When user centricity and citizen centricity, characterized by a free spirit, independent state of mind and natural sense of entitlement, are correlated against economic concerns, unrest and distrust of the system, change is bound to be cardinal.

The stagnation in the belief of individuals in the system leads to a sharp divide, as a bottom up participatory wave of voices refuses to continue and passively accept old orders and top down provider/ politicians’ self serving interests as an axiom.

The deteriorating financial circumstances all over the world, the fear of a recession ahead, the realization that the boomer generation inflicted a capitalism that went too far, that the ramifications hit all and threaten individual welfare, affordable future and growth, as well as the continuation of existing paradigms – all lead to a clear realization that more of the same doesn’t cut the mustard.

On different fronts individual reactions are mostly through small, personal and apparently minor tides of rejections –opting out, discontinuing, and looking for alternatives, in both the virtual as well as the real worlds. The tale of individualism that fed the systems to date and empowered catering for individual needs in the name of CRM or state policies was based on personal and sectarian fragmentations.

It is now turned against these institutions, commercial and civil, this time through communal social grids and in the name of social solidarity. The doubting crowds gradually take the reins in their hands on a way to radical transformations. Connecting the dots is moving from the serving parties who controlled the balances and gained power, to the users/citizens who claim what in their eyes is theirs to start with.

The fuse has been lit on many fronts, all at once. Same dynamics, different expressions. Signs are everywhere. When people, with a new state of mind go elsewhere, make new choices, opt for new providers, align themselves with new political voices, or as is the case in countries such as Israel and starting through Europe, calling overtly for radical changes – the ruling elites of corporations, financial systems and states, in many cases out of touch with what the people really want, must pay close attention.

These accumulated and dispersed reactions voice the same spirit:

Trust is gone. The contracts are being torn; new ones are in the writing. Bottom up, by individuals, groups and unfortunately in some places by mobs.

This fermenting realization will bring about new orders, as individuals tired of the deterioration in their life quality and as citizens claiming an affordable future for themselves, children and grandchildren demand to be truly put at the center. Even if now it’s mostly individual movers and shakers who carry the flag, quietly or aggressively masses will eventually align.

The deeper the tectonic shifts needed, the longer it will take for the tipping point to occur- but it is becoming inevitable, beyond the level of slogans, intentions and appearances.

When emotional meets economic and social, it crafts the seeds from which a plethora of small gestures and acts of individuals will connect the dots and together will create a shift that will matter. As Itoms in a people’s grid, what each of us feels, thinks and opts to do matters. Because we, users, citizens, matter – we are the heart of the system, its raison d’être.

When economies and countries go astray, individuals react bottom up, the wisdom of the crowds cannot be appeased just by educated charts and financial analyses. The increasing calls for transparency, culture and conduct that cater for the good of all, considers the well being of the citizens and exercises a reciprocal authentic pact are the heart of a new people centered paradigm, sensitive to the people that comprise it.  It should be based on new values that will put an end to old vicious circles and empower a new kind of society – more attentive to its citizens, to their quality of life, the meaning of their actions and not just their physical goods, where the people are actively involved in shaping the future economic and social structures of their societies.

User centricity is primarily associated with marketing disciplines that put the user at the center. A cliché, cynicists may claim, devised by corporates to appease clients. A more evolved approach to user centricity truly makes the user a primary partner. As citizens we are users of systems created first and foremost to cater to our needs. Governing systems, just like commercial ones, need to be attentive to their users for their survivability and adapt accordingly.

In our life as citizens, user centricity is not always taken for granted as a primary consideration, and at times, not catered for at all. In many countries, very significant political, economic and social changes are fermenting or openly taking place at this very moment.

In non democratic regimes, such as the Arab states in the Middle East like Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia,  regimes, up to very recently, were  fear based. Till a moment came when the masses felt  they had nothing to lose.  A bottom up citizen based ripple effect swept the area and the people rebelled aggressively, no longer accepting the ruling dynasty paradigms of their dictators.

