Several months ago, someone whose professional opinion I care about told me that after having pointedly gone after several outstandingly poor displays of misguided ‘practices’ on my blog, some “in the industry” (meaning the Social Media world) were wondering if I might not be a bit of a loose cannon. The comment took me by surprise – I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but fitting squarely in the cool-headed, calculated corner rather than the impulsive corner, ”loose cannon” had never been one of them.
After trying to explain for the better part of a half hour that a) I wasn’t a loose cannon and b) that the handful of skirmishes I had begun and swiftly ended were both calculated and necessary, I finally moved on to topics of greater interest. But the notion that anyone – especially people I respect professionally – would misread me this way has been on my mind ever since. Had I in the last eighteen months been giving the wrong impression? If a handful of folks who mostly know me from my blog and Twitter were wondering about my being on the wrong side of being impulsive, how many more people might have gotten the wrong idea as well?
It wasn’t until this weekend,, while reading about the doomed Roman campaign led by Crassus against Partha in 53BC, that I realized that the difference between brawling and skirmishing was lost on a good number of people… and that the distinction between the two, now less commonly understood than it might have once been, may be at the root of this unexpected loose cannon question.
First, let’s quickly differentiate a brawler from a skirmisher: A brawler is indeed a loose cannon, a guy looking for a fight, any fight, just to satisfy a personal need for action, attention or control. A skirmisher, however, is tasked with a series of very specific tactical objectives: testing an enemy’s responses, forcing an enemy to slow his advance, tire an enemy out, demoralize him, confuse him, take the initiative away from him, expose weaknesses, and so on. In war, skirmishing helps destabilize an enemy either during its advance on a position, and stresses its outer layers (scouts, patrols, etc) while it defends a position. The skirmisher’s job is to try to lure the enemy into pointless clashes, tire him out and/or force him into a defensive posture. A far cry from the odd loose cannon brawler at the local ale house.
Though neither a brawler nor a skirmisher, I understand the value of (and need for) the occasional skirmish if and when the situation calls for it. And in the last 18 months, a handful of situations relating to the Social Media space – especially in its vulnerable early stages – called for some emergency skirmishing: Opportunistic network marketers trying to pass themselves off as experts, horrendously inaccurate R.O.I. “equations” and calculators, snake oil by the gallon, and finally $3,000 Social Media certifications offered by made-up international organizations. Something needed to be done right there and then to make sure these types of things didn’t take hold. Not everyone agrees with me on this point – some prefer a more live and let live approach – but I don’t think I’m wrong. Here’s why:
“Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.” – George Washington
See where I am going with this?
When a particular type of opportunist knows they won’t be called out on their BS, there’s little reason for them to hold back: If they see easy money to be made from other people’s ignorance, they set up shop. And once they’re in business, in the age of search, it is much more difficult to undo the damage they have done than stop them in their tracks before they have a chance to get any traction. While it is easy to be of the opinion that results and ensuing reputations will soon separate the real deal from the charlatans, I am of the more pragmatic opinion that Search is currently far more important than reputation in this space: Anyone with a little SEO savvy can tip-toe their way to prime Google real-estate and fake legitimacy long enough to make a killing before anyone realizes they had no idea what they were doing, and subsequently force legitimate professionals – who may seem no more and no less qualified to a 1.0 CMO – to defend the very notion of Social Media expertise for years to come. No thanks.
Snake oil pushers, charlatans and even misguided posers aren’t merely bad neighbors with questionable methods. For those of us who work in the Social media space, and for those whose companies work with it, they are the enemy. Plain and simple. Friendly smiles and good manners aside, they are the single greatest threat to the good name of Social Media program management/integration consulting.
George Washington isn’t wrong: Don’t let the weeds take root.
