I happened upon Churbuck's post around the time I was "connecting" on LinkedIn with past coworkers and trying to loogle them. It started out quite innocently with me trying to find one of my good friends on there who is a student at UCLA's management school. I kept on getting an "upgrade membership" button that kept flashing every time I tried and failed to click away from the page.

When did LinkedIn start bugging me to upgrade my membership? Thinking back, I had started noticing this a while back, but it took a few months to settle in my mind to the point of distracting me from enjoying the site.

Unfortunately around the time this malaise set in, I was also on Facebook. My friend had sent me another of those SuperWall pictures which required me clicking on the image to see what it did, but before I could get to that image I was navigated to yet another page which prompted me to send the very image to all of my friends before I was allowed to open the actual image. Thankfully it also selected all of my friends as recipients of this picture so it saved me the work of having to send a picture of a dog to 50 of my nearest and dearest.

On the flipside, when I tried to "pull one over" on the system by "unselecting" all, it prompted me to choose one lucky recipient of an Alaskan Husky picture which most likely barked and sang"Happy Holidays" to the tune of "Feliz Navidad" when clicked on. Annoyed that I had just spent seven minutes of my life driving towards a reality far less appealing than the my mind's conjurings, I started to philosophize a bit on Churbuck's likening of "spam" to this tactic that Facebook API developers have taken to spreading the word of their creations. Initially I had taken to this feature, especially because I could choose which of my friends would care to partake in a game of Scrabble with me and go a few rounds. Same with Flixter. In a sense it also allowed me to be more social with people I wouldn't have contact with on a daily basis and rediscover or discover connections I never would have found otherwise.

Newsweek maintains that Facebook is the console of the future (replacing Wii??) and it will connect people socially through computers as never before. Considering it's the sixth most trafficked site in the world, it's a possibility. But really short of wireless remotes combined with action-oriented competitive games w/amazing graphics, how can the existing Facebook APIs compete with what Sony, IBM, and Microsoft are putting out?

Ford’s widget ads, which can be seen on AOL sites starting this week, will boast portable API-friendly code to embed the widget on other sites. While I understand what Ford and Microsoft have to gain in the process of building a community of MySpace and Facebook users flaunting their products, I’m not sure what users get in return. To this point, if there isn’t an existing community of users and advocates for a product (like Sync), how does a campaign like this get wheels. Does it have all the ingredients? Or is a bit like putting a cart before a horse?

Google’s Gmail ad campaign stemmed from a preexisting fan base of avid and enthusiastic users to build a more cohesive community through the power of user-generated video and the simplicity of its message: Just how does a single email navigate from point A to point B? In other words, what’s its path? (Google’s satellite feature to map out user video locations is a nice add-on to the video visual) Google’s success with this ad, much like many of their initiatives, stems from a keen understanding of the precise intersect between timing and innovation. Had Google launched a campaign like this before Gmail branded itself as synonymous with “email” and asked users the very same question, it would have sunk.

Widget ads do appear to be the wave of the now with major industries (entertainment, automotive, romance) piggy-backing on the new trend, but again, I’m brought back to the same burning question. What’s in it for me? As the consumer? As the Facebook member? As the occasional MySpace voyeur? What do I have to gain from posting a widget from the film August Rush with trailers from the film and local show times unless I’m a publicity agent at a PR firm or an industry-related site owner that gets some sort of monetary pay-per-click/pay-per-impression incentive? (assuming there is a performance model in place) Companies like ClearSpring, PointRoll, and Interpolls, who is hosting the Sync product, are already fast-track on the way to creating systems for tracking and monetizing traffic based on widget ad revenue. As an aside, Yahoo is currently working on sprucing up their widget platform, most likely to accommodate for this growing trend.

I get that advertising models these days are shifting with the times to incorporate ways of involving the everyday person in opportunities to have a “voice” in their public campaigns and that truly successful campaigns empower individuals by giving them ownership and a sense of tangible pride in their brand, but whether the widget ad model can support this model remains to be seen.

The technology itself is quite interesting, and makes a lot of sense for Holosonic's initial market: museums, libraries, and other quiet places that can use audio narration to enhance the visitor experience. But hearing ads in your head while innocently walking down the street certainly strikes me as pretty intrusive!

As in museums, Pompeii claims the new approach is similarly all about lessening noise pollution:

"If you really want to annoy a lot of people, a loudspeaker is the best way to do it," he said. "If you set up a loudspeaker on the top of a building, everybody's going to hear that noise. But if you're only directing that sound to a specific viewer, you're never going to hear a neighbor complaint from street vendors or pedestrians. The whole idea is to spare other people."

