building a conversation-based community.

A few weeks ago, I posted about the challenges I was hearing from a few people (Tom being most vocal) that my company didn't have a name. After all, it is just I alone who am selling myself, so what is the big deal, right?

Well, did I ever hear it from Morris and Jacob.

They pushed me hard and a multi-email discussion ensued.

Morris, the former CEO of a multi-million dollar company, then spent 90 minutes on the phone with me brainstorming.

He asked questions and listened.

We searched available domain names.

Circulated lists around back to Tom and Jacob.

Then, early on a Monday morning, Morris called up and like a pumped up football player about to storm the field prior to a game, he said:

"I've been thinking about your company name all weekend and talking about it with my wife...and I've got it!!!"

Now, before I reveal what Morris said, let's take a look at this.

Morris has plenty of other things to be doing with his time. He's got zero financial investment in my consulting efforts.

In fact, we'd only met in person, once...5 years ago.

And now, he's talking and thinking about what the name of my burgeoning consulting business should be!

It's like I have an outsourced strategy team...that works for free. (Kind of like our little Purell experiment, right?)

So, what is the name he suggested?

Market Murmur (MarketMurmur.com)

Why?

In Morris' words, "what you are doing in terms of word-of-mouth marketing, building community, and using social media (in the macro sense) is stimulating this ongoing murmur about your clients' products and services.

It's as if you are looking out at a crowd and hearing this murmur...and that murmur is about you."

Now it is your turn...let's weigh in.

 

Feeling better about the name of this blog after reading a re-blog of 8 Tips For Your Startup From Seth Godin from Jimmy Gardner.

Click through for all of them, but my favorite is:

7. They didn’t call it the Industrial Gentle Change

I've been asked before, "so, if everyone is trying to 'be remarkable,' will that just make us all generic?" 

Will it be common to be uncommon?

I don't think so.

That is, if being remarkable is an extension of you. You are remarkable in some way, aren’t you?

Business cards is a favorite topic of mine and I point to Joey Coleman's as the best example of a remarkable business card that I've ever seen.

In New York recently, I met Robert Scoble, whose card (while generic on the front side) is remarkable in its 3-d like effect on the back.

Howard Greenstein offers utility and memorability with a "I met Howard at:" with a picture.

Philippe Labelle of Zefridge, "Family Networking with a Purpose" has a Moo card (somewhat remarkable, but somewhat common), with a picture of his family on the back (see Amex ad for that one).

It's remarkable because most people don't put pictures of their family on their business cards, but his business is family networking, so it makes sense and gives his brand personality.

Remember, the beautiful thing about the "remarkable" objective is that it's easy to tell if it's working.

If people get your card and say something out of the ordinary about the card itself, it's remarkable.

 

For the next two days, I will be in intense negotiations with my single biggest investor- God.

The annual review process (aka Rosh Hashana-the Jewish New Year) is a time for God to assess my performance against the goals we set at last year’s annual meeting.

As Chairman of the Board, God looks at all of the details, leaving no stone unturned.

Typically, these are long sessions.

I am cautiously optimistic about God approving my ongoing operations for another year, but you can’t take these things for granted.

You may lobby on my behalf by emailing God directly or connecting to Him via the social network of your choice (He’s big on Facebook now, I’m told)

Good question.

Check out my newest client, JackBe, to educate yourself.

I was introduced to Philippe Labelle of Zefridge (a neat concept, worth checking out) through a mutual friend. Philippe lives in Montreal, but we both planned to be in NYC during mid-September.

We agreed to meet up.

At Penn Station.

During the middle of the day.

If you've never been there, it's a pretty busy place. Lot of people.

Not always easy to find someone you've never met.

Phillipe sent an email, suggesting a place to meet...and then he did one thing that was remarkable.

He attached his picture.

So simple, but so effective.

Reduced the time-to-find and produced something worth talking about.

Philippe obviously cares about his micro-brand.

In part 1 of the series, you saw my opinion that Eric was a “mini-spammer” via LinkedIn.

In part 2, you saw his response.

Now, we’re going to make this a learning experience for anyone who wants it.

If you are interested, we think this conversation is best done in “real time.”

So, for those in the DC area, we will meet up in a physical location, share some beers, and discuss the pros/cons.

Everyone else…we will set up a con call and invite you to participate by phone.

Just add your name in the comments section and we’ll send you the details.

He’s a successful venture capitalist living in NYC and I value and respect his insights on the developing trends in the Internet/technology industry.

You may recall that I hosted an event in DC for fans of his in the area (about which Fred subsequently blogged).

But, there’s an interesting subtext to this story.

To organize the event, I used a site called Eventbrite.

Fred is an investor in a competitor service called Meetup.

Now, I should have known this, but I didn’t think about it. I had received a number of Eventbrite invitations recently and it had received some good WOM, so I gave it a try.

Fred asked why I had chosen Eventbrite over Meetup.

