Open up your mind and say, ahh...

Limewire founder and bicycle advocate Mark Gorton is on a mission to curtail cars.

Gorton has been fighting tirelessly to make cities friendlier to cyclists and pedestrians. He makes no effort to hide his disdain for cars, and he has lobbied endlessly for more equitable transportation polices. Even Gorton isn’t so naive as to call for the eradication of the automobile, but he wants to see policies that aggressively discourage their use.

To that end, he founded OpenPlans, a nonprofit focused on promoting transparent government and civic engagement, and he’s tried to bring an open source approach to urban planning. He also launched Streetsblog. Now he’s taking his act out on the road, making the rounds of India to promote bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly policies in a nation that is developing rapidly.

We caught up with Gorton to ask about his latest crusade.

Wired.com: Why are you in India?

Mark Gorton: My company has an office in Gurgaon, a new city that has grown up on the edge of Delhi in the last 20 years. Gurgaon is badly planned, and it was built assuming everyone would drive. However, Gurgaon is far too dense for everyone to drive, and the traffic is horrible and the city has massive problems.  They are trying to add transit now, but the land use patterns are not good for transit and now they are really stuck. And every year the city grows and more and more people get cars, and it just gets worse.

Wired.com: How so?

Gorton: India is developing rapidly. It is building huge amounts of infrastructure and its cities are expanding rapidly. India is in love with the car without realizing that the private automobile can’t possibly move the number of people that need to get around in the space available. Many cities around the world have learned the futility of trying to build their transportation systems around the car. India has the chance to learn from the mistakes of other countries and cities and make smart planning decisions.

Due to my position as a leader in the transportation reform movement in the U.S. and my ties to India, I am well positioned to bring this message to India.

Wired.com: What are you doing?

Gorton: I am advocating for India to adopt smart transportation solutions for its cities that involve walking, public transit, policies to limit private cars, cycling and smart land use planning. These policies will make India’s cities more livable, make their transportation systems work better and be much more affordable.

Wired.com: Why India and not some other country?

Gorton: India is at a point in its development history where the decisions that are made in the next decade will dictate whether Indian cities get caught in a traffic trap that is hard to escape or whether they make smart choices to be more sustainable and livable.

Wired.com: So it’s an opportunity that doesn’t exist anywhere else?

Gorton: Exactly. Indian cities are in the process of making huge transportation infrastructure investments that will set the transportation and land use patterns for decades if not centuries.

Wired.com: What message are you trying to convey in India — and elsewhere, for that matter?

Gorton: The automobile is an inappropriate transportation technology to use in large dense cities. It is physically impossible to fit cars in dense cities. The result of pursuing policies that allow private car usage to soar are traffic-choked cities with a radically degraded living environment for the people who live there.

Wired.com: How do you expect your message to play out?

Gorton: I hope government officials and civic leaders can learn from the experiences of New York and other large cities and work to improve their own policies. In addition, I hope that the tools, the strategy and the experience of the New York City Street Renaissance Campaign can offer a guide to civic leader looking to drive change in India.

Wired.com: How are people responding?

Gorton: The response has been amazing. I have had a huge number of people come up to me after my talks and tell me how much they liked it. The municipal commissioner of Ahmedabad called it “inspirational.” Senior government officials at the national and local levels have been received my message very well.

Photo: A street scene in Gurgaon, India. Shashwat Nagpal/Flickr

It’s extremely difficult to read a speech and sound as if you mean it.

For most of us, when reading, posture changes, the throat tightens and people can tell. Reading is different from speaking, and a different sort of attention is paid.

Before you give a speech, then, you must do one of two things if your goal is to persuade:

Learn to read the same way you speak (unlikely)

or, learn to speak without reading. Learn your message well enough that you can communicate it without reading it. We want your humanity.

If you can’t do that, don’t bother giving a speech. Just send everyone a memo and save time and stress for all concerned.

Think of a Twitter account, especially a corporate Twitter account. It’s a very interesting dance of balance that I imagine a lot of companies are going through. I’ve been asked by different companies over the years how they might approach finding their voice on Twitter. To a single one, these companies all wanted to go in what I consider the “wrong” direction. They wanted the accounts to be wholly corporate.

Communication is a Snowfall

Conversations and relationships are based on several touches. In the traditional marketing and communication world, people would use each touch to ask for something, to issue a call to action. This isn’t how social networks work. They’re not there to do your selling. They are there to give you permission to reach someone who has opted into a relationship with you. A relationship, not a sales channel.

