Message to Brand: Stop Trying to Be My Friend and Just Leave Me Alone

I've noticed a lot of social media twits talking about brands needing to treat people 'like a friend'. Unfairly, I've picked one here as an example. Why is this concept so silly?

• My friends are by and large human. By being human they offer me certain things a tube of toothpaste just can't
• It's socially acceptable to have humans as friends (some other animals are ok I guess), but declaring consumer goods as friends is not really socially acceptable
• Brands can't hug, drink red wine, play tennis or chess, have breakfast on Saturday morning, chat on the phone, or do a lot of the other types of things I like to do with friends.

And so on....

Now not only do I not want brands to try and be my friend, normally I want them to leave me completely alone. OK sometimes I want brands to entertain me, or shock me, or educate me, or even liberate me. But mostly I want brands to leave me the hell alone (don't we all??)

The exception to this is when a brand gives me more than it takes - this is normally at the point of consumption. That bowl of Corn Flakes gives me a tasty breaky - and doesn't ask to much for the privilege (unlike a friend it doesn't demand that I talk to them, or make them breakfast in return). However, what about when communicating with me. How does a brand give more than it takes. It simply either useful, informative or entertaining to such a level that I feel the attention I gave / it took was (more than) worth it. The value exchange was in my favour.

If I were a brand - and I was desperate to make friends - I would leave the poor consumer alone (face it chances are you're an inanimate object) and instead make friends with other brands. Realise that people don't consume brands in isolation - they consume brands as little brand collectives (with my Kellogg's Corn Flakes I enjoy Pura Milk, CSR Brown Sugar, and a copy of the Sydney Morning Herald). As far as I am concerned none of these obviously synergistic brands has ever tried to be friends with each other - yet they've all screamed their respective merits of friendship at me.

If I were a 'social media expert' I would limit my advice to how brands can best utilise the social media space - and ground this in carefully considered insights not random opinion.

The Best Psychology Books To Read

Often I get asked what books people should read if they are interested in psychology. I'm writing this post so that I can refer such requests to a single post - this one. As a bit of background you enter psychology through a BA(Arts) or a BSC(Psych), complete a 4th year, and then do either a two year Masters, or 3 year Doctorate. Basically it's a 6 or 7 year degree. However, read the right books, don a pair of glasses, and ask lots of questions then you're 90% the way there. Please embrace the following books.

You want to...

Help someone who is sad / anxious

• Change your thinking, by Sarah Edelman (do her short courses too - they are excellent)
• The Practice of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, by Albert Ellis (the non-psychologists psychologist)
• Learned Optimism, by Martin Seligman (founder of the deservedly popular positive psychology movement)

Save your relationship

• Living and Loving Together, by Dr Bob Montgomery (bad title, good book - although written by a lecturer of mine who was sometimes somewhat inappropriate)

Understand how your kids grow up

• Looking Forwards Through The Lifespan, by Kandy Peterson

Bluff your way in various aspects of Psychology

• Systems of Psychotheray: A Transtheoretical Analysis, by Prochaska and Norcross (this is the must have book for understanding all the different forms of psychology (existential, CBT, psychoanalytic, systemic and so on). It's very useful.
• The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -(DSM - IVTR) (this is the reference book that lists all the psychological issues people have and how to diagnose them)

Understand who you are and what its all about

• 'Existential Psychotherapy' by Irvin Yalom (this book frighteningly had the power to make me to change my name from Adam to Max (it's still officially Max according to government records!)
• 'Loves Executioner' by Irvin Yalom (everyone should read at least one thing written by Irvin Yalom)

Be titillated with Sensational Forensic Psychology Stuff based in Science

• Whoever fights monsters', by Robert Ressler (this is the guy who started by the Behavioural Sciences Unit for the FBI, the guy Silence of the Lambs is based on)
• Sexual Homicide by Ressler et al (great stuff)

Understand Consumer Psychology

• The mental world of brands', Wendy Gordon (very boring but some good stuff in there)
• The soul of the new consumer, Lauri Windham (dated but good)
• The advertised mind, by Eric Du Plessis (not a psychologist, he's an ex Millward Brown researcher, but still an interesting read)

Any other builds greatly appreciated.

Young Mums Love Online Social Networks

Recently in the press was an article explaining that Women rule the blogosphere. The blogs mentioned were not about women, as the article suggested but mothers, in particular 'new mothers'. The article postulated that it was because there was lots for them to share, lots of new experiences, and they are natural communicators. Mia Freedman's brilliantly titled, http://www.mamamia.com.au/ blog gets 300,000 hits a month (photo from her blog).

