One of the most encouraging and exciting applications of social gaming is the ability to leverage its massive popularity to generate contributions to causes and humanitarian crises. We saw this in January this year when Zynga created limited edition items in FarmVille, FishVille, Mafia Wars and Zynga Poker that were purchased by users from 47 countries with proceeds going to victims of the Haiti earthquake.

This was the first time Zynga gave 100% of the proceeds from the sale of virtual goods to charity, in this case the World Food Program, and it should serve for a model for social gaming in the future. In the end, Zynga generated $1.5 in donations with Farmville users donating over $1 million.

The limited edition items created across the four games had a Haitian touch including Haiti white corn in FarmVille, a Haitian drum in Mafia Wars, a Haiti fish in FishVille, and a chip package inZynga Poker. Further, links for donations were promoted on Zynga’s other games including Café World, PetVille, YoVille.com, and the Zynga.org site.

Too often relief efforts are frustrated by donor fatigue, limited government resources or even public fear. We see all three factors impacting the relief funds being raised for the 20 million victims of the tragic floods in Pakistan. This is where social games can help by stepping into the void and leveraging the global reach and fun of the games to help generate donations on short notice.

Obviously the same dynamic has enormous potential over the long term. NPD Group reports that 1 in 5 adult Americans played social games in the last three months. Add to that gaming’s adoption among kids and factor in future generations growing up with Facebook and social games, and you can see how it can become a mainstay of collective giving in the future. What’s more, it’s great PR for the brands and even the players get to collect assets that aid them in the game.

The use of new media technology to help others is the next stage in the necessary integration of living and giving. As Don Pallotta explains in his insightful book, Uncharitable, the separation between the lives we live and the comparatively small charitable donations we give, mean that we can’t meet the crises we face with necessary force.

My hope is that in the future technology and social business will enable sustained, social giving. Not only do games like Farmville make it fun, but we all get to enjoy the most selfish reward of all – the knowledge and feeling that you helped others.

Do you agree gaming companies show use their popularity to do good? What about the social networks themselves?

• July 7, 2010 -- How brands and ad agencies contribute to long-term solutions in Haiti: Poprule interview with Rob Kramer (Part 2) (2)
• April 8, 2010 -- How Non-Profits think like For-Profits (7)
• September 23, 2009 -- Using social media for change: What’s awareness without action? (0)
• August 13, 2010 -- Worldnomads Footprint Projects: Lessons in smarter business and effective community building (2)
• August 11, 2010 -- Dear Brands, no amount of damage control can match no damage at all (6)
• August 9, 2010 -- Three key social media lessons that brands will learn the easy (or the hard) way (10)
• August 4, 2010 -- SocialVest: An antidote to brand and consumer apathy (0)
• August 2, 2010 -- The ‘Why” vs. “How”: What makes some brands extraordinary and others not (10)

The title for this post paraphrases a quote from a Chinese salesman featured in a story on counterfeit products in the New York Times magazine last weekend. While the salesman was speaking directly to accusations regarding the legality of selling counterfeit sneakers, he touched on a much larger issue for marketers.

Since the birth of modern advertising, in my mind the 1950’s, there’s been a false and expedient separation between a corporation or product and its image or brand. Obviously this made mountains of advertising sense as companies used media monopolies and television to dictate what people thought of a company or  product. In doing so marketers got to tell people what was cool, what to buy and what was the ‘next big thing’.

Unfortunately for marketers this conceit no longer makes sense due the transparency provided by the web and the accountability demanded by consumers.

In response to these recent market changes, most brands chose one of two options. They either persisted with their presumption that they are in control of consumer opinion (which is which so many people hate so much of advertising), or they cynically try to play both sides of the fence through greenwashing, causingwashing or localwashing to ‘compensate’ for other unconscionable behavior (BP’s eco marketing serving as a prime example).

