The New Value Economy Arrives

October 2nd, 2008

What a difference a month makes!

Just a little more than a month ago, China was basking in the afterglow of the Beijing Olympics, and the US still had an investment banking sector. Now, all China news has been taken up with tainted milk scandal, and the US consumers have changed from spendthrift junk-buyers into wondering whether they will have enough money to buy Campbell’s soup. (Last Monday, when the Dow went down 777 points, Campbell Soup was the only stock to go up. Can you say dark days ahead?) At the same time, Americans have come close to openly rebelling against the Bush administration-backed Paulson plan to bail out the banking sector and create liquidity in credit markets.

In the meantime, economists and politicians are debating whether this is the beginning of a recession or depression. Let’s just say that it’s going to be bad.

In China, the bad has different roots, in how the dairy industry has been systematically thinning milk, then loading it up with melamine so that it doesn’t look protein-deficient (it is). In fact, the problem is systemic, and is not just limited to the dairy industry. This is something which runs throughout Chinese society on a wide systemic basis because local officials are judged only on quantitative results instead of quantitative and qualitative results.

Wall Street and China took different paths, but both ended up with the same sack of shit. The trouble is that this sack of shit affects the whole society in both the US and China, and the rest of the world.

Now, if the problems were not systemic, all you would have to do is hire a PR firm, and they would quickly put together a PR campaign, the public would gradually forget, and everybody would get back to their merry business.

But it’s not that simple.

Recessions/depressions are like forest fires; they destroy a lot of the accumulated undergrowth and excess, providing an opportunity for new growth. We are now going through such a forest fire. It is likely that it is only just beginning. But it is worth thinking about what are the new flora and fauna which will grow and flourish in the environment which comes afterwards.

Here are my thoughts:

  • Transparency will be the rule instead of the exception. Instead of talking about quality, companies and government officials will need to show it.
  • The Internet and modern IT will turn into a transparency enabler. Think of webcams in dairy processing and manufacturers’ plants in China which anyone can log into anytime. Think of US members of congress listing all the contributions they take and publishing their meeting calendars, live and online.
  • For companies, proof of quality. This means that it won’t just be ads and PR. They will need to show how they create quality. A big question for service companies: “How do we show quality in what we do for our customers?”
  • Creating quality is no longer a one-way communications process, it will be two-way. Consumers will challenge the companies and governments, and they better have good answers ready. Smart companies will think of ways to weave some of the criticisms into product/service input and incorporating it on a near real-time basis.
  • We are witnesses to the crumbling and collapse of an old way of doing things, and the rise of a new way. Education systems all over the world have not prepared people for this, especially the business schools. If you are a newly-minted MBA, good luck!
  • An awful lot of companies in China are not going to make it. Many of them don’t deserve to make it. But there will be refreshing new companies with new ideas and who are committed to quality and value. Most of them will come from the private sector. Keep your eyes on Zhejiang for new ideas, companies, products and services! In my opinion, Beijing and Shanghai are vastly overrated and are not truly representative of China. They are still like the Treaty Ports of old: they have enough Chinese to make westerners feel like that they are in China without having to make a major adjustment in lifestyle, and enough ministries and public buildings to make the Chinese officials feel comfortable and in control. The relentless drive to lopsided urbanization at the expense of the countryside which Yasheng Huang puts forward in his book Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State, is a view which is sometimes discussed among Chinese, but which most westerners are not aware of. China is just now beginning to pay the very high price of this lopsided development.
  • There is going to be a lot of money to be made in helping the old companies make the transformation to the new value economy. Most of them won’t make it, but they are going to spend a lot of money trying. If you’re in change management and know how to market, you’re going to make a killing.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

News Galore!

September 19th, 2008

Just in case you had any doubts that the world was going to hell in a handbasket, and that the inmates were running the asylum, you just might have had some of those doubts removed in the past week. And those doubts were removed in a very dramatic fashion, as in frontal lobotomy fashion.

“George Carlin, why did you have to die so soon, just before all the fireworks started? Did you actually think that the world was becoming so ludicrous that you couldn’t take it anymore, or think that you would run out of material?”