In the democratic western world – it’s fermenting in other ways. In some countries aggressive riots sprang – e.g Uk,  in others – non violent  protests, like in Israel, (where I come from), but not less powerful. All across Europe unrest is fermenting, as people, frustrated by the  economic unrest and the feeling  their current governing parties, delegates of the people, elected by the people and for the people, no longer attentively  cater for the interests of the people as their primarily consideration.

All are threatened by shifts and the unrest from the growing feeling of misuse of the credit and trust with which the prevailing parties were endowed. It’s already here or lurking behind the corner, and not just as a build up towards election day. The masses are losing faith in the thin closed circle  that brings time after time the same players in varied constellations and perpetuates solutions the citizens no longer trust.

All this unrest has a common denominator – the voice of the citizen. User centricity is not just about consumerism – it is about engagement, influencing and shaping the systems that serve us. Same goes for our identity as citizens, and our prerogative, or duty, if you wish, to  call out to put us, citizens, in our rightful place – as the center of the systems built by and for us.

The need for a new pact between the governing parties and their constituents is fermenting bottom – up. It’s a call for bringing back the human factor into the center of the equation. Sovereignty should be based on trust, Trust is enhanced by transparency. Both are  rare goods these days.

Citizen centered, Wecentered,  in the face of political, financial and corruption turmoil all across the world, is a paradigm that will  redefine the balance between politicians and us, citizens.

In a citizen centered state of mind it is not the governors who have an unlimited mandate because presumably they know best what the people should have and therefore a totally free hand to prioritize and dictate their worldview with blind oblivion to what we, the citizens, feel we should have.

Holding on to attitudes of   “though the dog may bark,  the caravan moves on”, blind to the growing and the shifting  power of  citizens,  blinds leaders from reading the writing on the wall. A state is a human grid. We are citizens and in democracies, the elected delegates should represent their citizens’ interests.

Citizen centered paradigms grow in dynamic movements through bottom up open systems, where citizens call for freedom,  better living conditions, hope, and in more affluent and democratic countries  a more just allocation of resources, and an affordable future.

The citizen centered paradigm demands a new lens for the relations  between the state and the citizens, for focusing on the citizens  and their well being. A state’s ecology is manifested by its social conscious, considering the human aspects of its officials’ operations and not losing the human touch in executing its policies.  The new citizen centered paradigm calls for transparency, culture and conduct that cater for the good of all, considers the well being of the citizens and exercises a reciprocal authentic pact with them.

Transparency empowers trust.

The internet is one of the most significant catalysts of transparency. Users own conversations, foster diversity, choices and openness.  The internet, information technologies, social media and users’ engagement have cultivated a culture of open sharing.  They keep providers, leaders, corporates and governments under a glass menagerie,  evangelize virtues and broadcast any misbehavior.

The internet allows visibility that we can’t control. Visibility on people, actions – from Facebook, LinkedIn, blogs, articles, comments…. It makes us vulnerable, because we can’t control people’s reactions to what we do or say –voluntarily through the likes of  Facebook and up to bully disclosures of  Wikileaks – we are more exposed as people, employees, managers, officials, politicians…

This leads to greater personal accountability. Once we understand the inevitable power of the  exposure  of our actions, for better or worse, it leads to greater awareness to who we are, and accountability as to why we do what we do. The internet allows us to harness, share, cooperate, engage, become more sensitive to our surroundings – human, social, environmental.

Transparency becomes a key to authenticity.  In our personal life, transparency of social networks, a sharing state of mind and web culture support and empower our authenticity. It makes it natural for us to expect it from the brands, services and systems we interact with. We grow to demand the same accountability from our employers, providers, leaders.

Traditional conservativism cherishes playing one’s cards close to the chest, having full control and disclosing as little as possible, as a means of manipulating reality for corporate, sector, government and even personal interests.  Once organizations cannot control the ripple effects of their doings, gates, walls and a unilateral  top down control become a non applicable paradigm in an age of being under the constant microscope of user monitoring.

Embracing a state of mind of transparency spells a new paradigm – one that transcends regulations and is based on openness, disclosure, accountability, open systems as an organizational culture.  It requires relinquishing control in favor of direct connections, letting others decide. It’s a window to who corporates, institutions and individuals really are, what they stand for.

