I like the finishing quote – own the message or the message will own you. McLuhan's most famous quote applies here too – “The medium is the message”. In relation to authenticity, if enough respected mediums speak favorably of something, the perception of its authenticity will also rise. This is also supported by the idea of transparency. There is nothing opaque about plenty of people speaking in glowing terms about someone's bona fides.

As social media is morphing to the mainstream from the perception that it is just for the techy/dweeby fringe, then the true realization of us as social beings is truly realized. Human behavior shapes technology, not the other way around.

As you said to me that time, if the social web is a highway, you've really got to be driving at the flow of traffic to understand it's patterns and nuances. Brands (both corporations and individuals) are starting to realize that you sit on the side of the road at your own peril.

A true authority should be transparent. Yet I would argue that transparency if anything implies less believability because transparency does not have an agenda.

Anyone who's ever heard the words “break it down for me” know exactly what this means. Most people don't want 'shades of gray' despite that nearly every concept of human knowledge is such. Make it black and white. Make it compelling. Make it undisputable by most and hard to dispute by a real authority.

When it comes to the talking heads ones reputation (likability, trust, authenticness) can be a dangerous prospect when it comes to 'truth'. People can have good intentions and believe what they say yet still be wrong. Judge the words, not the message or the person. But know that a broken clock can still be right once a day. (I was once informed that in fact a broken clock can be right TWICE per day.) This is where the gut check can fail.

One of the reasons that Pampelmoose is compelling is that you have never been afraid to be the contrarian. This is however a double edge sward when perceived as abrasive. This isn't to suggest that other bloggers are necessarily inauthentic, only that they are less likely to take a hard stand over what they truly believe. I like hearing bold statements that turn heads even if I don't believe them. Perhaps the word I'm looking for is conviction.

I like the finishing quote – own the message or the message will own you. McLuhan's most famous quote applies here too – “The medium is the message”. In relation to authenticity, if enough respected mediums speak favorably of something, the perception of its authenticity will also rise. This is also supported by the idea of transparency. There is nothing opaque about plenty of people speaking in glowing terms about someone's bona fides.

As social media is morphing to the mainstream from the perception that it is just for the techy/dweeby fringe, then the true realization of us as social beings is truly realized. Human behavior shapes technology, not the other way around.

As you said to me that time, if the social web is a highway, you've really got to be driving at the flow of traffic to understand it's patterns and nuances. Brands (both corporations and individuals) are starting to realize that you sit on the side of the road at your own peril.

A true authority should be transparent. Yet I would argue that transparency if anything implies less believability because transparency does not have an agenda.

Anyone who's ever heard the words “break it down for me” know exactly what this means. Most people don't want 'shades of gray' despite that nearly every concept of human knowledge is such. Make it black and white. Make it compelling. Make it undisputable by most and hard to dispute by a real authority.

When it comes to the talking heads ones reputation (likability, trust, authenticness) can be a dangerous prospect when it comes to 'truth'. People can have good intentions and believe what they say yet still be wrong. Judge the words, not the message or the person. But know that a broken clock can still be right once a day. (I was once informed that in fact a broken clock can be right TWICE per day.) This is where the gut check can fail.

One of the reasons that Pampelmoose is compelling is that you have never been afraid to be the contrarian. This is however a double edge sward when perceived as abrasive. This isn't to suggest that other bloggers are necessarily inauthentic, only that they are less likely to take a hard stand over what they truly believe. I like hearing bold statements that turn heads even if I don't believe them. Perhaps the word I'm looking for is conviction.