Copyblogger Brian Clark Presents at SOBCon
One of the more controversial sessions at SOBCon was the nice guys finish last [online] conversation, inspired by Brian Clark’s discussion of classic positioning theory. The point: It’s better to be hated and known for a strong minority opinion than to be liked. One gets you discussed, read and positioned in the marketplace, while the other — especially if you are not already a thought leader in an established space — leaves you behind in the discussion. My experience and core beliefs subscribe to this theory.
Yet, when discussed in the session and online many people struggled with this topic right out of the gate for semantic reasons. As children, we are taught to be “nice” from the moment we enter public settings. But what is nice?
Whether you see nice as being kind, pleasing, agreeable or delightful, no where do the terms opinionated, nonconforming, strong, objectionable, or dissenting get associated with the word. Yet these are things a thought leader must engage in to stay on top. To me, nice means safe. Safe does not mean winning. Winning means doing whatever is necessary to achieve a goal, and removing distractions and unrelated concerns from his/her life even when it hurts others.
A thought leader must actually lead at times, and that means doing what’s uncomfortable and/or unpopular at moments. In such times words like “not nice,” a subjective opinion of tone and stance, are often bantied about. It’s my experience that such moments are when a thought leader is tested on character. Will he/she cave to the need to be popular and “liked,” or do they have the meddle to stand strong?
This is as true online as it is offline. Great blogging and social media means delivering content and opinions that either rises above the pack or is separate and unique. And sometimes people — present company included — achieve that by saying what they truly believe, even when it flies in the face of everything people want to believe. Thus they are considered not “nice.”
I’ve experienced this with my own adamant position that personal branding is a bad strategy for enterprises, and in the long term for individuals. As further examples I submit Jason Calacanis and Michael Arrington and their oft controversial, yet unquestioned market leadership.
Seeing as this is Mother’s Day and this is largely a semantical conversation, I’d like to offer another word out there to consider. That word is good, something or someone who is morally excellent, virtuous, righteous or pious. There’s a noticeable difference between being good and nice. I’d rather win and be good, than be nice. Nice guys finish last.
What do you think?
Taking into mind your criteria differentiating nice from good, I would have to agree with you. The reason I’ve alway believed in being nice is that for everyday discussion and interaction being nice is also typically good. The only time being good requires you to not be nice are atypical situations where you are challenged or confronted by other people. These situations are definitely growing as social interaction increases due to social media. Pretty much anyone can challenge you at anytime on something you say; however, I think being rude or offensive for the sake of being opinionated and noticeable is a direct contradiction of being good, and even if it gains you market share short term it will make you unpleasant to work with and ultimately hurt in and beyond the work place.
Funny how one offhand comment in a presentation became the focal point. There’s a lesson in that alone, I’m betting.
You nailed it with *good.* That’s it, isn’t it? Telling the truth when the truth isn’t popular won’t make most people like you, but those who do will like you immensely.
“Win”, “Winning”
You are framing this as a “ZERO-Sum” game young Jedi.
One must first define “win”/”winning”. In order to do so one must:
1) Define, specify and delineate: the Strategic Goal(s)
2) Define, specify and delineate: the Operational Objectives that must be achieved in order to actualize the Strategic Goal(s)
3) Define, specify and delineate: the Tactical activities, actions, maneuvers etc required to facilitate the achievement of Operational Objectives
It is not always necessary to “engage”–espec. if you are not “playing the same game” and/or the “opponent” is irrelevant or the subject is a non sequitur in terms of your Strategic Goals.
BTW, “strategic” does NOT mean the next quarter or a “10 quarters” outlook.
“A strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. The word strategy has military connotations, because it derives from the Greek word for army.[1]
Strategy is different from tactics. In military terms, tactics is concerned with the conduct of an engagement while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. In other words, how a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy…
In game theory, a strategy refers to one of the options that a player can choose. That is, every player in a non-cooperative game has a set of possible strategies, and must choose one of them.”
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic
As regards the concept of being “nice” meaning not disagreeing, dissenting, debating or correcting–that is not “nice”; that is being patronizing, not listening and/or finding the person’s position. statement, proposition or raison d’être contemptible or unworthy your attention…
“Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without
fighting.”
–Sun Tzu, “The Art of War” (500 BC)
“The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without
fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do
good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.”
–Sun Tzu, “The Art of War” (500 BC)
“Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy’s troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.”
–Sun Tzu, “The Art of War” (500 BC)
@Clark
>>You nailed it with *good.* That’s it, isn’t it? Telling the truth when the truth isn’t popular won’t make most people like you, but those who do will like you immensely.<<
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
–George Orwell
@Brian: Indeed, how many times have I said something casually that derailed an entire conversation. More than a handful. Great preso, and it’s a good tangent for people to think about.