More evolved brands, however, realize that we are entering an era in which a corporation and its brand must be integrated. For that to happen a company must define its purpose, state its core values and lay out its vision for the future, and  then act and communicate accordingly. That way it can withstand the consumer-driven, web-enabled spotlight. Patagonia is a great example of a company that has done this longer than most.

One of the unforeseen benefits of this company/brand integration is that its social outreach then reinforces the authentic narrative of the brand. This avoids a disconnect in consumers’ minds between the good work a brand is doing and who they say they are.

As with many fundamental truths in life, the wisest strategy is simple and self-evident. All the clever, disingenuous and duplicitous tactics that have served companies and their advertising partners for decades are no longer effective because technology has changed the marketplace.

The upsides of authenticity for business are enormous and include internal efficiencies, employee satisfaction, clarity in decision-making and customer loyalty, to name a few. Value judgments aside, it is simply the best approach to be aligned with today’s web savvy marketplace. Brands should have the confidence  to reveal who they really are. When they do otherwise, they fool no one but themselves.

Do you think its realistic to expect brands to come clean about who they are? Do you agree that’s what consumers now want?

• August 23, 2010 -- Good-bye “What’s Next”, hello “What’s Now” (3)
• August 17, 2010 -- How social networks reshape business by reshaping us (4)
• August 6, 2010 -- Lessons from BP and bankers: The need for a more sustainable future (8)
• August 4, 2010 -- SocialVest: An antidote to brand and consumer apathy (0)
• May 16, 2010 -- The future of shopping: What happens when walls start talking (8)
• February 25, 2010 -- Customer curation: What brands and ad agencies do about it (17)
• February 14, 2010 -- Consumers are the new ad agency (11)
• November 16, 2009 -- Meaning: The new measure of a brand or marketer’s success (6)

As anyone who works in the advertising or entertainment business will tell you, their industry is undergoing seismic changes in the face of new technology that enables both business and consumers to create content at virtually no cost. This means old business models no longer apply, job titles are changing and most businesses are being forced to become far more entrepreneurial not just to survive, but to position themselves for the future.

As a result, I continue to hear the phrase that everyone is trying to work out “what’s next”. This is informed by a long history of industry shifts that integrated new technology. Only this time that phrase its misplaced. The changes underway are fundamentally different on two levels:

1. The pace of technological change has accelerated to a point that makes it almost impossible for institutions  to keep pace.

2. New technology is equally accessible to consumers robbing business of its exclusive role.

Further, business is being forced to accept that this pace of change will continue to accelerate which means old approaches to strategy, product development, market research and creating a competitive advantage no longer apply.

One response is to look for comfort in divining “what’s next”. A wiser and more appropriate response is to accept and focus on “what’s now”. Comfort based on known quantities no longer exists. Instead, discomfort, uncertainty, risk and constant flux are the new bedfellows that we must learn to love.  (Joshua Cooper Ramo’s ‘The Age of the Unthinkable’ explores this in wonderful detail.)

This partly explains the radical internal restructuring going on in so many companies. It partly explains corporate fear of new technology and consumer frustration with brands that “don’t get it”. The Great Recession has been rightly blamed for many ills, but we should not let it blind us to the transformative impact of technology that is happening before our eyes. The bad news is that its scary. The good news is that we’ll get used to it.

There’s no point in waiting for dust to settle. Technology will kick up more. Yes, that makes the future harder to see but all is not lost in the haze. We can listen better. Consumers are telling us what they want in so many ways never imaginable before. All we have to do is choose to hear them and that will guide the way.

Do you find the pace of change impossible to manage? Or do you think little has really changed?

