Value is not price. Value is something very personal. Each of us sees things very differently. There are those of us who look at a diamond and simply say, "well, a diamond is a diamond." Then there are others who believe in paying the so-called blue box tax that comes with a Tiffany diamond. Simply put, they value a Tiffany branded diamond more than any other diamond from any other jewelry store.

We see the concept of value every time we observe an eBay auction. Auctions are one of the purest forms for determining value. Someone is selling something and all potential buyers have a price in mind. Often we spend more than the "retail value" for the item. Why? Why, would we spend more than what the retail value of an item is? Simple. We value it more. Perhaps the item holds "sentimental value." Or perhaps the buyer finds value in getting the item before anyone else could.

One of the most interesting things I've seen in a while was Radiohead's approach for distributing their album, In Rainbows. They made the album available for digital download and allowed consumers to pick a price they wanted to pay for it. Think about that. You could pay $0.00 for the album. You could pay $100.00 for the album. You, the consumer was allowed to determine the value. The pessimistic person might argue, who would pay anything more than $0.00 for the album. Well, based on real data, most consumers actually paid the normal retail price. At first, I was surprised. But, when you consider Radiohead's strong following, it makes sense. Their fans…their consumers wanted to engage in a true mutual exchange. They didn't want to take advantage of the band. Why? Well I think it's because the band continually put out great music. Most Radiohead fans will tell you, there's never been a bad album. The band has always delivered the goods. Perhaps, because the band had always provided value, the fans wanted to pay a fair price.

I imagine if Southwest and Delta let customers name their price for flights, most consumers would take advantage of Delta because of how many times Delta took advantage of them. I'd also imagine the opposite would be true of Southwest. What would happen if you made your product or service available to consumers via a "name the price" model? Would your consumers pay retail? Would they pay more? Would they take advantage? If the majority of consumers elected to pay $0.00, what would it say about your brand or product?

As Al Pacino stated so eloquently in The Devil's Advocate, "vanity is definitely my favorite sin." Even those of us who believe we're above vanity, are truly vane at heart. We often hear about people having their "5 minutes of fame." Think back to pre-internet boom...say 1995. DVD players and DVRs weren't in everyone's home and most relied on VHS tape players. If you were lucky enough to get interviewed on TV by a reporter you certainly got your 5 minutes of fame, but sharing the fame with someone was pretty damn tough.

The advent of the internet certainly made distribution of that video content easier, but you still had to be lucky enough to get interviewed. Well, today, we've got blogs, tweets, and web sites. Hell we've got millions of them. We've got millions of people all trying to be the next great journalist. They all think, yours truly included, that what they write somehow matters. The web and the tools (like Wordpress) that we have at our finger tips have made publishing and giving people their 5 minutes of fame a hell of a lot easier. But, here's the thing, getting quoted in digital print just doesn't have the same punch, meaning, and impact as being featured/quoted in "traditional" print. Look I'm an interactive guy, living in a digital world, and I can tell you that getting featured in Wired Magazine means substantially more than being featured on Wired.com.

When we get featured in print, in the real print, we run out of our house and pay for multiple copies of the magazine/newspaper. Heck, we might even buy every copy the store has. We save 1 for posterity, we send 1 to our mom, we bring a few into work, and we save the rest. We'll scan copies of the article and email them out even though the digital version of the article is available on the publication's web site. Why do we do this? Well, I'll let the words of Shel Silverstein, as sung by by Dr. Hook And The Medicine Show, in the song The Cover Of "Rolling Stone" answer that question:

"Well we are big rock singers, we've got golden fingers And we're loved everywhere we go

We sing about beauty and we sing about truth At ten thousand dollars a show

We take all kind of pills to give us all kind of thrills

But the thrill we've never known Is the thrill that'll get you when you get your picture On the cover of the Rolling Stone

{Refrain} Rolling Stone Wanna see my picture on the cover Rolling Stone Wanna buy five copies for my mother Rolling Stone Wanna see my smilin' face On the cover of the Rolling Stone

Vanity is definitely my favorite sin and there's nothing better than seeing your name or face in traditional print. Until we stop wanting to see our names in print, we'll still need print, and print will continue to play a major role in the fabric of our lives.

SPOILER ALERT If you haven't seen Where The Wild Things Are and don't want to read anything about the plot, please skip this post. I just got back from the 10:00 AM showing of Where The Wild Things Are. It's GOOD, but not GREAT. As I watched the movie, I couldn't help but think of the similarities between the story line and what I'm seeing in the social media space. OK, I realize right now you're thinking, "he's lost it, what can a children's story possibly have to do with social media?"

Well, glad you asked. Let me break it down. The island that Max (little boy, with no experience) sails to is inhabited by monsters. The monsters are a dysfunctional group, looking for leadership. Seriously. They believe that Max is the king they've been looking for who will solve all of their problems, bring the group of monsters together, and offer ever lasting happiness. I'm not making this up. We later learn that Carol (James Gandolfini's character), the bullish leader, has killed all the previous kings - because they failed to deliver the goods.