Let’s look at some of the fun things which happened this week:

  • Sanlu’s dairy products were found to have killed three babies, and caused injury to several thousand others (at least)
  • Baidu was accused of offering to help cover up the scandal by not showing the scope of the scandal in its search results. I wonder what genius came up with the idea that they could cover up a scandal of such immense proportions for a miserable 3M yuan? And who was the genius on the management side who approved such a deal? This would have taken at least two people who had frontal lobotomies. Most of the time, people who come up with dumb ideas like this are only employed in government (Most notably the US government, where they usually run smear campaigns for politicians during elections.) As for Baidu/Alibaba, now Baidu is threatening to sue Alibaba for spreading the Sanlu story. (Isn’t China becoming more like the US every day? At this rate China will be run by lawyers in five years. A sure sign of national dementia.) Are these initial signs that the Americans’ efforts to package and sell stupidity to the Chinese are showing signs of success?
  • Lehman Bros., a US investment bank, declared bankruptcy, and Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America for $50B. I have the utmost admiration for John Thain: Imagine taking a company which was rapidly going down the tubes, whose assets were unclear, and whose non-performing CDOs were increasing by the hour, and he SOLD it for $50B, finding a buyer in BA? Wow, that’s neat! How’d he do that? These bankers are amazing. None of that piddly million here, million there kindergarten dotcom stuff for these guys, we’re talking real money here (even though it’s US dollars).
  • Is it just me, or am I thinking that Imagethief‘s time has come in China? I keep on fantasizing what his first lessons for new official clients might be like. How about this:

    “First of all, let’s get it clear that lies, coverups and people getting poisoned are a necessary part of any nation’s path to greatness. There is no need to deny or cover it up; we must celebrate each event as achieving yet another milestone to greatness! Let’s celebrate it! Let’s roll in it! And let’s become more and more like America with each passing moment! Look at how the Americans don’t discriminate against the mentally handicapped anymore; instead they make them their leaders! If America can do that, then why can’t China! Our goal must be to pollute the global financial system on an even greater scale than the Americans have: this will show the world China’s power!”

    • Hmmm, on second thought…
    UPDATE: Once upon a time, jokes were about comical situations which had a tenuous relationship with reality. Now, the jokes ARE reality.
    DISCLAIMERThe above story is pure satire. Don’t take it as anything else.

American Astroturfing vs. Chinese Astroturfing

July 13th, 2008

The definition of astroturfing, according to Wikipedia is:

a neologism for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising which seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass AstroTurf.

The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt (“outreach”, “awareness”, etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by anything from an individual pushing one’s own personal agenda through to highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, non-profits, or activist organizations.

As a business and marketing consultant who spends considerable time in China, I get upset when I see marketing and PR terms not used the right way. One thing which is done very frequently in China, but whose terminology is not used correctly, is astroturfing. As a matter of fact, I have not even heard of a Chinese term for astroturfing, even though I have seen it in many forms all the time. In fact, a good deal of what the Internet is used for in China in the BBSes in China, is astroturfing in different forms.

I was upset when I saw the term astroturfing mixed up with censorship in this video interview with reference to censorship in China. My definition of censorship is when I have to use a VPN tunnel to get to content I cannot view in China, or because I cannot get my Feedburner RSS feeds because they are blocked by the GFW, or as Jeremy Goldkorn, publisher of Danwei chooses to call it, the Net Nanny.

The biggest difference between astroturfing and censorship: astroturfing is a PR term and censorship is a political term. Astroturfing is a PR tactic which can be used for either political or commercial ends; censorship is always used for political ends. Using censorship with reference to China is a politically charged term because many critics of Chinese government policy like to use it to satisfy their own political agendas. Other people are entitled to their own political views re Chinese government policy, just as I’m entitled to mine. Everybody has a right to their own opinions. What I do criticize is abuse of terminology in order to score political points when in fact what is being used is a PR tactic.

Paying bloggers and users of Twitter to shape public opinion about China is an astroturfing tactic. Let’s call it astroturfing and not call it censorship. Admittedly, the Chinese government has used astroturfing in a very clumsy fashion by paying bloggers directly for their blog posts and tweets. Rule No. 1 of astroturfing is “Don’t get caught doing it”. This means you should set up front organizations to do the work so that the important guys/government have plausible deniability. These front organizations have to be run by eloquent, expensive and intelligent opinion leaders who know what they are doing and what the whole objective is. The people they work with, and contract with, do not have to know.

Sure, it adds to your costs, but some things are more important than costs. That’s why this whole payoff of bloggers and tweets is so silly and let’s say it, downright stupid.