• May 16, 2010 -- The future of shopping: What happens when walls start talking (8)
• August 25, 2010 -- “The products are original. It’s the brands that are fake.” (0)
• August 17, 2010 -- How social networks reshape business by reshaping us (4)
• August 6, 2010 -- Lessons from BP and bankers: The need for a more sustainable future (8)
• August 4, 2010 -- SocialVest: An antidote to brand and consumer apathy (0)
• February 25, 2010 -- Customer curation: What brands and ad agencies do about it (17)
• February 14, 2010 -- Consumers are the new ad agency (11)
• September 15, 2009 -- How Prius creates ‘Harmony’ between its brand and consumers (9)

Yesterday Facebook announced its much anticipated entry into the location based services. Unlike Google Places which is a search tool, Facebook Places is a check-in service focused on social interaction. You simply use your phone to tell people where you are, who you are with and find out others nearby. This then can also be broadcast on their Facebook page.

The integration of a check-in service to the already dominant roster of services that Facebook offers is a boon for users and further solidifies Facebook’s hold on its community and their interaction (not to mention social supremacy over Google). Yes, it raises privacy issues (again), especially when a friend checks-in for you without your permission, but my focus is what it means form the (former) leaders in the marketplace, Foursquare and Gowalla.

From a branding pointing of view, there is one place that Foursquare and Gowalla do not want to be – in Facebook’s shadow. While Holger Luedorf of Foursquare claimed that Facebook’s entry into the space validated the market, and Chris Cox of Facebook attested to the power of location-based tools when married to the memories stored on Facebook, there is little doubt that this is the long goodbye for any other player in the field.

Yes, Foursquare or Gowalla did a stellar job of defining and carving out the marketplace. Along with Yelp and Booyah, they even came to an agreement with Facebook that you’ll be able to check-in and publish data to your Facebook feed. But the writing is on the wall for all of them and here’s why.

Leaving aside the vast advantage in numbers that Facebook holds, none of the other players created a unique offering or distinct brand personality. It’s that personality that engenders brand loyalty and forces late comers like Facebook to the field to fight for supremacy. But as it stands, Foursquare and Gowalla simply offer similar products and services without the added benefits of Facebook.

This serves as a sobering reminder that social media tools are not an end in themselves. They are best characterized as technology in the service of day-trading in social emotion. Technology companies must establish themselves as clearly defined brands with compelling personalities and voices to take root within the social ecosystem. It’s the difference between someone ‘using’ Foursquare and ‘loving’ Foursquare. Or, at least, feeling sad as we say goodbye.

Do you agree Foursquare and Gowalla were faceless? Or do you think they will survive?

• August 17, 2010 -- How social networks reshape business by reshaping us (4)
• April 26, 2010 -- Facebook’s Open Graph: Is privacy a given or a taken away? (9)
• June 7, 2010 -- Mark Zuckerberg: Everyone’s favorite privacy pinata (7)
• May 26, 2010 -- Is Facebook really the one with the identity crisis? (26)
• May 9, 2010 -- Is Facebook really to blame for your privacy issue? (20)
• July 6, 2009 -- The Future of You as Advertising Space (7)
• August 30, 2010 -- Where to start if your brand wants to build an online community (0)
• August 25, 2010 -- “The products are original. It’s the brands that are fake.” (0)

I think the World Nomads Footprint project is super smart on many levels.

It’s premised on the fact that when you visit a community you make an impact. As such, you have a small responsibility to give something back. So when you purchase one of their travel insurance policies, you choose a project and get to add your tiny donation to make a difference in that community.

Not only does the community benefit, but your small contribution transforms your experience because you invested in the experience in a completely different way.

By extension, the community also views you differently because you have looked at the experience through the lens of their well-being.

This dynamic of mutual dependence and contribution is a model in effective community-building in both the online and offline worlds. What’s more, it demonstrates a powerful presumption that with consumption comes contribution enhancing the experience of connection for everyone.

World Nomads, founded by Simon Monk (@worldnomads) is just one of a new breed of enlightened companies that realize the well-being of others improves their own. Here’s just a few of the projects that their efforts are funding.