It’s a snowfall. Every individual flake doesn’t mean a lot, but the body of work can change everything. If someone judged me for every tweet that I sent out, I’d be very ineffective. I respond to people a lot (that’s not selling). I tweet music lyrics. I send absolutely silly humorous comments that have nothing to do with anything.

But those are currency. Those are permission to sell something. Those are part of the snowfall that makes the landscape of what I say effective overall.

My Recipe for Corporate Success

If you’re looking to use a social network to build business relationships, there must be a blend of personal and professional. No one (NO ONE) wants to read about your job all day. They want to know you. They want the “behind the scenes” of your communication. They want the “liner notes.” If you have to talk official all day, then brand it and stick a logo on it, and people will or won’t talk to it.

The humans, however, want to talk to humans.

And, they want YOU to talk about other people and not just your job. They want you to talk about them. They want you to wish them well on their spelling test. They want you to mention the great deals, but only once in every 12 tweets or posts. They want your account to be a snowfall, not a blizzard of business.

Ask anyone who’s receiving your message, and that’s what you’ll get for an answer.

Is there such a thing as too much activity on an account? I suppose. But what’s too much? 20 touches a day? People opt into your message. If your message is 20 different things about various business and non-business issues, then I think it’s not too much. If you’ve sent me 20 posts about your company’s agenda, I’m probably no longer subscribed.

How Do I Know?

I’m in the valuable crossroads of being both the creator and the consumer of such messages, plus I help really big companies do this kind of thing. So, with all three mindsets at my beck and call, I’ll tell you that the snowfall mindset is very important to how you go about crafting your message.

Sell. Yes, by all means sell. You’re wasting your company’s time if you’re not selling in some form or another. But you have to blend it into the rest of the other fluffy powder of sustained conversations. Otherwise, it doesn’t stick.

What say you?

Yes, you shouldn’t text while driving, or talk on the cell phone, or argue with your dog or drive blindfolded. It’s an idiot move, one that often leads to death (yours or someone else’s).

I don’t think you should text while working, either. Or use social networking software of any kind for that matter. And you probably shouldn’t eat crunchy chips, either.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with doing all that at work (in moderation). But not while you’re working. Not if working is that the act that leads to the scarce output, the hard stuff, the creative uniqueness they actually pay you for.

You’re competing against people in a state of flow, people who are truly committed, people who care deeply about the outcome. You can’t merely wing it and expect to keep up with them. Setting aside all the safety valves and pleasant distractions is the first way to send yourself the message that you’re playing for keeps. After all, if you sit for an hour and do exactly nothing, not one thing, you’ll be ashamed of yourself. But if you waste that hour updating, pinging, being pinged and crunching, well, hey, at least you stayed in touch.

Raise the stakes.

For decades brands basked in the glory of control, control over consumers’ perceptions, impressions and ultimately decisions and ensuing experiences. Or better said, business leaders enjoyed a semblance of control. While businesses concentrated resources on distancing the connections between customers, influencers and representatives, a new democracy was materializing. This movement would inevitably render these faceless actions not only defunct, but also perilous.

Fueled by the socialization of media, content and connections served as the foundation for this new democracy and “we the people” ensured that our voices were heard. Social Media would forever change the balance of power within markets, placing the fate and stature of brands in the words and actions of consumers and the people and groups that influence their decisions. Brands didn’t just “lose” control of defining impressions, businesses lost the ability to govern shared experiences.

Suddenly people enjoyed the freedom to publish their thoughts and the capacity to earn prominence in these fledgling social ecosystems. No longer was it an era of brands saying what they wished us to think; it was now clear that people were in control of their impressions and more importantly, how, where and when they shared them.

It’s no longer about what we say, it’s what they say about us now that counts.

Sometimes truth and reality awaken us to a new reality. And in this case, everything changes…for the better.

Contrary to popular belief, social media didn’t invent conversations, it just allowed us to organize and surface them.  But, when we look at the importance of branding, the mechanics and methodologies for defining, protecting, and growing the brand profoundly change. As such, the value of brands are at risk of dilution based on the aggregate of shared experiences by the new social consumer. And, perhaps the greatest challenge that faces brands in addition to dilution, is the inability to right its course in real-time. As media democratized, the meter for establishing prominence started to accrue varying levels of influence for its participants while many businesses missed their calling. It’s not too late for brands to engage however, the difference is that everyday people have earned greater reach than some businesses within these social channels.