The real masters at the right way to do astroturfing are the Americans and American PR and lobbying firms. They set up enough “independent” organizations so that the astroturfing movements cannot be traced back to the government, the original sponsor. After all, that is the whole point of it. Government ministries, organizations and parties should never be directly involved in it.

These “independent” organizations, usually think tanks, then contract with the PR firms and coordinate very complex and expensive PR campaigns which are, well, astroturfing. The whole objective is to make it look independent for most people. These people are the audience, the people whose opinion you want to shape.

Astroturfing was used extensively in the aftermath of the revelations of torture re Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in the US. Many Americans were sincerely shocked that the US military would use such interrogation techniques. In order to shape US public opinion, the Pentagon provided leading US media companies hired retired generals as “consultants” to talk on TV about the situation, and mitigate the political damage to the Bush administration. These consultants were paid for by the Pentagon. How it was done was revealed in an article on the New York Times.

If the Chinese government wants to be truly effective at winning the PR war with the western media, it has to allow different voices to speak up about China, and get past the very worn-out charges of “interfering in China’s internal affairs” or “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people”, which may have some appeal to not very bright people, but really turn off intelligent people. Part of the price of being considered a developed nation is to allow different discourse and opinions on an intelligent level. Moreover, this gives the Chinese leadership a better selection of policies to choose from. After all, that’s whole point of the exercise.

So let’s stop paying off bloggers and tweeters 50 Chinese yuancents or fen to shape public opinion. That’s the cheap and dumb way.

The Chinese government needs to stop thinking small and start thinking big in how it shapes not just Chinese public opinion, but western public opinion. Spend money and do it the right way with the right people.

Anything else is just an embarrassment.

Behind The Scenes In China

July 9th, 2008

Just a quick note about what I see happening behind the scenes in China.

The administration of Hu Jintao has made a recent effort to push for transparency and accountability in China, especially related to disbursement of funds related to the Sichuan earthquake, and then acting quickly against corrupt local officials in Wengan in Guizhou province.

The center in Beijing is responding to a popular demand for greater accountability and transparency, and is using this as an opportunity clean house within the ruling party. The message from Beijing to the local party officials is simple: Shape up or be removed from your position.

When Deng Xiaoping introduced his reforms beginning in 1978, he gave local officials wide leeway as to how investment was brought in. The reason for this was simple: Beijing had no money; it was bankrupt. The side effect of this policy has been rampant local corruption. All kinds of games have been played in the name of making the numbers reported back to Beijing. Many of these corrupt officials have escaped China, and are living in the US in multi-million dollar mansions paid for in cash. Behind the scenes, the Hu administration has been quietly working with the US’s Justice Department to bring these officials back to China for prosecution.

As the amounts of the corruption have grown, so has popular resentment. Beijing knows that it must act to clean house. The failure of local governments and party organizations to act forcefully and clean up their own houses have handed Beijing an excellent excuse to act forcefully, and handed multiple PR victories to the center. Chinese bloggers who highlight local corruption have become the eyes and ears of Beijing on the local level. When the decision is made that local corruption needs to be escalated to the national level, then Xinhua mobilizes its formidable machine to shape public opinion on the national level. Then Beijing comes in and acts forcefully, removing the corrupt officials, and making them an example to local government and party organizations all over China.

If you believe that this is simply about accountability and transparency though, you would be naive. It is also about money and how investment decisions are made in China.

Beijing is seeking to recover many of the financial and investment decision making powers which Deng handed over to the provinces and local party officials. In the context of this drive against local corruption, the local administrations and organizations are in a weak position to resist Beijing’s efforts to recover investment-making decisions. China needs higher value-added, higher technology industries which rely more on research, development and IP. Provincial governments and party organizations have not acted quickly enough to upgrade from inefficient, dirty industries which rely on cheap labor. This means that now the investment decisions need to be made from the center in Beijing, with the support of public opinion, of course.

While the Chinese government does not understand PR in a western context, it knows exactly what it’s doing in a Chinese context.

The PR Problem for Chinese Online Public Relations Firms

June 17th, 2008

Several days ago, Sam Flemming of CIC, a Shanghai-based online reputation management company pointed me to a news article on Business Week called “Inside The War Against China’s Blogs”.