@D.C.: Perhaps more reading on the blog would be worthwhile as I feel blogs don’t allow for deep penetration into topics on an individual basis. These topics have been well discussed in the past individually.
Re: winning – http://www.livingstonbuzz.com/2009/04/19/the-ashton-kusher-lesson/
Re: strategy – http://www.livingstonbuzz.com/2009/02/10/five-social-media-strategies/
Lots on the strategy post. Not disagreeing with you, but it’s a blog post, not a book :) Art of War is an excellent book, and quintessential for any strategist.
You’ve gotta know your stuff to be even thought of in this already saturated market, nowadays. As you said, being ‘good’ vs. being the nice guy is the line that many are teetering on.
I think you can certainly be good at what you do, opinionated, and stick to your guns; but at the same time, still thoughtful and kind to others. Does it happen, certainly – I could name a dozen people off the top of my head that are in this circle. The quality that they have though that separates them from the latter is that strong personality and thought-provoking ideas that they talk about day in and day out.
They don’t agree to agree, they agree because they are passionate about it and they’ll let you know why they are and why they think they’re right. Even if their thoughts may be in the minority or one that’s heavily debated (a la personal branding), they have a certain discourse that allows them to shed their opinion but to still be one of the ‘good guys’.
My first thought: This depends on what the “finish” is and what you consider “winning.” To some, being nice is considered winning. Nice also depends on the perspective, as its a game of semantics. I don’t think taking a stance or being opinionated to increase your traffic, gain notoriety, etc. is “winning.” Too often in this space people start fights purely to increase their nano-fame.
I like the word good. Nice is too personal a word. And what are we measuring? The person or the work? and what ultimately matters? It all probably depends on the person.
Sounds like an interesting conversation and presentation.
I think the word “nice” shouldn’t even be in this discussion. How many people engage in the digital landscape with the main goal to be nice. Not many. Doesn’t mean you can’t be nice, but I haven’t heard anyone say to me,”Oh yeah, I love social media. It really has helped me become a nice person.”
okay…
I don’t care if you are nice or an ahole. If you don’t hide the fact of what you are and what you are trying to achieve, then that’s enough for me. Nice people can and do win. So can aholes!
“Nice” is a very subjective trait whereas “good” is quantifiable. A poet friend passed on a great quote the other day that applies to this discussion:
“Resist any temptation to use the poem to make its readers like you, or admire you, or forgive you.” –Ellen Bryant Voigt
Performance poetry and marketing (esp. social marketing) have a lot in common, and truth and transparency beats all in both worlds; overly focusing on being perceived as “nice” can to put you in an awkward position when dealing with and/or having to deliver the truth.
Geoff, thanks for including me in the post, but it appears I was answering a different question than you were asking. Absolutely agree that it is important to have an opinion that you believe in and stand by it, regardless of the rest of the marketplace. And that strident discourse around positions is important.
What I lament is that this is often confused with taking positions and tones meant to rile people emotionally and crowd out room for reasonable conversation.
And Alex also highlights a bigger question as to what “finishing” and “winning” are. These tend to be largely cultural and attitudinal, except as defined within your post. A larger question for a longer day.
I’d rather have a few friends I can count on than a gazillion followers that hate me any day. The question is what is a “Friend” on this social web anyway?
My take: http://www.digitalartprintgallery.com/blog/21.html
Mike
I do art and tweet @pop_art cause it makes me happy, everything else is a bonus…
: )
Alex and Marc: Winning is definitely a very subjective thing defined by each individual.
Mike: I’d rather be true to myself than be a kiss butt for the sake of not being hated. Guess there are two sides to every coin.
This really sounds like an issue of being either willing to express your own opinion, or being okay with tempering your more extreme thoughts to meet the expectations of others. Somewhat akin to those who constantly use the phrase “sounds reasonable” without being willing/able to express their doubts. No wonder the 60% in the middle follow the next 15% out (and do, thankfully, tend to ignore the extreme 5% fringe).
from my experience, being nice is sometimes confused with being weak. on the other hand being nice is also sometimes confused with saying yes to everything.
being nice in the human interaction is just – nice! as long as its real.
aja, and to prefer to be hated by others is a bit sick and counterproductive to the human civilization; could be a strategy of warfare, however
@saikodelia
I like that. I think your key phrase was: “as long as its real.” –that you are being who you are, being honest, being authentic, being true, being transparent…all that good stuff.