Twitter’s announcement yesterday that they will soon be cracking down on fake celebrity accounts brings to mind Andy Warhol’s quote, “In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes”.

I’ve thought for a while now that the lines between people and celebrities are blurring; my friend Liz Strauss likes to say that “People and stars are made of the same stuff”.  There are many indications that this macro trend will continue, as reality television and internet-enabled celebrity continue to grow in popularity and reach.  We’ll see ordinary people become famous, people become famous for being famous and watch with schadenfreude as the famous burn out and become ordinary again.

While some of this endless fascination is voyeuristic (the famous take risks that we would like to, but cannot), much of it is also aspirational.  Our sister company, Virtual Greats, is pursuing the idea that ordinary people, in virtual worlds, games and social networks, will enjoy appropriating traits of identities of famous people.  Second Life, City of Heroes and Twitter celebrities prove out this central hypothesis in a “destination-based way” — the team at Virtual Greats is now taking the elements of known brands or famous identities and equipping the denizens of many worlds with them.

Will it work?  Who knows, but I’m guessing that the rush that comes when Trick or Treating as a hero or operating a fake Shaquille O’Neal Twitter account is universal.  Only time will tell.

Hot off the virtual presses — our sister company Virtual Greats, in partnership with Wee World, is now selling Roca Wear branded virtual goods in Wee World.  For those of you over the age of 25, Roca Wear is rapper Jay Z’s highly successful clothing label.  Screenshot below gives a sneak peek at some of the new blingy merch now available.

In a famous Seinfeld episode, George Costanza concludes that every instinct he has is wrong and decides to improve his life by simply doing the opposite. This starts with ordering a different sandwich, which leads to a date with a pretty girl and continues with splendid results.

What does this have to do with brands? To be clear, I am not directly comparing brands to socially awkward bachelors; but I do think they can learn from George. Traditional marketers are very smart, creative and scientific, yet in building our business, we have observed that many of the instincts that have guided the communications and advertising of big, successful brands, translate poorly into social media initiatives. Why is this? One reason is that brands are used to portraying themselves as shiny, larger than life entities that magically transform the lives of ordinary people. And when they come to social media, they attempt to continue this tone which has served them well for so long.

In more tangible terms (and I’m sure some of my social media agency compatriots can relate to this) we often have long discussions about the approval process for Tweet or how to avoid negative comments on blogs. These are not silly concerns; no brand should enter an arena and aspire to tarnish the reputation they have work long and hard to establish. Instead, I would argue, they are concerns that look at the problem incorrectly and reflect a desire to use social media to drive traffic without taking risks.

My prescription? Do the opposite. When your brand wants to avoid embarrassment, seek it out. Instead of approving every Tweet with a convoluted hierarchy, create simple guidelines and empower passionate employees to use their best judgment, despite (or perhaps, because of, the risk of mistakes).

This requires accepting a difficult paradox. For brands, becoming skillful within social media is comparable to going to a series of parties. Many want to do a lot of planning (this is good: you’d certainly want to make sure you went to the right parties, wore cool clothes, had meetings with interesting people, etc.).

But a traditional marketing mentality would make a critical mistake here. That mentality would tell you to identify your targets, hone your message and then deliver that message across various channels effectively. When does this go wrong? To use the party analogy, it goes wrong when chaos arises. You introduce yourself and someone asks a question for which you’re not prepared. Or you meet somebody and they invite you to a wonderful party not on the list. How do you adapt? Do you ignore them and go back to the game plan?

No. Remember, the plan was a guideline in the absence of perfect information. Instead, adapt, make friends and share your passion. You’ll win lots of fans and they’ll keep inviting you to new and better parties. And you’ll keep doing the opposite.

I found this great presentation through a comment on my “Avatar Age” presentation.  I could go into a long post, but the short story is that if you’re interested in the future of communication on the net, you should read this.  The author works at British Telecom and they are advocating interoperable standards for avatars across multiple networks.

At the end of 2007, I started making the usual futile predictions about what would happen in the year ahead. You can see them here in the context of a presentation entitled, “The Avatar Age”, but briefly they were:

1.  Social networks will become avatarized

2.  Virtual worlds will incorporate more social network features

3.  Television tie-ins for virtual worlds will proliferate

My final prediction, which I didn’t include in the deck, was that the world would write Second Life off as DOA because the media hype had quieted, but that the world would continue to grow and that there would be a surge in use from businesses.

I’d give myself a solid B for my efforts (I’d say I got #’s 1, 2 and 4 correct and 3 wrong), but I’d like to hear what others think along with examples that prove or disprove each.

Peggy Noonan’s column in the WSJ today got me thinking about where social media and virtual goods fit into the rapid shift of economic and social priorities that anyone with a pulse can feel. Mindless bling - fun and frothy, to be sure - has long been ascendant in our popular culture. It is suddenly beating a hasty retreat in the face of what might be called the new modesty, the new seriousness. People are choosing time with their families and relaxation over conspicuous consumption and workaholism. In many cases, these choices are being forced on people through unemployment or financial overextension, but they’re taking place all the same.

We see it at work, where expense accounts receive extra scrutiny. We see it at home, where a family car trip to the Grand Canyon replaces a family trip to Paris. We see it, to be sure, in the popular culture, where overnight Internet sensation Susan Boyle - who embodies modesty, self-sacrifice, and grace in the face of hardship - has caused people to watch and watch and watch again, tears streaming down their faces. She has touched something important. She is real.

My first question is: how long will this really last? My personal jury is out. There was a great deal of civic soul-searching in the wake of 9/11, when the President made an oft-derided plea for Americans to bounce back from the event with shopping that would keep the economy afloat. While much civic piety and thoughtfulness was on display in late 2001 and 2002, just a couple of years later fun and froth and bling seemed to be back front and center. And frankly, for me, that was a relief, a sense of normalcy. But among others, I suspect, it rankled. There are those who decry consumerism for green reasons, and others for more philosophical ones - it deadens or distorts our connections to one another, the connections that Susan Boyle seems to have awakened so dramatically.

Back to business: social media and virtual goods. If the new modesty and the new seriousness actually last, I think we stand to do well. People with more leisure time consume more media - even if they seek content with more serious themes. Social networks will provide venues for people to meet and express their new idealism and engagement; the Obama campaign is a great example. Facebook neighborhood and cause based groups could thrive, deepening and widening real-life relationships rather than replacing them.

Virtual goods are a great and inexpensive way for people to express affinity for a cause, and to deliver gifts to one another at a very modest cost. The pixels associated with virtual gifts are easier on the planet than gifts made out of petrochemicals and moved around in fuel-burning ships, trains, and trucks.

And then there’s the other side of the coin: fast-forward to 2012. Kickstarted by the effects of a gazillion dollars of global stimulus, the economy is roaring and a tidal wave of inflation is just over the horizon. Indians and South Africans are buying all the Audis and Tag-Heuers they can get their hands on. Oil is at $130/barrel. You can perform in High School Musical virtually for $1/hour (via an MMPOG). Celebutantes wear $50,000 dresses to global warming benefits at sparkling new concert halls in Moscow. Back to normal - fun, frothy, superficial.

I know which outcome I see as likely. Can you guess? But either is just fine with me.