The article specifically highlighted a company called Daqi.com (in Chinese the name means “Big Flag” which has a certain nationalistic appeal), and cited a case in which it helped Toyota satisfy a customer who had not received his car after three months. According to the company’s CEO, her company, an Internet online reputation management company, helps its customers, mostly western multinationals, to monitor their online reputations and help put out fires with users in China.

Out of curiosity, I then entered Daqi.com into my browser address bar so that I could visit the site and learn more about the company and what they do.

What I found, and what I did not find, were very interesting.

First of all, I thought I was going to find an online reputation management company, or public relations company, or whatever buzzwords they are using now to lure in corporate business.

But I found nothing of the kind. Instead, I was confronted with what I would call a typical Chinese portal website, complete with channels for “Homepage”, “Society”, “Military”, “Strange and Curious”, “Autos”, “Digital”, “Women’s Makeup”, “Pictures”, and “Reputations” (in beta).

(I have uploaded the screenshots of the pages mentioned below to Picasa and you can access them here.)

Aha, I thought to myself, I’ll click on “Reputations” and see what I find. When I went there, I found that it was full of forums divided into the categories “Cars”, “Cameras”, “Notebooks”, “Digital Cameras”, “MP3″, and “MP4″. The page is very long, and like most Chinese pages, scrolls on quite a distance with recommended products in each product category. This page, like the rest of the website, was designed very much to lure Chinese visitors. To visit the page, you can go to http://exp.daqi.com/

My next question was whether they took advertising? The only banner advertising I saw was for Dell, which ran on the two pages I visited. But it would be foolish to think that their only revenue came from banner advertising. Looking at how the page was designed, and the way some of the products were given larger photos and highlighted, it was easy to see that some makers were paying for higher rankings for higher visibility.

But nowhere did I see anything about their online reputation management services. So I thought to myself, “Surely the person who wrote the Business Week story, Dexter Roberts, could point to a website where Daqi offered their online reputation management services, in either Chinese or English.”

I could find nothing of the kind.

Daqi claims that it regularly searches 500,000 forums daily for its corporate clients. I’m sure that it works on many sites which are not related to Daqi. However, it also raises the very uncomfortable possibility that it may actually manipulate online reputations by starting flame wars over product reputation, then charging their corporate clients money to put them out. (I’m not claiming that Daqi does, but the very fact that they run their own portal under their own company name and URI means that they have very little respect for their non-Chinese corporate clients and western journalists’ capability to conduct online research in Chinese.)

The clash of interests which arises from revenue from makers for higher rankings on their own portal site, and then revenue from non-Chinese corporate clients for “research insights” and “firefighting services” into Chinese online behavior is obvious to anyone. The temptation to use their own forums to “seed” opinions must be very great. These seeded opinions would then quickly proliferate to other sites.

There is a simple way to find out, and that is to check timestamps of postings. All forum software includes a posting timestamp, and it’s easy to check the timestamps on a subject to push it back in time to where and when a rumor started. What is harder to find out is the identity of the poster, but this can sometimes be done by checking the IP address of the poster if IP cloaking is not used. Different online identities sharing the same IP would most likely be the same poster.

I wonder how many corporate clients do this kind of checking?

I find the whole practice of hiring Chinese and paying them to post favorable comments on a per posting basis to be an unethical PR practice. According to the BW article, this is a common practice. A Beijing-based PR professional, William Moss, talks about this in more detail.

Online public relations firms will have to draw up and aggressively publicize clear guidelines on what they do, and what they don’t do when it comes to monitoring online behavior in China. Playing multiple roles as player and referee doesn’t make it in my book. I have talked about some of the skills needed in a previous posting.

This is part of the problem which actually slows down Internet growth in China. In spite of it all, there are healthy groups for product discussions.

Of course, each corporate client will have to make its own call as to what it is most comfortable with. And so will their VC backers. (I wonder if they read Chinese?)

But if someone does do an article on a Chinese company, at the very least, the URI mentioned should include, in either Chinese or English, the business they are in which is mentioned in the article.

Nobody likes bait and switch tactics, and I’m no exception.

Is that too much to ask for?

Where China Falls Short

May 1st, 2008

China’s economic growth over the past several years has excited many members of the international community, who see it as an alternative to the US’s and west’s leadership of the world order for the past two centuries. There has been a deep underlying distrust of the west, but it was brought to the fore by the Bush administration’s single-minded focus on the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and what to many, have seemed like trumped-up reasons for the invasion.