Those occasional little skirmishes you see me get into on this blog aren’t what the French would call “coups de tete.” They aren’t the result of impulsive behavior or a bad temper. Far from it. Next time you notice me poking at specific people who deliberately push bad practices, snake oil or other nonsense at the expense of unsuspecting clients just because they feel that making a buck justifies it, don’t mistake either my intentions or methods for a lack of self restraint. For better or for worse, there is calculated purpose in everything I say and do, especially when it comes to this topic. Every comma, every period, every word is carefully chosen to produce a specific outcome, which ranges from setting a topic straight (like R.O.I.) to publicly testing the validity of a potentially questionable social media certification program. (Remember ISMA?)
Sometimes, keeping the Social media space clean for newcomers and business execs forces those of us who can to ruffle a few feathers. I am in a unique position to do this because I don’t work for anyone. I don’t answer to a company who might not want to take sides on an issue like measurement, best practices or Social Media certification schemes. Until I decide to leave entrepreneurship behind and take a job with someone else’s company, nothing I say can rub off on anyone but me, and I take full (and careful) advantage of that rarest of freedoms – knowing full well that I may not always be able to do so.
Have a great week, everyone.


















[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Restaurant Marketing, Brand Lifestyle, Doktor Bizz, Tin Hang Liu, Arizona Social Media and others. Arizona Social Media said: Brand Builder – The skirmish principle http://bit.ly/cQNZ1k RT Please [...]
I only know you from your blog and I don’t think you’re a loose cannon. Maybe it matters that I’m French. I feel that in the US, people worry more about being the target of lawsuits and therefore tend to either not write about people they disagree with or to make their criticism toothless. They also tend to wrap their comments in bland praise.
Maybe it’s a legacy of the One Minute Manager. People sandwich their criticism between slices of positive comments. (But does the employee on the other end remember the positive ones or the negative ones, if he’s given both?) Students receive lavish praise since kindergarten. Professors give more As, leading to grade inflation, to avoid trouble. I notice very few negative book reviews in the media (for instance for fiction – I am not talking about books with a political flavor). Now, do you think that little bad fiction is being published, or that reviewers prefer not to write about it and focus instead on books they liked? This is Praise Nation.
You’re not afraid to stand up for what you believe in and apparently your willingness to voice your opinion makes some people uncomfortable. It’s easier to dismiss the messenger than to look at the issue. Keep up the good work.
Thanks, Aurelie.
I hadn’t really thought of the French angle, but you’re right: We are more apt to voice our opinions and argue issues than many of our saxon neighbors. And while some prefer to grumble behind the scenes and keep their opinions out of public forums, the French tend to be pretty front-and-center about theirs.
I guess there’s a post about real transparency rather than ‘wishful thinking’ transparency brewing in here somewhere, isn’t there.
I’ve been following your blog for the better part of the last year and to be honest, I don’t find you a loose canon. You seem to be a very real and don’t pull any punches kind of person who freely shares tthoughts and observations on what is an ever moving target of an industry. I don’t know the person that shared this opinion with you (and I realize you respect them), but I’d be curious to hear what they believe the opposite of ‘Loose Canon’ might be. Here is what I do find — you have been pretty consistent in 1)sharing knowledge 2) transparency about your opinions 3)passion for the social media world 4)commited to professional ethics and standards in the evolving space we called ‘social media.’ You influence a lot of people (in a good way I believe), and some of them will form perceptions about you. Surprises and change are good. Your followers hopefully celebrate that about you and support your right to do so. Now for some reason you got me thinking about ‘mouthful of blood.’
P.S. I’m not French:)
Thank you very much. I enjoyed reading that.
Olivier,
I have been reading your blog for a short while now (several months), and I have continued to follow your posts because you put yourself on the line in what you believe.
I gave this advice to a recent high school grad going off to college this month:
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind. – Dr Seuss.
Nuf said!
Thanks, Maggie. That Dr. Seuss was a smart cat. In a hat.
I found your blog through a re-tweet on twitter ver recently and I really enjoy reading it. I particularly like the balance of general life philosophy mixed in with strategy.