The Evolution of Brand Marketing

The medium is no longer just the message. In social, the medium is the platform and as such, people now represent both the medium and the message where reach is defined by a blending of the social graph, the context of the story and ensuing connections, and also by the state of the attention aperture of those to whom we’re connected.

Simply stated, social media is changing brand marketing and forcing a (r)evolution that will unfold differently within each organization.

MiresBall and KRC Research recently conducted a study that found 4 out of ten brand marketers believe that social creates challenges to maintaining brand integrity. In addition, more than a third believed that social networking affected brands to the point where marketing strategies would require new thinking. This new direction however, is rife with new challenges as well as opportunities.

Belief that Social Media Creates New Challenges for Protecting Brand Integrity, 2010

Belief that Social Media Provides an Opportunity to Reach New Customers

Brand marketers realize the importance of social media, but they’re unclear as to how it can specifically help with engendering loyalty. 35% believed social lends to loyalty, but 30% disagreed and another 35% were neutral on the subject. While marketers were split on loyalty, over one-half agreed that social media serves as bridges to reaching customers and prospects.

Update the Brand Style Guide

The study also revealed a growing concern among brand marketers on how they engaged with consumers today. The consensus was that in order to successfully connect with consumers in such a way that reinforces brand attributes, representatives require training, messages, and empowerment.

When it comes to brand dilution, consumers aren’t alone in their endeavors. Brand representatives and the lack of a prevailing strategy, mission, or purpose in social media causes the breakdown of branding and messages directly from the source. At the moment, a disconnect exists between the brand, its representatives, and consumers in social media. This disconnect starts with understanding the brand’s voice, presence, and personality and what it is it needs to say to the varying roles of the social consumer.

I refer to this series of fragmented touchpoints as The Last Mile. And in order to establish connections with individuals in their domains where they are in control of their experiences, it takes empathy combined with value, reinforced by branding elements that strengthen the story, the engagement, and the resulting activity. Without first defining the brand in these prominent social networks, how can we expect it to thrive and flourish let alone inspire consumers?

To prevent the dilution of our brands in social media, everything must begin with revisiting and revising the brand style guide. This style guide must be embodied by brand representatives where engagement is clearly led not by the “brand you,” but instead the brand “you represent.”

In an era where brands are both created and co-created, defining our brand, its meaning, and its value and humanizing it, will set the stage for collaboration and brand concentration.

Losing control in an era of socialized media and equalized influence, actually gives birth to an important form of empowerment. With a new found ability to listen to conversations tied to brands, products, and experiences and also analyze associated sentiment in real-time is stirring and enlightening. If ignorance is bliss, awareness is awakening. We now have the ability to understand impressions and perceptions and through engagement, we can contribute to their accuracy as well as define our brand relevance and legacy through every profile, conversation and social object we introduce.

Get Putting the Public Back in Public Relations and The Conversation Prism:
Image Source: Shutterstock

Twenty years ago, only big companies and TV stars worried about media channels.

Oprah was on TV, then she added radio. Two channels. Then a magazine.

Pepsi set out to dominate TV with their message, and billboards and vending machines. Newspapers, not so much. The media you chose to spread your message mattered. In fact, it could change what you made and how you made it. [Stop for a second and consider that... the media channel often drove the product and pricing and distribution].

Today, of course, everyone has access to a media channel. You can create a series of YouTube videos, or have a blog. You can be a big-time tweeter, or lead a significant tribe on Facebook.

Harder to grapple with is the idea that the media channel you choose changes who you are and what you do. Tom Peters gives a hundred or more speeches a year, around the world, for good money (and well earned). But this channel, this place where he can spread his message, determines what he does all day, impacts the pace of the work he does, informs all of his decisions.

Oprah lives a life that revolves around a daily TV show. Of course it would be difficult for her to write a book… that’s a life dictated by a different channel. And she’s a lapsed twitter user because it demands a different staffing and mindset than she has now.

This applies to non-celebs, to people with jobs, to entrepreneurs, to job seekers. We all spread our ideas, at least a little, and the medium you choose will change your ideas. If you only pay attention to the world when you need a new job (your channel is stamps and your message is your resume) you’ll spend your day differently than if you are leading a tribe, participating in organizations or giving local speeches all the time.

We’ve come a long way from a worker having just two channels (a resume and a few references) to having the choice of a dozen or more significant ways to spread her ideas. Choose or lose.