This, along with China’s dramatic economic growth, has opened up a great opportunity for China to offer an alternative vision of economic and social development. But China has fallen short with the recent fuss over the torch relay, and the actions of the fenqing (angry youth). In a very short period of time, a great deal of the goodwill China has earned has dissipated.

This situation has forced many supporters of the reform and opening-up of China into a lose-lose situation. If they support the Chinese position, they become seen as Chinese toadies, and if they criticize certain aspects of what has happened during the Olympic torch relay, they become dismissed by the Chinese, especially fenqing, as western toadies. Intelligent people should not be forced into making choices like this which are not real choices, and further polarize the two sides. People should be able to make constructive criticism without being forced to make bad choices and being pigeon-holed into one group or the other.

I, for one, believe that there is validity to the Chinese criticisms of the way China and the Chinese have been shown in the western media. There are biases; some are based on ignorance and some may be based on malice. But anger and heavy-handedness are not the right way to correct these perceptions; instead they validate the views and fears of China’s worst critics.

But this is not purely a public relations exercise. If China was a smaller and less influential country, maybe that would work. What China needs is to offer an alternative vision to the western model of development. This model must include dialogue, institutions and rules without a pre-conceived agenda which are pre-packaged for others, who must buy into it. Basically, a new framework needs to be created for Chinese engagement and dialogue on a global scale.

One of the criticisms of western hegemony is that it has offered a pre-packaged vision which in reality, offers pre-packaged western interests at its core. Joseph Stiglitz talked about this in his book Making Globalization Work.

So what is China’s vision? Is it just anger for western wrongdoing and the way it is depicted in the western-controlled media? How much goodwill will venting anger get China? There needs to be a better more thought-out way which offers more constructive results.

More people need to be included, and it should not just be government to government. It should be open where all can offer their views, and be listened to. Differing opinions should be debated and allowed to co-exist. Out of this, some kind of rationale for China’s rise has to come out, and this vision needs to be consistent with the rest of the world, as well as the Chinese people.

China is now a real power in every way. Real powers listen to and debate different views. If they don’t like certain views, they can offer a point by point rebuttal, or they can debate those views, but there is no need to get angry.

New times bring new challenges, and new challenges call for new thinking.

Has The Tipping Point Tipped?

February 7th, 2008

Ever since its publication, The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell, has captured the imagination of marketers and PR people all over the world. Basically, the book argues that ideas are spread by different groups of people, and that some have more influence than others in helping an idea to spread.

For marketers and PR people, the book basically argues that there is a formula for success; just feed your client’s idea or product into this ecosystem, and you can come up with a very predictable result. It’s almost like a software engineer’s dream: given a certain input, then a process, there is a predictable outcome. The marketer/PR agency can argue that the amount of money spent forms a direct correlation with the input, and if a project fails to take fire, it’s because the client didn’t spend enough money. As a result, the right connectors could not be influenced, and the project failed.

This is known as Influentials theory and forms the backbone of much marketing practice.

All clear and simple, right?

I have always had my doubts about it. For one thing, the model fails to take into account what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. And it fails to explain how people decide what is a good idea worth transmitting to one’s network, and what is a bad idea which should be immediately dismissed or ignored. If you were a Google engineer, how would you write an algorithm to describe how these very human and subjective individual judgements are made?

It seems to me that it is impossible to write an algorithm to describe them. What an engineer can do though, is plot how ideas are spread in a time when we are bombarded with more and more information, making our attention spans progressively shorter.

Wouldn’t there come a point when influence becomes almost random, when Influentials lose most of their influence? And doesn’t this coincide with the breakdown of the “mass market”, a concept which has collapsed with the rise of the social networking phenomenon and the long tail?

I had long suspected this, but I had never been able to prove the thesis. However, the results of some serious research by Duncan Watts supports this thesis. In this article published in Fast Company, his experiments suggest that the success of many fads has become, for all practical purposes, random. The article is an excellent read.

For one thing, I believe that The Tipping Point was written too long ago, and it described a world vastly different from ours in 2008. When it was published in 2002, the book described a time when people still read paper newspapers and books and before blogs. You may remember a term then called the “mass media”.