I do think some of your posts could make you seem a little like a loose cannon – one I really enjoyed reading recently was ‘The value of a mouthful of blood’, but if someone did not read it all the way through, they may have missed the underlying message of courage.
However, the best bloggers are brave with their opinions and often court a little bit of controversy, that is what makes them so interesting to read.
Thanks, Suzanne.
Wild streak vs loose cannon. Not the same thing. Indeed.
Maybe you should go back to the person who orginally made the comment and ask them at what point they consider wild becomes loose?
Can’t do smileys in your comments, so should have added
First of all, anybody who reads about Roman military campaigns in 53bc for weekend pleasure would NEVER stike me as impulsive.
But…what I found Olivier, when I read the line about the “loose cannon,” it didn’t “feel” out of place. I have always felt a sense that you would say what was on your mind, defend it, aggressively if called for, and not worry too much about those that disagreed.
Those that intellectually disagree can participate in a conversation. Idiots cannot. Those 3 cases you mentioned fall into the later category in my opinion.
Impulsive implies “knee-jerk” reactions and is often followed by apologies. (That’s what I have done in the past. I KNOW impulsive). You delivered calculated, pre-meditated responses to the subjects.
Aggressiveness, boldness, backbone and balls should never be confused with impulsiveness.
“Anybody who reads about Roman military campaigns in 53bc for weekend pleasure would NEVER stike me as impulsive.” Touche.
Thank you for that comment, David. We agree 100%, and you just made my day.
You need to have a strong opinion to remain relevant. I appreciate your passionate, but balanced opinions, and if that makes you a loose cannon in others eyes, so be it. Even Nike once went on the record as saying: “We are on the offence–always.” http://bit.ly/at8NSH
Nice! I like that. Thanks, Darrin.
It always comes back to those darn Romans, doesn’t it?
As a side note, the Roman sites in Nimes (where’s my accent circumflex when I need it?), Marseilles, and the Pont Du Garde are some of the most amazing things to see in all of Europe.
Love the skirmisher vs. brawler trope as well. Highly appropriate in an industry where the true value of its practitioners is the knowledge itself. And when that knowledge is being misrepresented, it harms everyone.
Steve, you just gave me an idea for a day trip while I’m out here. Double-thanks.
“When that knowledge is being misrepresented, it harms everyone.” I couldn’t agree more.
Is “loose cannon” necessarily a bad thing all the time? Would you rather have a cannon that’s so backed up that, when it goes off, it self-destructs?
From when I stepped on campus 3/4 years ago, I have the reputation around the Journalism School for an inability to hold my tongue. It’s earned me both criticism and praise from professors and students alike. It’s also gotten me kicked out of classes, a B when I earned an A, and a host of other ordeals.
Entering my senior year, I still have the inability to hold my tongue. But I have learned how to aim it properly in different situations. One situation I haven’t mastered is dealing with it in the world outside of Mizzou…
…And that’s the issue that social media presents us, especially the younger pros and students – to what extent can I extend that aspect of my personality online? Which leads into my question for you – would you/do you challenge these people with the same criticisms in a face-to-face situation?
We all know the stories about the 14-year-old Myspace bullies. They’re tragic, but everyone judges them, their families, their communities for allowing this to happen.
Are we, the active members of the “professional” social media space, any better? Are we only criticizing people/organizations/ideas online because of the veil of security?
Now, I’m not trying to compare you to the cruelty of the 14-year-olds on Myspace. I don’t believe you to be a mean-spirited person.
But the culture is the same. People, followers, see someone with a great deal of knowledge and following, such as yourself, and tend to jump on the bandwagon without realizing it. We’ve seen it happen with many of the big names in social media. Suddenly, what might have been a criticism of ideas becomes something more personal, something where an entire community is holding the torches and following the leader.
Great comment and question.