However, what the article neglected to mention was possibly the main reason 'new mothers communicate on the blogosphere, and social networks so much is that they have the time to do it. They have more free time than most other demographic groups. However, before you respond with vitriol - it's the nature of that free time that makes them so likely to jump online and chat to friends / blog / gaming sites:

• they have lots of free time every day
• the time is given to them only in 10 - 20 minute chunks - there will always be something to do next (i.e. when the kids wake up)
• because they are looking after kids it's hard to leave the house within that time.
• They will avoid the TV during the day so they can watch it with husband / family when they come home in the evening

Young mothers over index dramatically on nearly all forms of Internet based behaviours (including online gaming and bingo). Reach them via the net, and in particular social media.

Boris The Rooster: North Melbourne Players Need Help

I love AFL, but must comment on the 'Boris The Rooster' affair. Some players from North Melbourne football club posted a video on YouTube of a toy rooster wining and dining a 'woman' chicken, having sex with it, violently beating the woman chicken up, killing the woman, and then having sex with the now dead carcass again.

North Melbourne CEO Eugene Arocca, says it wasn't intentionally meant to harm people. He also said "we have been treated unfairly". He also claimed it was an aberration (as did their captain in what was obviously a PR fed line). Worse, he then had the team stand together - supposedly, to take responsibility. Have they seen Spartacus -(looks like they have). The unified team stands together so the real culprits can't be identified. Shameful.

Seemingly under pressure from the AFL Adam Simpson (their former captain!) and D Pratt then come clean (ironically on The misogynistic Footy Show) exclaiming it was not meant for other peoples eyes - just their own as if that somehow makes it right.

Here's the real issue. The video wasn't an aberration. People develop, over time, patterns of behaviour. These patterns of behaviour are driven by thoughts and beliefs that are formed over a lifetime of experience. The boys who made these videos have very distorted cognitions - they most likely see women as disposable, inferior, and worthless. Something to exploit. Further, their behavior would suggest they harbour aggressive thoughts towards women - they simply must if they think depicting women in this light is ok!

Further, as they read this, they may say things to themselves such as 'it was just a joke', or 'It was a chicken - not a real woman', and so on. They will justify their behaviour to themselves to see themselves in the best possible light (no one wants to see themselves as a monster - even people who commit monstrous acts).

The scary thing is these distorted cognitions are - if left unchecked, dangerous. They can be the precursor to actual abusive behaviour towards women. And even worse their hopelessly out of his depth CEO is unwittingly condoning their behaviour - probably because he too, to some degree has similar beliefs.

It's encouraging to hear that the AFL wants to step in and punish those involved. The punishment may change those involved behaviour, but more importantly it sends the message of 'Guys what you did was sick. You may not be able to see it yet - but with a lot of education, psychological intervention, and effort, you may'. The AFL is still a long way from really understanding the problem. However, they appear sincere in their desire to eliminate this kind of behaviour. Well done to the guys who owned up to the video - I hope they get the help they need to change their thoughts, beliefs and behaviour.

Social Media is Antisocial Media

Last week a number of NSW Corrective Services Officers received disciplinary letters from The Department of Corrective Services (my (thankfully) former employer) for forming a Facebook group that opposed the privatisation of Australia's prisons (making money off people in detention is barbaric and dangerous - but that is for another post).

The officers at the centre of the furore said it was no different to a bunch of workers going to the pub at the end of the day and having a gripe. However, this is not exactly true - there is one key difference, and that's proof. Social media is almost exclusively written (published), and as someone once said to me "Google is forever" - that once an opinion is out there in the social media space it's out there for good. The opinion of these officers - because it was written down in social media means they were at risk of being fired.

It's not just with the officers above, but also anyone who wants to give an opinion, or share a point of view, must now be increasingly careful of what they say. Even if the original point of view is mentioned only verbally, with Twitterers, Vloggers, Bloggers ect all looking for something sensational to write about (content) - the potential repercussion of any comment people make is both a) amplified, and b) made much more difficult to predict.

Ultimately this fosters a culture of nervousness, with people unsure of what to say. What will or will not be amplifed, and how? Ultimately leading to the suppression of thought, just like the Thought Police in 1984 - people whose views are unusual or dissenting are outed by others - sometimes with a mob like mentality. Are we therefore being the thought police against each other?

Further, this is exacerbated via anonymity. Under the cloak of anonymity people can say whatever they like. Unfortunately, this further suppresses the sharing of ideas, and expression of the individual - as no one wants to be bullied. This bullying can range from the comments on industry specific blogs (in our case Campaign Brief and Mumbrella) to the tragic cyber bullying that exists in the school yard - all very antisocial media.

Finally, as mentioned before - to get a voice in social media (and I guess in particular the Blogosphere you don't need to be right - just loud, sensational, nasty, aggressive or fear mongering. I've written about this previously here. People need to be held accountable somehow for what they say.

I'm a fan of both free speech and carefully considered censorship. These are at least two of the issues that need to be considered in deciding how to regulate the content of social media.

Adnews Comment - Bright Picture, Dark Negative

Here's my comments in this weeks Adnews. Hope you have a magnifying glass.