I preferred the ease of use and interface.

That was the end of it…or so I thought.

A few days ago, I was contacted by Karina, who works at Meetup, who wrote:

I understand you and Fred Wilson exchanged emails a little while back about why you chose eventbrite instead of meetup to organize Community Gatherings.

I understand that you chose Eventbrite because you prefer the UI and think it's less clunky. I have 3 follow-up questions that I would love to get your quick take on.

Would you be free for a 10 minute call on Tuesday or Wedneday AM?

If a quick email exchange would be more convenient for you, please let me know.

Now, quick quiz:

Name 2 of the 8 survival strategies for marketing success in the Attention Economy?

1. Advocacy. Showing you care.
2. Listening

These are both key components in developing your WOM/Social Media strategy (click for my whitepaper).

Karina and Jesse spent 15 minutes asking questions and listening to my responses. They didn’t argue with me. They understood. Jesse even went so far as to find a post I had written about my nightmare experience w/Evite and add a comment to it! That’s showing you care.

Know what?

Based on those gestures alone, next time I will set up my event with Meetup. They’ve earned my “attention.”

Fred, Karina, and Jesse have made listening a fundamental marketing practice…which is why they are destined for success.

 

Related articles by Zemanta

• VC Fred Wilson thankful wife hasn't murdered him yet [Bloggers]
• In Fred Wilson's eye
• Meetup Tries to Get You Outside [Unplugged]
• Fred Wilson: Time to stop spending money [Venture Capital]

Now, I’m no expert in African hair braiding or the styles thereof, but I’m wondering if this sign is good marketing.

If a prospect asks you “what do you specialize in?” and your answer is “everything?”, does that really mean anything?

A few days ago, I shared the story of Eric and his use of LinkedIn to broadcast message to his network.

I had cleared this post w/Eric (name changed) and actually sent him the feedback prior to posting.

He’s offered up a counter-point argument.

Hi Jeremy:  First, many thanks for taking the time to provide this insight, which was helpful to me.  There are some ideas that I can take away from this and change accordingly.  In any case, I'll do my best share my thoughts, even though they are better expressed over a beer (the opportunity is welcomed).

Wow, though--you are tough!  I certainly don't want to end up like Diane your de-friended facebooker.  Ouch--and after one email on my part!  And it wasn't like I was sending you a Thanksgiving e-greeting card (yes, I did get one from a marketing company!), or an invitation to use Herbalife or Shacklee (side businesses which I don't--but could--have.)

Yes, I've read the mantra about email being relevant, personal, and anticipated--over and over, as a matter of fact.  But after I read your note, I asked myself when WAS the last time I received an email that had all of those attributes? 

My conclusion:  never--at least not on a mass mailing.  So, are people like you and I proselytizing a strategy that's effectively--unattainable?  I would say so, no matter how much the web 2.0-ers will jump up and down, and get red in the face telling me that I'm wrong (hmm--what does that reaction tell you about their approach?).

Anyway, I digress.  

In any case, while I'm the last one to ardently defend any tactic that I use, regarding my use of LinkedIn--however flawed--I've continued it because it works.  More than any other communication I've used, LinkedIn email gets read--and remembered. 

Relevant?  Anticipated?  Personal?  The answers to range from "yes" to "no," with "maybe" in between.  But here's something that many younger, web-2.0 savvy marketers don't universally understand:  There IS an age gap in e-communication.

Full disclosure:  I'm over 50.  And so are many of the 230 or so people in my LinkedIn network.  If I said "Twitter" to them, they would only know that it's something a bird does.  "Web2.0?" --they glaze.  Over 90% of the people in my network I know well, and 100% I've communicated with one-to-one.  Not to sound arrogant, because I'm not, but most of the people who have responded to my LinkedIn email have read it because--well, it's from me.

Which doesn't cancel the relevant, anticipated, and personal argument, but it suggests that there are other factors that generate positive results.  In my own situation, I open 100% of the LinkedIn emails I receive--even though I'm hardly considered a "power user."  Why?  Because it's sort of a "People Magazine" for my network.  If Joe Smith uses LinkedIn to announce that he hiked the Appalachian Trail this summer, I'll read it with great zeal, because it's NOT expected!  And I know Joe!  If Joe announces something that's not relevant, I'll just delete it.  But no, Joe doesn't piss me off because he sent it.

So, with that said, are there better, more efficient means for communication?  Absolutely.  Could I improve my processes and tactics?  No doubt.  Will I risk alienating people who don't want to read my email?  Sure--but I have control over that by deciding who will be in my network.

Finally, regarding brand being all about credibility . . . sounds good, but I just finished reading "Buying In" by Rob Walker.  He sure debunked some long-held beliefs I had!  Now I'd say credibility is part of branding--it's just the "all about" part of it that I struggle with.  His book brought to light things that I never thought of.  What do you think?

This debate isn’t over….what do you think?