Now, ideas spread much faster, and within smaller groups which may appear random. It is also very likely that products/services/ideas will be served to much smaller groups of people.

One example is the gaming industry where the shelf life of titles has become progressively shorter, almost to the point where the marketing industry has trouble keeping up with the shorter time cycles. Hollywood movies have to prove their box-office success in their opening weekend in the US. These two industries have yet to adapt to lower production expense models which fit in with the lower shelf-life of their titles.

Basically, they need to downsize their costs.

If you boil it down to essentials, it means that you will have to market your ideas/products/services yourself, since you know your own audience best and understand how to pitch it to them. If they like what you have to say/sell, then they will become your connectors, and push it beyond your immediate circle, creating a breakout phenomenon.

In the end, the Internet empowers smart generalists who understand technology and keep the human touch in their marketing. Dumb messages may have short-time entertainment appeal, but they are unlikely to be profitable unless there is something behind them.

And marketing cannot buy credibility.

Wanted: A New Kind of Ad Agency Warrior

November 16th, 2007

Readers know that I have spent quite some time thinking about how the Internet and online advertising will affect the whole overall advertising industry. A recent post on Ogilvy China Digital Watch made me think more about how some of the changes the rapid rise in online advertising spending will affect the advertising industry as a whole.

The advertising industry grew at a time when the divisions and demarcations between different media and media audiences were very clear (TV, radio, print and below the line advertising). It was a good business, and permitted the ad agencies to buy large amounts of media, then resell it to their advertisers, while offering other services (creative, PR, direct mail, etc.) on top as value-added services. Advertising could be divided into brand advertising for global brands and more targeted ads for small local clients. All in all, it was a good service business with healthy margins.

That whole business model has been blown apart with the Internet, and ad agencies are adjusting to the changes. These changes are just starting, and will ripple out to affect other services as well.

The single greatest change brought by the Internet is the shortening of the business cycle. People have more things to do, which means that they need to make decisions, even important decisions, in much shorter time cycles. This means that if they want to find out something about a product/service, they want to know it in as short a time as possible.

This has been enabled by search, a business which Google has built to near-perfection. Add advertising to search results, and you have the Google money machine. Advertising appears in a welcome context instead of being disruptive.

Search advertising has had some negative effect on brand advertising because it is possible, in a very short time, to find out what others are saying about a given product or service. This is not the line from the corporation, but what other buyers are saying. More disruption of the communications process.

The immediate effect for ad agencies is that their whole time-cycle has been disrupted. Instead of the normal annual budgets and precious planning time which goes into big-budget ad campaigns, more corporate attention is going to fighting fires, which usually fall into the PR realm. The agencies are trying to protect their creative and media teams from this hyper speed development cycle in-house, but it is impossible to control what is happening on the advertising client’s side, who is getting continuously distracted by what sounds like noise and chatter.

What is the ad agency to do in order to adapt and survive?

First of all, it is necessary to tell the clients that it is no longer possible to control the message to the customers. The customers are talking back, and there is no way to tell them to shut up. A lot of the customer feedback is noise, but there are also very valuable pieces of information in there.

There is a need for a new kind of ad agency warrior who can go out there and slay the dragons , and collect the valuable information and give it back to the creative teams and client so that they can act on that information in its product and marketing cycle.

Here are my draft job requirements for an ideal candidate:

  • Information researcher, able to use Internet and mobile tools to monitor client-relevant information in real-time;
  • Able to engage with client at all levels (executive and manager) to understand evolving client needs, and to report in real-time on rapid changes in market situation;
  • Able to understand client’s corporate position and voice, and act as a responsible spokesperson and advocate in the digital realm while upholding client’s integrity;
  • Understands how to communicate to different clients on different levels and is able to quickly adjust accordingly
  • Can quickly analyze and learn and communicate this information back to creative and media teams and back to client on a frequent basis;
  • Proactively pushes out information to other team members and clients for their use;
  • Comfortable working with amorphous teams which are changing on a constant basis;
  • Is comfortable communicating in at least two human languages;

Requirements:

  • More than two years’ blogging experience, including acting as an advocate for a product/service;
  • Knowledge of SEO tools and terminology;
  • Understanding of corporate structures and organizations and how they work, and how to get things done in them;
  • Must love doing things fast and independently

Notice that I didn’t include academic credentials? I told you that we needed a new kind of ad agency warrior, didn’t I?