Therefore it becomes a cultural imperative for brands, corporates, organizations and governments.

Authenticity is a key to trust building.

The internet is more than just a global system of interconnected computer networks. It’s about us, people, and not just about technological platforms and apps, bits and bytes.  It is key in establishing transparency, authenticity and trust mechanisms and  plays a cultural and ethical role that transcends its material, practical and functional aspects.  Therefore the soft values that we users embrace as part of a web culture, will drive changes that will ensure a trustworthy, transparent, empathic way of life, that corporates and institutions will have to embrace to reach us.

Trust based relations are the new green – the key to a clean web ecology.  This fabric is what matters now – a new ecological culture of transparency, trust and engagement that individuals, corporates and institutions alike must embrace.

]]> http://www.icentered.com/trust-is-the-new-green/feed 0 http://www.icentered.com/2011-edelman-trust-barometer-transparency-and-engagement-are-corporates%e2%80%99-new-trust-protectors http://www.icentered.com/2011-edelman-trust-barometer-transparency-and-engagement-are-corporates%e2%80%99-new-trust-protectors#comments Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:43:11 +0000 Ayala http://www.icentered.com/?p=603

The  2011 Edelman trust barometer main findings show a shift to new and different pillars of trust that make us trust companies.

In the past a company was trustworthy if it had a stable and firm business control- a top-down grip on its business and markets, a reliable marketing flow, financial stability and growth.

The trust crises in the last decade strengthened skepticism and shook traditional trust pillars. Corporations can no longer adopt a hard management style through rigid goal seeking and build trust just by making money, protecting the brand and the information flow.

The new trust barometer transcends board room valuation charts. It puts transparency first. Trust is invoked by seeing shared values, a new level of transparency, authenticity, connectivity and connectedness everywhere. It calls for reframing corporate goals in terms of engagement, purpose, and involvement in the good of the larger public as part of a greater social responsibility as trust invokers.

Gaining trust, according to this trust barometer, is a protective measure for corporations today,  as corporates no longer control conversations, good or bad are exposed, condemned or praised instantly and virally evangelized. Therefore corporates’ sustainability lies in practicing what it preaches. Its test lies in its transparency, and its credibility is achieved by the involvement and representation of the corporation through its highest officials as committed to these goals.

This 21^st century spirit and state of public sentiment towards corporates, calls for new management paradigms, new sets of values, new pacts with all parties involved in the food and value chains, more humanizing business culture and ethics.  

The survival of the fittest definitely will take a softer approach, as corporates’ sustainability will be translated in humanizing their business.

The battle over net neutrality and over open web as opposed to closed systems will only increase. In this struggle  the fight over the web’s  ownership and its usage patterns is a global powerful war. On its face level, the struggle can be seen as commercial struggle for  owning the principal platforms for web dominance, owning the apps’ infrastructure to ensure that whatever we use, we go through that platform namely, through closed systems that make us bend to their terms.

 In fact it’s about preserving corporate paradigms based on rigid rules of engagement, privacy policies of the old world, where top down hierarchies and policies dictate the business models and our captivity.

 It is  opposed  to open  systems that acknowledge and thrive on the cultural, consumer, social shifts and the free spirit of the web that encourages the  harnessing of  new business models to accommodate users.

The internet is etheric, ubiquitous, heterogeneous, distributed and intangible. It includes all the markets of the traditional world. And as digital takes an increasing part of our life, power struggles become more sophisticated and the fight to keep an open web takes further significance. It’s no longer about what devices we use, not even what operating system, but what culture, approach and relations we’ll have with companies that cater for our digital life.

This battle incorporates, from an icentered lens, the most threatening aspects for abuse of the free spirit, culture and mindset we want for our web life. It is a battle over our rightful place in ecosystems created around us, over our freedom of choice,  and our right to proactively manage our privacy and sharing.

We cannot be owned by providers. The battle to become our personal portal and the hegemony wars over web dominance between Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft are cannibalizing the basic web future and mindset it should spell for us, its users.