Sorry, Joe, I'm not convinced. I'm sure it's a pretty cool experience to hear this particular promo for the first time, but the prospect of getting pitches in my ear every time I walk down a street, through a store, and around any other public space (all of which are no doubt anxious to auction off more advertising space to eager sponsors), is creepy indeed.  Intrusive advertising is still intrusive, even if it's more narrowly targeted.

Scott Anderson, Vice President of Customer Communications for HP's Technology Solutions Group (which serves business customers) provided a great answer during a BtoB webinar today on how business technology buyers use media in the buying process.

According to Anderson, HP has made three major investments in content creation in the last two years:

• Build a new editorial team staffed especially by technology journalists, rather than marcom people. As he noted, journalists typically have both a more skeptical eye and better story telling skills 
• Organize a platform to enable HP's subject matter experts (engineers, consultants, etc.) to bring their own voices directly into the market (rather than being "translated" by the marcom staff) with blogs, forums, and other conversational contributions
• Create more opportunities for HP customers to share their own stories and ideas at events and online.

Has HP fully swept out the old and embraced the new? Of course not. You can easily find all manner of traditional features and functions promotional content from HP -- and not all of it is useless. According to buyer research presented by tech publisher CMP during today's webinar, many buyers do actually want to see the technical details, so long as it comes during the right phase in the buying process.

Most important, though, HP has taken three important steps forward in creating a more content-rich, content-driven, and conversational approach to the marketplace: Tell better stories, share expertise and knowledge in authentic ways, and help your customers talk to each other about the issues you care about most. Not a bad model.

The rise of social media, where innovative software platforms almost overnight become their own media companies with users doing the content heavy lifting (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, Digg, etc.), ups the ante dramatically. In this context, BusinessWeek media columnist Jon Fine wonders if the debate is closed: "Millions of people tell stories now--on blogs, on MySpace, on Flickr--for free. There is a surfeit of storytelling. Millions of people do not sit around writing software for free. Advantage: programmers."

Reporting on the recent Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco, Fine highlights the impressive innovation and equally impressive self-confidence among the tech-minded denizens of social media, but does leave himself some wriggle room in suggesting that the end of the commercial storytellers might not be quite upon us (of course, one would expect nothing less from someone making his living selling content).

From a B2B perspective, though, I wonder if the storyteller's fate is nearly so dire. It's one thing to write off large chunks of  consumer news media and entertainment in the face of freely published commentary and conversation. For business people, however, there is far less tolerance for amateur hour. Business people are as interested as anyone in the ideas, experiences, and insights of their peers; that's why well-organized live events and online business networks and communities are flourishing alongside their more trendy consumerist peers. But so too are professional custom publishing and thought leadership marketing, often tied directly to those events and communities.

The reality is that great content drives great conversation, and busy business folk have little time to prospect for the useful nuggets buried in the largely useless piles on most broad-based sites. Yes, there are great tools for search and filtering, but it's still a whole lot easier to rely on -- and pay for -- the professional version. More sophisticated platforms and distribution channels will always be useful, but, at least in the B2B world, they still mean little without powerful content (i.e., business stories) at the core. Count me as a strong optimist for the future of the storytellers. What about you?

The award was an interesting one, especially given the evening's opening comments by WF360 CEO Susan Willett Bird on the importance of business leaders and companies focusing on the environmental bottom line. Lauvergeon made a strong pitch in her prepared remarks (delivered at the dinner by an AREVA deputy) about the value of CO2-free nuclear energy in a world driven to curtail global warming. But the audience included a number of skeptics, and certainly the nuclear power advocates within the environmental movement comprise only a small (although perhaps growing) minority.

The conversations sparked by the award illustrated perfectly the objective of the event: bring together a group of smart and interesting people, ply them with enough food and drink to loosen their lips, and prod them to talk about serious issues. Discussions at my table, which included leaders in finance, manufacturing, consulting, marketing, and international diplomacy, ranged from the state of public education to conflicts between Islam and the West to the globalization of capital investment (with just a few digressions into the second game of the World Series, the score of which a few of us were periodically checking on our Blackberries under the table).

Sparking high-powered conversation is what WF360 is all about, and the long list of corporate supporters for the event (including Bombay Sapphire, CA, Conde Naste Portfolio, Dior, HarperCollins, Harvard Business School, TBWA, and more) reflects the growing corporate understanding that the best marketing these days follows that same approach.