• Teacher Training Program, Solu Khumbu
• Outreach Microsurgical Eye Camp, Dhading
• Women’s small business enterprises
• HIV prevention & education, Hanoi
• Indigenous youth health program, Kununurra
• Timorese youth engagement & leadership program
• Amazon Community Schools

Do you think more businesses should think this way? What about Wall Street?

• August 11, 2010 -- Dear Brands, no amount of damage control can match no damage at all (6)
• August 9, 2010 -- Three key social media lessons that brands will learn the easy (or the hard) way (10)
• August 4, 2010 -- SocialVest: An antidote to brand and consumer apathy (0)
• July 14, 2010 -- Attention please: How you help brands change our world (2)
• June 21, 2010 -- Cannes Advertising Festival Social Media Seminar (video) (1)
• May 12, 2010 -- #140conf LA meet-up: Social media inspiring social change (1)
• April 18, 2010 -- Chris Brogan on social media tools and how brands use them effectively (4)
• April 14, 2010 -- Twitter’s ad platform: Will advertising be the death of social media? (15)

Image: All Facebook

Nestle’s PR disaster over  palm oil harvesting continues to damage the brand. Despite the fact that Nestle  dropped the  palm oil harvesters responsible for the deforestation that threatened the survival of orangutans, a company called Sinar Mas, it’s Nestle’s handling of the issue on Facebook that keeps backfiring.

The most recent issue is the fact that Nestle has gone on the offensive posting advertisements on Facebook that invite people to find out more about Nestlé’s policies on corporate social responsibility. You can see a smattering of the reactions of their roughly 110,000 vitriolic fans above. Hardly the response Nestle was wanted from their fan page.

It’s only natural that a brand would want to champion its genuine CSR efforts in such a situation but how you do it is critical. The mistake Nestle is making is by looking at the problem through the eyes of the brand, rather than its customers.

Before Nestle began beating its chest (couldn’t resist) about the good work it does it should have taken time to take stock and responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The customer upset about the flight of the orangutans want to hear what they’re doing about it, not what Nestle is doing somewhere else. In fact, to direct attention to other efforts while this issue is unresolved only makes those other CSR efforts look disingenuous.

The key distinction as brand must learn to make is between communicating as a human being or as a corporation. As a human being, the brand would recognize the need to address the anger and distress of customers exposing their actions and calling for the boycott of their products. It’s simply common sense. As a corporation, Nestle would take a defensive stance arguing that it is already doing good work elsewhere. I leave the decision as to what is the wiser approach up to you.

It’s time brands learned the words mea culpa. Better yet, it’s time they realized that duplicity does not work and transparency does. Consumers are too concerned, connected and committed for it to be otherwise. (In fact, here’s some great PR guidelines to follow for @conversationage). Best of all, however, is if brands learned that business practices that hurt others or the environment only end up hurting them. So let’s do away with the damage in the first place.

Do you think brands will ever get their head around this? Or will the motive of profit continue to drive their decisions despite customer pushback?

• August 9, 2010 -- Three key social media lessons that brands will learn the easy (or the hard) way (10)
• April 18, 2010 -- Chris Brogan on social media tools and how brands use them effectively (4)
• April 14, 2010 -- Twitter’s ad platform: Will advertising be the death of social media? (15)
• March 11, 2010 -- Brands, explain yourself! (6)
• February 1, 2010 -- Brands beware: With the iPad things just got more confusing (13)
• January 25, 2010 -- Do ad agencies have a future? The What, How and Why. (20)
• December 7, 2009 -- A glance back at the future of social media (0)
• July 6, 2009 -- The Future of You as Advertising Space (7)

Image: Aja

I woke up this morning and read this post by Robert Kuttner in Huffington Post. I think his opening points are spot on. He tells us that Wall Street and BP demonstrate the same problem.

In both cases, a powerful, politically protected industry invented something that could not easily be repaired when it broke. We seem to be entering an age when complex technologies, whether financial or physical, sometimes literally have no solutions when they go haywire in unanticipated ways. We thought this might happen with nuclear power (and it still could); but for now deepwater drilling is the bigger menace.