From a corporate perspective it’s about  transparency, data management, privacy policies and customer relations. The battle over who will have control over anything we interact with on the web.

We should be thankful for those super giants of the digital economy for empowering us with a new digital dimension that has revolutionized our lives and has made digital a commodity. At the same breath, we should fear the lack of sensitivity and respect, of those companies, who, through their offerings, define the rules of what our digital life will look like.

What awaits us in that power struggle?

Apple has revolutionized our communications consumptions, yet their closed system of Macs, Iphone,  iPads are closed gardens relying on itunes for entertainment content. Will the future spell a web built on micro apps?

Google’s search results, as our primary source of reference, dictate to a large extent how we perceive things. Will the future depend on an organized web according to Googles’ keys for inclusion?

Facebook has redefined our social connectivity, dialogs and the way we interact with each other over the web. Will it our personal operating system be dressed in Facebook’s outfit?

As the world goes mobile, smart phones will indicate the next evolutionary stages of web usage, the battle between the mobile Android based Google mobile OS and the closed Iphone systems is a micro cosmos of the battle over closed or open web. And on it goes…. 

 We are at the verge of web 3.0 that will bring with it awareness and contextification, that will make us, users, more vulnerable as computer systems will automatically analyze  our interactions with advanced semantic tools, spot our whereabouts and activities through location awareness. Add that to the downpour of information, data and media, personalization will be the name of the game – and control and privacy issues will augment with that.

The symbol of the battle between open and closed is the cultural difference between the basic approach of two of the giants fighting for hegemony – Google and Facebook.

We used to fear Google’ Big brother master plan for web dominance,  We can be mildly reassured of  Googles’ Don’t be evil motto that they have made a central pillar in their corporate identity, that their culture tends to be more open, today, and by the level of transparency that goes together with being a public company.  

Facebook opts for closure, secret and obscure policies, remaining private so not to have to embrace the transparency and accountability of a public company.  The Goldman_Sacks Facebook deal, a quasi private investment , asserts this. If  Facebook really wanted to, it could embrace an open culture, Zuckerberg preferred  not to assume that accountability.

 We must encourage privacy activists, consumer watchdogs and netizens  to foster constant awareness to the importance of open systems, transparency and user control in a free, neutral open social web.

A neutral web will ensure our security, safety, independence – as contrary to a closed web dominated by digital superpowers who constantly track us without any ability on our part to block or share at will, controls our data and dictates the economic food chains around our data.

For all these reasons, protecting us from the closing movement of the giants who want to dominate it all – calls for a paradigm shift. One that reverses relations between providers and users, is based on technologies and  an open mindset that will allow for pull based permission and data exchange context based food chains, proactively managed by users who become equal partners in the food chains created about them.

Some basic new ground rules for rearranging relations between consumers and providers must be respected. No commercial corporate, acting for its own capital gain, should own our data or have the ability to manipulate or expose it unsolicited, or arbitrarily and unilaterally dictate what additional offerings become integrated to the services and what their consequences are to us, users. They should respect our rightful place as the only owners of personal data, visibility and sole control over sharing handles.

Only then will Zuckerbergs relinquish their power, acknowledge and act with the humility and accountability that come with assuming the culture of reciprocity and respect of truly catering for individuals.

How can I track down old information about me that floats out there in the digital Ether? Whether I’m just  privacy sensitive and don’t want scraps of data around me dispersed all over without my knowing or control, wish to minimize places I registered to but did not deactivate, hate to think that companies out there manipulate my data, feel abused by the goldmine of my data that makes marketers and advertisers happy but leaves me out of the food chains, or wish to make old hunchbacks  that can be dug by search engines,  fade away – I can now have a personal privacy cleaner at my disposal.

A  US privacy company, Abine, launched DeleteMe - a “delete button for the Internet.”   It  tracks down, on users’ behalf,  traces of personal identity and information from data, passwords, profiles, and up to search results that make people unhappy, and erases them. Price is between 10$-100$, depending on  how much one wants to remove and from where.