I guess it comes down to intent. At least for me. Some people love to be critical – vitriolic even – just because they can, and the internet affords them a layer of safety they don’t enjoy in the real world. Personally, I think this particular breed of jackass is cowardly, mean-spirited and mostly without merit. I’ve been the target of people like this, and there isn’t a shred of value to anything they say or do online. They’re bored little souls with virtual matches, setting destructive fires anywhere they can. In the end, a bully is a bully.
My criticism of false Social Media prophets tends to focus on their activities rather than on them – though there always comes a point where those lines are a bit blurred. As much as I try not to ever make my skirmishes personal, it sometimes stirs up emotions that drag the discussion away from my points and into the personal realm. I avoid this as much as possible.
At the same time, my criticism isn’t always wrapped in soft silk pillows, nor should it be. If I choose not give an infraction a pass, it is probably because it is particularly bad – and troublesome. There’s no sense going out of my way to minimize the impact of a negative observation when my objective is to drive the point home. I prefer to be direct in these instances.
Personally, my two unspoken rules are:
1. Check why you are leaving a negative comment (Have you thought everything through? Did you misunderstand or misinterpret anything? Are you just being vindictive? is there purpose to your criticism? Is it important to speak up in this instance? if so, to whom and why?)
2. Don’t say anything to someone online that you wouldn’t have the balls to tell them face to face at a conference or in a subway car.
Beyond that, speaking out is a matter of personal convictions, professional responsibility, and comfort level.
I couldn’t agree with this more. The same principles are repeated throughout history. (Currently reading Decisive Battles of the Civil War).
Fortunately most of these salesmen are weak willed and quick to surrender. With patience, the wisest thing for us in the social media realms is not not placate the ‘gurus’ and ‘experts’ who sell the abundance of snake oil packaged in perfume-scented boxes with a promise to give the user long life, and many friends. Patience in this realm is key as most of them cannot last long without becoming discouraged at the broken wheels that refuse to turn on their peddler’s carts.
However, there is a second class of these salesmen. For those who wish to engrain themselves in the social media sphere, I agree they must be opposed wholly and without question. They undermine the true marketing and design professionals and decay the foundations that we are building. Setting standards and waging preventative wars are key to ensuring continued success and staying on a path that will lead to appropriate advances in Social Media, not the decay and inbreeding of it.
Amen.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by . said: [...]
I find your posts to be very insightful, but more than occasionally with a “I know much more than you possibly could” feel. But, I keep coming back. Chalk it up to really good content or morbid curiosity.
I do indeed know more than most possibly could. For example, there’s a grown man less than three blocks from you right now wearing Ironman underwear and Hello Kitty socks. No kidding. (See? You didn’t know that, did you.) Proof.
Olivier,
Reading about ancient Romans for fun? Ah, a man of my own heart. There is much to learn from the Romans. As for the ‘loose cannon’, perhaps it is a term applied to you by those who would rather not have the spotlight focused too closely on them. The best defense is a good offense, or so they say. The world will always need people who are not afraid to point out the truth. Especially important in a world where snake oil salesmen are not policed.
Skirmishes were used often in the Civil War to judge the abilities of the enemy. A little skirmish now and then never hurts anyone. Keep up the good work!
Thanks, Renee.
[...] they’re threatening this space. Olivier Blanchard (@thebrandbuilder) mentioned this in his recent blog post, and he’s actively taking these people on. The spammers of Twitter. The get rich quick, find [...]
“My criticism of false Social Media prophets tends to focus on their activities rather than on them”
Exactly.
It’s the message and behaviors that are the problem.
They might even be nice people, but if practitioners don’t respect this space, we risk ruining all the good that can grow out of social media.
Sticking the “snake oil” label in all things social media will become a zero sum, if there’s no critical judgment like you have been doing. Skirmish all you want.
Signed,
a skirmishing snipper in Portugal
Outstanding.
Thanks a bunch for that comment. We agree completely. Keep up the good work.