At first, the monsters want to eat Max…that's just what they do. But, Max tricks them into thinking he:

1. Was previously a conquerer and king of vikings
2. Knew magic
3. Could make their heads explode if he so chose
4. Would bring them complete happiness

Pretty powerful promises from a kid. But, he delivers his speech in a passionate well-spoken way that has everyone, especially Carol, believing he can deliver the goods.

Think about this situation. We have a kid that's 1/10 the size of monsters with claws, who could if they chose to kill the kid, buying into the crap he's shoveling. Starting to sound familiar? You know, familiar as in, "I'll get you on the first page go Google."

So, they put Max in charge. Yeap, he's the king and his first order of business is to "let the wild rumpus start!" That's followed up by several seemingly good ideas like building a fort, that ultimately completely backfire, frustrate the monsters, and have Carol wanting to kill Max. Yes, kill him. Although, can you blame him after Max sold him a bag of goods, presented himself as an expert, and promised to fix everything…but then failed to do anything he said and was uncovered as not being a former king or expert.

By the end of the movie we learn that everybody knew Max was full of it, but since Carol so passionately believed in Max, they followed suit. This was very "The Emperor's New Clothes" like. No one wanted to tell the emperor (aka Carol) that he was wron't.

It's fascinating and of course so similar to the social media landscape today. So called social media experts, claim some type of relevant experience, promise the world, wow the de-facto leader (e.g. CMO, head of marketing, client, conference organizer, etc.), outline a variety of tactical recommendations (e.g. build a fort), but ultimately FAIL to deliver the goods. Maybe, that's because all of these social media experts are just little kids pretending to be grownup,

Unfortunately, in the real world, we can't deal with our posers the way Carol would. We can't eat them.

It's tough trying to find smart, thought provoking, and valuable people to follow on twitter. There's no shortage of lists and with twitter's new list functionality rolling out to everyone soon, I thought it might be fun to create a list of 50 People You Need To Follow On Twitter Today. The following list a nice representation of the people I find the most value from on a day to day basis. Their signal to noise ratios are amazingly high and I rely on them for knowledge, insight, and sometimes a chuckle. I hope you get some value out of this list and maybe discover someone new to follow or connect with.

@dannybrown @jayrosen_nyu @awolk @JustinKownacki @rotkapchen @vegasbab @missrogue @AlanBleiweiss @DougMeacham @mashable @warrenss @adamcohen @MackCollier @mattcutts @rww @OPCGal @JasonFalls @Armano @rickmahn @schneidermike @benkunz @jojeda @paulisakson @Gartenberg @jfolkmann @SteveCase @johnbattelle @suredoc @shelleyryan @TheOnion @TimMoore @semanticwill @shirleybrady @rockstarjen @SalesSushi @leeodden @andybeal @dfolkens @mleis @amymengel @keithprivette @jshanley @wired @SI_PeterKing @lilmissjen @timoreilly @r @steffchilds @WarrenWhitlock @gregverdino

Time ran a very interesting article about Wal*Mart's new initiative called "Project Impact." Sounds cool and somewhat ominous, huh? So what is "Project Impact?" Well according to time it boils down to 3 things:

1. One goal of Project Impact is cleaner, less cluttered stores that will improve the shopping experience.
2. Another is friendlier customer service.
3. A third: home in on categories where the competition can be killed.

The first goal makes sense. Where as Target's store environment are friendly, open, and inviting, Wal*Mart's are dingy, dark, and down right scary. I can't tell you if making the stores less cluttered will lead to more sales, but it makes sense. The third goal is a pure prioritization move. Essentially, why put money and effort behind business units and categories that aren't in your sweet spot? Instead focus on areas where you can excel. So let's focus on the goal #2; friendlier customer service. It's sorta funny when you think about it. You can optimize your shipping, choose cheaper suppliers, update the store layout, and even decrease the pricing. But, none of that matters if the in-store experience is underwhelming. And the biggest contributor to the in-store experience is the people. But, nobody ever wants to invest in people. Think about it. How often have you recommended a program to a client only to be told, "well, we'd love to do it, but we can't ask the people on the floor to do that." It happens all the time. To really make the customer service friendlier you're going to need new people. Why you ask? Because, changing the personality of people is nearly impossible. Either you're friendly or you're not. Seriously. There's a reason Target has an entire behavior profile driven set of testing that all employees have to pass before being hired. It's so they can get a person who embodies the Fast, Fun and Friendly mantra that is the Target culture. When you're corporate culture is "VALUE" are you really going to get people who are top notch performers that are excited to come to work every day? Well given that Wal*Mart has made it a priority to have friendlier customer service, I'd say no. Make no mistake, the most important asset is human capital. You can have a great business plan, killer advertising and operational excellence, but if you don't have the right people in place to carry out your vision, you'll lose every single time. Maybe it's time we start investing a little bit more into human capital from the beginning.