I haven’t tried it, so I have no way of telling how thorough and efficient it is, and maybe in the distributed internet there can’t be a seal proof guarantee.

Regardless, the initiative deserves  praise for several grounds:

To start with – it’s a universal service that exceeds the boundaries of specific siloed sites. As such it takes a harmonized approach for my digital residues from a holistic point of view and caters for my privacy needs all across.

In the current state of web related privacy policies, where as a user I’m helpless in front of opaque data gathering in sites, can’t really keep track or notice data manipulation and have to deal with a plethora of privacy policies, it’s good to have a privacy policeman directly protecting my side, working on my behalf.

The business plan based on profit generated from direct provisioning for my privacy demands, is a trust enhancer because it assures no need or ulterior motives for my data manipulation as part of the company’s business plan . I pay – I’m the customer – they cater for my needs.

 Straight. Simple. Clean.

Also the cart of services they offer answers any need from any prism a user may wish for.

The company offers data removal methods activated through both automated tools and manual data manipulation in sites, that in itself promises a more thorough and systemic cleaning.

User side services such as DeleteMe that empower me, the individual, to take active control through outsourcing expert based is yet another step towards enhancing user centered paradigms and shift control over web interaction from providers to us users – an  important step towards a transparency culture and a cleaner web ecology.

Mydex,  a community interest company, has just launched in the UK a personal data store,  a user side personal information management service where individuals can keep a universal user-centered account of their personal information – records of their personal data, purchases, credit, health, insurance, home related information so they can track it as needed.

The service is currently on trials with the U.K. Department for Work and Pensions, and three local councils; London Borough of Brent, London Borough of Croydon, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. They present it as a free market solution to a privacy management issue  by reversing the paradigm of  the private information that companies and governments store about us, where the individual  builds a personal data store and empowers, at will,  companies and governments to access, after signing an agreement.

Additionally, organizations, government and providers  can find and share information regarding individuals, but in a reversed balance scale – they have to approach individuals, sign an agreement.

A white paper explores in depth what is the concept of the personal data store.

Alan Mitchell and  William Heath are the people heading  this initiative.

It is a very interesting early-bird attempt to explore aspects of empowering a user-centered approach and shifting power to users, by giving them control over their data. This project deals with hard core personal functional  documents that we need to share with institutions in the functional areas.

 This trial does not touch at all, at least at this stage, the very complex issue of monitoring personal data in our web based communications, searches for contextual exploitation by marketers for relevant ads and offerings, and touches only partially on commercial activities, it is very valuable as it makes several important statements in regard to personal information empowerment:

• It shows that institutions can agree to the reversal of balance and that it can be implemented in providers’ culture. Commercial institutions will follow the steps of organizations in order to become part of the emerging ecosystems.

• A good example of  running trust based user side intermediary services for data management. It should definitely not be run  by a corporate whose business model relies on income from  3^rd party ( advertising) but should be based on direct user based business models, like a bank.
• It is a building block towards a new mindset for a reversal of power between providers and users. It will open people and organizations to realize that traditional corporate based paradigms will have to gradually adjust to user centered initiatives that will require a new kind of dialog between providers and users.
• The new paradigm that sees the individual at the center where providers negotiate directly with the user permission to pull from the users’ side information and reward it accordingly will open up new business models around personal data usage in a permission based, mutual reward.

• The efficiency demonstrated in such a trial in cost savings for multiple data saving schemes may eventually enhance corporates’ realization that the huge sums they invest in building client data bases in their siloed companies, can be replaced  by a coopetition model where, even if they have to relinquish power, still – all parties will gain.

I hope that together with initiatives like the project VRM - a vendor relationship managemnet intiative, will serve as catalysts to build a mindshare towards a user centered web.

@facebook.com – Messages – my unified messaging portal- I can now talk to my friends via all real time communication means from email and up to  SMS, chat  or Messages- all through a single entry point at Facebook.

A single social integrated Inbox for all social communication is  truly a  wonderful offer.Streamlined social communications with my chosen circle of friends.  Simple, intuitive, fluid.