Secondly, in both cases the proverbial ounce of prevention was not applied. Had existing laws been enforced, and had the political process not corrupted the regulatory process, these man-made calamities didn’t need to happen.

Building a system that could not be fixed when it is broken is symptomatic of a far deeper problem – a disregard for the future. Whether as a function of four-year or two-year election cycle, or quarterly projections for corporations, or an average 2.3 year tenure for CMO’s in major U.S. corporations, too many mainstays of how we run our world are irresponsibly short-term in their perspective. Obviously you need to be in power to create change, so there has to be a balance, but in my opinion that drive for positive change has been overwhelmed by the desire to stay in power.

What’s inexplicable to me is that such an approach in fact ignores the long-term well being of a corporation. Economists call such unforeseen, long-term costs negative externalities. This either means a corporation does not pay the full cost of a decision and society and consumers are left holding the bag.

Only today such negative externalities have far graver consequences. We now live in an interdependent world in which we are both aware and affected by what someone else does on the other side of the planet. What’s more we face so many concurrent crises – disease, child mortality, environmental degradation, the disparity of wealth, climate change, and so on – that the urgency for solutions is compounded.

It is a wonderful to live in a global community connected in new ways by social media. The flip-side is that selfish, short-term corporate behavior, on top of government debt and limited philanthropic resources, can be our undoing. We do not live in a world of unlimited resources. We cannot expect profit to rise ever upwards. We can no longer use ignorance as an excuse to disregard the plight of billions of less fortunate people around the world. We, and the corporate entities that we work for and support as brands, need to take responsibility for our future. Not simply because it’s a good thing to do, but because our own survival depends on it.

As consumers with buying power and corporations marketing their brands we need to wake up. As President Clinton said: ”We should leave our children with a different set of problems”, not worse ones. We have been given the awareness and tools to do that. We can be the difference between continued loss and suffering and sustainable prosperity. The is our chance to make a lasting difference and it starts now.

Do you think corporate behavior will ever change? What can consumers do to ensure they help rather than hurt the planet?

• August 25, 2010 -- “The products are original. It’s the brands that are fake.” (0)
• August 23, 2010 -- Good-bye “What’s Next”, hello “What’s Now” (3)
• August 17, 2010 -- How social networks reshape business by reshaping us (4)
• August 4, 2010 -- SocialVest: An antidote to brand and consumer apathy (0)
• June 9, 2010 -- Why Capitalism is Irrational: ‘First as Tragedy, Then as Farce’ by Slavoj Zizek (2)
• May 16, 2010 -- The future of shopping: What happens when walls start talking (8)
• April 6, 2010 -- Is your brand on its best behavior? Ask BrandKarma (4)
• February 25, 2010 -- Customer curation: What brands and ad agencies do about it (17)

When it comes to making the world a better place, corporations are often accused of apathy (the flip-side of blind self-interest). But if consumers are truly committed to social change, they must answer the same challenge. That’s why I think SocialVest is such as smart idea. It makes giving almost effortless removing yet another barrier to consumer participation. Here’s how it works.

SocialVest users register credit cards on the company’s website. Then when they make purchases online or from any of a list of retail partners, a small rebate (ranging from 0.5 to 10 percent of the purchase set by the store) goes into the user’s personal account. That money can then be redirected to the user’s favorite non-profit organization.

The real power here is leveraging existing consumer buying habits and repurposing a fraction of the product’s price to the user’s chosen cause. SocialVest takes care of all the middleman/middlewoman stuff, and then users get to choose where the money goes and  tell their peers about it.