The key, as Bird also noted in her opening comments, is to focus on "conversations that matter." In case we were all tongue-tied at the Summit, she scattered a batch of conversation starter cards around the dinner tables, with quotes like these:

 "If your company is doing business in a developing country, what responsibilities does it have to support and promote basic human rights?"

"Why are inequitable salaries, a lack of female and minority representation on boards and within executive leadership, and class action suits related to sexual harassment or discriminatory practices all still realities?"

"Other than an innate competitive drive, and of course the desire to make the company profitable, what values are most important for the corporate leader of today? What principals should that individual hold dear?" 

Now those are some of the conversations I'd like to see more businesses sponsoring in the marketplace. 

More recently, Dell has worked hard to fix its customer service problems, gaining some praise from industry watchers for increased investments in service and it's Direct2Dell corporate blog, which has opened a useful conversation channel with customers and users.  

At the same time, Dell has pushed hard on the environmental front, with substantial, award-winning efforts to support computer recycling, reduce carbon emissions, and become "the greenest technology company on earth."

Dell added yet more credibility to that environmental push, and a broader effort on corporate social responsibility, with this week's appointment of Gilbert Casellas as vice president of corporate responsibility. According to Dell, Casellas will lead a group that includes the company's global diversity, sustainability, and corporate philanthropy functions. Casellas has strong credentials for the role; he is former chairman of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (under President Bill Clinton), former co-chair of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, and a member of the boards of directors of the Hispanic Federation and the Johnnetta B. Cole Global Diversity and Inclusion Institute.

Assuming that Casellas has the authority to deliver on the promise, which one hopes he does, the position holds great potential for furthering Dell's initiative to integrate broad economic, social, and environmental concerns into the center of corporate decision making. It's an admirable and wise goal, and one that we can only hope succeeds. Kudos to Dell for making the move.

The site includes most of the latest social networking features, and, perhaps not surprisingly, has become a bit hit in its own right. Since launching last month, the site has attracted more than 800,000 unique visitors, with more than 100,000 registering for positions at the virtual company. Regional branches create local connections for participants; the branch in Long Beach, California is currently at the top of the heap with 3108 "employees." Participant-posted video, such as footage of the Denton, Texas, launch party, add to the rich media flavor.

At first glance, the initiative may seem like standard fare for these Web 2.0-crazed times. Company wants to strengthen relationships with its audience; company builds online community to let people talk with each other and generate useful content for the sponsor; everyone wins. It's no wonder that companies from autos to zoo supplies are rushing to launch similar networks and communities.

The challenge, of course, is generating enough interest in your site to inspire people to actually pay attention and spend precious time and energy actively participating. We've all seen commuities and forums with a lonely list of "discussion starters" but no additional comments. The reality is that online commuinty success is largely not about the features of the site; it's about a strong prior connection to the company, program, or idea. As Gartner analyst Andrew Frank notes, "You need an existing affinity around a property, and NBC definitely had that with 'The Office.'"

The lesson here is not to avoid entering the social networking fray unless you have a megahit TV show. Rather, it is to concentrate most on building the very tangible connections to your "viewers" (i.e., customers, partners, employees, etc.) that come with meaningful professional or personal contributions to their daily lives. In the world of the real office, actual ties support virtual ones, not the other way around.

The song is a kind of cheesy, formulaic country rock with lyrics "celebrating" the rebellious corporate innovator. On the other hand, it's certainly more entertaining and memorable than yet another article on the importance of taking business risks and trying new ideas, and that's obviously the point.

Give it a listen and let me know what you think. 

A.K. Pradeep, the company's founder, is clearly onto something. He's finishing up his 100th research project since 2005 and working with some of the world's biggest firms. He's got a crew of PhD's working for him and business is booming.

So why does this all feel so 1950s?

AdAge brings in a variety of marketing and scientific types to debate the effectiveness of neuroscientific research. The promoters hype its potential at last to break through the reality of consumers lying to market researchers while detractors claim the science remains in its infancy and is unable to handle the multitude of factors that go into purchase decisions.

But aren't they all missing the main point about the customer-driven economy? If you're still trying to do research ON customers in some scientifically controlled setting rather than simply listening to their ongoing conversations in real life and engaging them in honest discussion, you'll never get far in understanding what might be useful. Even more, as we should all know by now, buyers increasingly want to participate directly in developing their own products, services, and solutions.

Exciting as it may be to think we may finally have some foolproof method to help us craft just the right message to trigger the buy buttons in our customers' brains,  we need to remember that  "the message" is simply less and less relevant. The conversations are what matter and we need to spend a lot more time figuring out how to have them in open, authentic, and constructive ways so our customers stop lying to us of their own accord.