Spam and noise out. A white list of selected friends’  circle in.

All courtesy of Facebook.

How efficient.

How comforting.

How tempting.

How frightening!

No doubt a unified messaging system with all my friends is the future. User side harmonization is good – it’s efficient, inclusive, friendly, streaming. Takes a holistic view of me as a user and attempts to fully and intuitively accommodate me, simplify my interactions and allows me to see a comprehensive picture of my communications with a specific friend via all instant means.

What does it require of me? To reveal a lot more.

Once I register to this new system, I give Facebook my cellular number,  and access to my IM and external e-mail systems. Facebook already has a list of all my friends and can rate their value to me based on my interactions.

The good news – I don’t need to expose my shoes and bra size.

What a bear hug!

Can we afford it? Is it worth the price?

There ’s no free meal.

Beware.

Facebook wants to be there every moment of the day in all our interactions, documentation of activities, social sphere.

There’s only one question – is it really an honest to God user side service?

In a corporate driven hegemony race, can what to us users is blessed harmonization be reconciled with giants’ interests for increasing customer share and captivity through consolidation? Are we being played into the giant war between Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft…

A war over enlarging user based virtual territories.

This integrated offer will tempt me to migrate from several walled gardens  of email, IM providers  and spend more time and communications in another walled garden – Facebook.

Will we wake up one morning to find contextual text ads on the sides of our IM and chats based on what and with whom we communicated?

Can we innocently trust Zuckerberg’s soothing privacy keeping promises or, given FaceBook’s history, is it just a  lip service? Are the technologies to ensure that really there?

Where will it evolve?

How long before a cellular @facebook messaging application is up – and then we’ll be under Facebook’s hug through all media, systems and devices?

Shall we gradually stop using other mail systems, and slip into @facebooks’ comfort zone?

Will the other companies gracefully surrender or will they have to integrate Facebook’s messages to their mail systems?

And the biggest question of all – what about our privacy, ownership of our data, visibility to what we talk about and with whom?

If we feared Google’s search monitoring – that’s nothing compared to the exposure level of Facebook’s aggregated messaging platform.

Day in and day out we are prey to business social platforms. Will advertisers lurk around our walls on Facebook, hunting for indicative communications  from this single inbox?

Facebook is the natural communication platform of youngsters who intuitively share all with Facebook friends. Many of them are unaware of the distinctions, privacy implications and the data preying industry that just looks for easier ways to get it all.

Do we really want all our interactions harmonized under the auspices of a commercial entity whose business model depends on 3^rd party interests and is not directly tied to us?

In order to gain our trust Facebook will have to give us full control over our privacy settings and full visibility of their data collection, storage and usability.  

And still it is not enough.

A true user centered  web is where services are built around me, the individual, and for me, opening up the soiled gardens of providers that aim to keep me captive in a comforting bear hug.

The future lies in real user side services. A user centered approach that treats my data as my asset to keep.

When we pay a bank to keep and manage our money – its revenue streams, obligations and commitment are directly to us. Reulations to that end protect us.

Our personal data is a valuable currency and should be managed by user side data base banks that are directly just as committed to us and regulated in the same manner.

Two recent apology based ads – by Nike and Toyota, try to reinstitute reliability and trust as part of a crisis management policy through very unique measures.

The magnitude of the issue is highlighted as for the first time transparency and trust outweigh product quality in corporate identity in the 2010 Edelman trust barometer.

 Two important findings in the latest trust survey – in western countries trust and transparency in business influence corporate identity more than product quality. Trust in business has risen from 53% to 83%, while trust in media has fallen from 48% to 45%. Expert spokespeople and information sources are more trustworthy than messages through traditional media.

After a decade of recession, fraud, customers’ manipulations, repetitive breaches of privacy and trust, these numbers indicate a fundamental change to interactions between consumers and providers.

The new consumer is following trust agents of her choice to relate to a brand’s trustworthiness  and reliability, therefore brands must use completely new forms of dialogs to gain  credibility;  all the more so in trust related crisis management situations.