There are so many obstacles to change on the scale we so desperately need. But companies like Leap CR (which makes it easy for corporations to enlist their staff in volunteer programs), Causecast (that makes cause marketing simple for brands) and SocialVest, help to overcome this issue of apathy. Changes in mindset are hard enough without expecting massive changes in behavior as well. If we can get consumers to make mindful shopping choices, to support brands that act responsibly and to purchase goods from those that dedicate a portion of the sale proceeds to causes, we are well on our way to re-purposing everyday purchases.

To find out what brands are a part of the program and to participate yourself, visit SocialVest. If you’re a brand, jump on board and make a difference to your customers and worthy causes.

Do you think this approach will make more consumers participate? Do you think brands will recognize the value in participating?

• August 19, 2009 -- Anti-Social Media: What digital intimacy means for consumers and brands (16)
• June 9, 2009 -- Top ten things brands forget in their rush to Social Media. (13)
• August 25, 2010 -- “The products are original. It’s the brands that are fake.” (0)
• August 23, 2010 -- Good-bye “What’s Next”, hello “What’s Now” (3)
• August 17, 2010 -- How social networks reshape business by reshaping us (4)
• August 13, 2010 -- Worldnomads Footprint Projects: Lessons in smarter business and effective community building (2)
• August 11, 2010 -- Dear Brands, no amount of damage control can match no damage at all (6)
• August 9, 2010 -- Three key social media lessons that brands will learn the easy (or the hard) way (10)

Image: Kilroy's Links.

Everywhere you look these days there’s another instance of a brand being caught out for disingenuous, duplicitous or unconscionable behavior. It’s almost as if they can’t believe either a) this Internet thing is here to stay, or b) that it requires transparency. So in an effort to shunt to process forward, let’s look at two different business situations – one negative and one positive –  in which an open kimono stance is highly recommended.

1. DAMAGE CONTROL: For every social media PR disaster there are just as many happy endings (Ford, Zappos, Comcast and JetBlue to name a few). Yet for some reason many major brands are still reluctant to accept that they might as well come clean. For instance, BP tries to understate the amount of oil spewing in the Gulf, it doctors photographs of the affected areas and tries to shut down twitter accounts critical of the brand. Nestle tries to delete posts and squash Facebook accounts populated by Greenpeace protestors ogbecting to their harvesting of palm oil becuase of its impact of local orangutans. Honda seeding it’s own positive customer reviews of the Crosstour to counter customer criticism. The list goes on.

Such tactics reflect a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics of social media. It’s like telling a young kid not to touch something. Suddenly they have nothing better to do. Instead, brands clutch their cards closer to their chest only to invite more trouble on themselves. As difficult as it may seem, brands must embrace the notion that they owe the same duty of disclosure to their customers as they do to their shareholders. Why? Because customers are stakeholders in their business and its impact on the world. And their purchasing power is critical to corporate profits.

2. SOCIAL OUTREACH: CSR (Corporate social responsibility) is now commonplace among major brands and it contributes meaningful resources to critical areas. That said, such positive efforts often backfire on brands due to their disingenuous motives. Sponsoring a charity, getting your staff to volunteer or starting a foundation is pointless if it only serves to cover-up the ills of a corporation or to burnish its image in the public eye. Consumers are not that foolish or uninformed. Greenwashing, causewashing and its recent variation, localwashing, are all terms that should have brands on point as to why they are doing outreach in the first place. Not only is it misguided because consumers become twice as mad when they feel like they’re being played, but its also robs the brand of all the potential upside of using outreach to reinforce a brand’s authentic narrative. Here’s what I mean.

If a brand really takes the time to define and articulate what it stands for and then makes an outreach on that basis, every charitable effort will reinforce the core brand because they are congruent. That means extra bank for every marketing buck. But if they have not done that work, outreach invariably comes off as ad hoc, sanctimonious or pandering to public opinion. This doesn’t mean a brand has to be limited in what it does. It just means that any contribution should be relevant to what they do and that they should do it because they mean it. For example, as a beneficiary of the ocean, it would make sense for BP to invest in marine ecology. It’s a simple as that. So brands must work out who they and why they are doing such outreach if they want to reinforce their own brand and resonate most loudly with consumers.