Whereas in the digital world, building or abusing trust is facilitated by technologies and infrastructures, it is interesting to revert to the world of traditional goods and see this tendency as an indicator to a new kind of dialog initiated by companies whose trust and credibility barometers have dramatically sunk.

 Tiger Woods is a golf brand. Nike is a mega brand. In the first Tiger Woods ad produced by Nike after the Woods infidelity scandal, Earl Woods, Tiger’s dead father’s voice is scolding him, while the ashamed Tiger Woods just stands there, listens to the questions poured,  and doesn’t say a word.

The simplicity of a black and white ad featuring Tiger Woods wearing a Nike outfit, listening to his own father, should invoke a feeling of authentic remorse.  Did you learn anything? What your feeling was? Asked the reworking of the father’s voice. But the scolded son does not utter a sound. Very powerful. You may like or dislike – but you can’t ignore the extreme effort, personal touch and powerful messages that were put into play.

Yet it raises questions that go beyond the reinstitution campaign of a fallen icon.

Tiger Woods is a business. A huge endorsement business that directly affects the companies who chose him. His personal acts cost him endorsement contracts with companies like Gillette, AT&T, Accenture and Gatorade that distanced themselves from him, while Nike, one of his major  endorsing companies, stood by him.   

Should a commercial company  spear head the public “mea culpa” guilt driven star’s attempts to make amends? At the end of the day it’s about $ – lots of $. Tiger Woods is an industry. Nike’s standing behind its presenter during the crisis and their support of his comeback campaign, carry a very strong marketing statement.  

Is an invocation of a dead father’s voice to scold a strayed son’s personal life an authentic trustworthy brand loyalty reinstitutioner? How questionable is the authenticity of past speeches of a dead person, enhanced by technological manipulations of voice recordings, in reframing an image?

What makes our trust? To what extent is a personal rehabilitation campaign sponsored and initiated by a commercial company trustworthy? Is it legitimate to work domestic issues with a dead father, who did not choose  or approve his participation in this appearance, to enhance a commercial corporate?

Was it made to move us to re-embrace the Tiger Woods image with whom we do not directly interact, or is it a means to feed on the corporate identity and Nike brand?    

What are the real relations between such a Nike produced ad and Tiger Woods’ redemption to commercial glory, now he is back to playing professional golf?

Do we buy it? Does it really matter? Do we hate it, resent the manipulation – but still talk about it and thus pave the way to what may seem the most extreme remorse.

Would this really enhance our loyalty to Nike, Gillette or any other brand Tiger Woods was endorsing at the time?

 Another kind of apology advertising has been recently launched by Toyota. In the following  commitment ad,  Toyota tries to restore faith in their company, after the millions of cars recall,  and promises to live up to its customers’ expectations for quality and safety.

This is a different ball game. It is no longer about sports shoes or shaving cream, it’s about quality, life endangering safety faults and a direct damage to the brand itself.  Millions of cars’ recall for safety hazards are not like indirect projections on a consumers’ brands’ image  due to an endorser’s fall.

Admitting directly we have messed up, harnessing all the workers as committed to amend and restore your faith in us, is a very straightforward act of owning the mistake and committing to do what is needed. This commitment ad, together with an open letter in the Washington Post  from Toyota’s president that enhances the  commitment ad, are very brave direct  steps to reinstitute credibility, trust in the company and brand reliability.

  No doubt the impact on consumer in an icon’s commitment to marital fidelity is a lot less endangering than the commitment to absolute future car safety. In either case it’s an indicator of a zeitgeist that cherishes transparency, trust and credibility  – where companies must go to great length to show how meaningful they are in their declarations and marketing communication in order to regain trust.

The Internet is a direct expression of the emerging energy structure of the planet in which the need of the individual can be met within the organic evolution of the whole, and the evolution of the whole served through the free participation of each individual.

Llewellyn Vaughan Lee

The whole is more than the sum of its parts.  The internet is more than just a global system of interconnected computer networks. It’s about us, people, and not just about technological platforms and apps, bits and bytes. As a growingly digital habitat for millions of users, as it increasingly becomes part of our life’s fabric, and not just a delivery platform, we should look beyond its material, practical and functional aspects. There’s an array of soft attributes, quality of life and mutual respect and caring that should be a strong stratum woven into its infrastructure.

The internet’s global nature transcends political, geographical, religious, national… boundaries. It offers us day in and day out innovation plateaus that reshape our communication capabilities, handling of our personal and professional life. The interconnected world of the social web offers opportunities across media and makes connectivity ubiquitous. Corporates will build the technological and commercial layers. It’s up to us to build the compassion and awareness ones. You don’t need to be a new age practitioner, or a believer in Sufism in order to consider the internet as a ground place for global consciousness, connectedness and involvement.

Connectivity is not just the physical and technical attributes of who, where and how you connect with someone. Once that is made axiomatic, the vacuum must be filled by reverting the focus to the quality of communications – the soft attributes of connectedness.

It is no longer just the sum and scope of our interactions, or, if you want, the attributes of our interactions that make it searchable for corporates to become part of the web based economic food chains. It is about trust,  the values and quality of what is being communicated.

When old orders begin to crumble around us, when the current world crisis affects each one of us, and will continue to have a long run impact – we must look around and seek the deep causes and ways to make our life better.

The empathic consciousness and awareness to the soft attributes of our life, and web life, will drive  harnessing us, bottom-up, to make a difference and contribute to paradigm changes that will ensure a trustworthy, transparent, empathic way of life,. This, in turn, will force corporates and institutions to embrace it in order to reach us.

Jeremy Rifkin writes about the global connection that must have a transcendent reason to it, a sense of purpose. In  The Empathic civilization – the race for global consciousness in a world in crisis, he talks about the global consciousness that makes each of us responsible for the well being and quality of the whole, because we are all individuals living in a global neighborhood. Harnessing empathy in our personal communications will become the life force that sustains the greater whole of which we are all parts. This, to him, is the third industrial revolution that will release the capitalistic grip, will transcend self interested greed and will allow  value based governance systems, bottom up.

The Internet, because of its individualistic nature, combined with its function as a global connectivity platform, is where such shifts can best be felt, where human connections can be strengthened, glued around value based purposes, and can influence our digital and physical existence alike. The soft attributes of empathy, consciousness, sharing, bonding for do good, are rooted in the individual choices and values. Their sharing and advocating create a global conversation that turns into a zeitgeist, that in turn creates an increasing return cycle to empower putting together the corner stones and then the blue print for different, better, more empowering paradigms.

   When we insist, bottom up, in many small increments on seeking transparency, freedom of choice, decaptivation as hostages in providers’ power struggles over us, new norms are being built. Only then can the not caring as the real root of the crisis be reversed and replaced by a new caring economy that will rise through us, where each of us becomes a facilitator, particles in the global brain and heart of the web of thought and conversation. Although we each only touch a local part of it, ideas can travel a long way,  by connecting the dots- create a movement whose magnitude ‘s resonance will globally impact.

These notions of values that are not hard core smart decisions but questioning, doubting realities, wanting from the heart and not from structured brain layers are beautifully expressed  in Diesel’s “Be Stupid” campaign for their  spring- summer 2010 collection, a campaign that encourages the religion of the heart and not of the brain. When  these values become a trend and infiltrate the main stream of youngsters, the ones who have the power, culture  and zeal to influence their worlds –  this is  the window of opportunity for paradigm shifts that will roar bottom up and hopefully reshape our worlds – the digital and physical alike.

 Initiatives such as One Young World, a next generation Davos like convention of  hundreds of future leaders from almost 200 countries, teaches us that when a global new strata of leaders gather, they can spread a new culture, a new zeitgeist, building their future activities on trust based, do good and new paradigms for transparent more equal doing.

This will lead to a clean life ecology, paradigm shifts based on attributes that bring back the soul to business, empower a participatory web ecology not just as noble purposes to be put as lip service in corporate identity brochures, but as a way of life, a new pact between all participants in our lives’ physical, digital and  and spiritual food chains.