It’s important to note that this phenomenon of consumer response is not some fly by night fad of well-intended activism. This is the new marketplace and this trend is in its infancy. Consumers will continue to socialize, organize and demand that their voice be heard. This is being propelled by three powerful forces over which brands have no control. The wake-up call of corporate corruption that was 2008, enhanced awareness of the multiple global crises our planet currently faces, and a renaissance of connectivity thanks to social media. The result of which is a connected, engaged and concerned consumer that my be into recycling, donating money to Haiti earthquake victims or signing an online petition to boycott BP and expecting to their brands to do the same. Consumers want brands must their share of responsibility in the well-being of all. Or as I said at the Cannes Ad Fest recently, they want a better world, not just better widgets. So in this new social ecosystem brands must really think through their motives and reach out to consumers with authenticity, transparency and accountability. Otherwise the only reason someone would buy their product is to throw it at them.

Do you feel most brands are really putting it on and pretending to care? Or do you see a genuine shift in the corporate mentiality?

• July 12, 2010 -- Social Media as an Instrument of Change: Cannes seminar slides (5)
• August 4, 2010 -- SocialVest: An antidote to brand and consumer apathy (0)
• August 2, 2010 -- The ‘Why” vs. “How”: What makes some brands extraordinary and others not (10)
• July 19, 2010 -- Top ten ways your ads can s(m)ell like the Old Spice ads (6)
• July 14, 2010 -- Attention please: How you help brands change our world (2)
• July 6, 2010 -- Why customers, and not social media, are your key to brand success (4)
• July 4, 2010 -- Social media explained by a 9-year-old in one sentence (5)
• June 21, 2010 -- Cannes Advertising Festival Social Media Seminar (video) (1)

Emily Chang kindly pointed out this new Foursquare ad. As the copy explains, when you check-in on Foursquare at the “Earthjustice ad”, one of their donors will donate $10 to stop unsafe oil drilling.

This is a very interesting and powerful new way to leverage location based services for change, but more than that, it highlights one of the unexpected benefits of the tsunami of information now available on the web.

The demands on our attention from the millions of pieces of advertising, information and social media connections now available to us is so great that brands quite literally have to pay for it. And since they can’t demand that attention by talking about themselves, they are wisely commanding it by contributing to causes that are meaningful to consumers.

The upside of this is threefold:

1. Brands are slowly getting over their habitual exclusive self-interest and the marketing techniques that attended it.

2. Brands are realizing that contribution to worthy causes is now a critical part of good business.

3. By supporting brands in this new dynamic, consumers are incrementally changing the world for the better.

When you consider all the possibilities this creates – from texting donations to NGO’s in Haiti, sharing cause concerns on Facebook or checking in on Foursquare to trigger brand donations – and you factor in the number of people and brands now engaged in social media, it’s easy to see how this new dynamic is potentially transformative. It certainly makes looking after other people easier. So easy, I hope, that looking after others because a daily habit for the more fortunate consumers and brands around the world.

Do you think such a hope is possible? Or are people simply too lazy, busy or self-interested to care?

• June 21, 2010 -- Cannes Advertising Festival Social Media Seminar (video) (1)
• August 13, 2010 -- Worldnomads Footprint Projects: Lessons in smarter business and effective community building (2)
• August 2, 2010 -- The ‘Why” vs. “How”: What makes some brands extraordinary and others not (10)
• July 28, 2010 -- Brands, if you really want to make money look to your motives (4)
• July 19, 2010 -- Top ten ways your ads can s(m)ell like the Old Spice ads (6)
• July 12, 2010 -- Social Media as an Instrument of Change: Cannes seminar slides (5)
• July 6, 2010 -- Why customers, and not social media, are your key to brand success (4)
• July 4, 2010 -- Social media explained by a 9-year-old in one sentence (5)