31 August 2007

WNBA going 2.0?

I find it rather interesting that the Sacramento Monarchs are on Twitter. They've got a blog as well, using the blogger domain.

Curious to their thinking here, what metrics they're using to determine success. For example, I'm now the Monarch's 18th follower on Twitter. But that's how I found them. And they didn't spend much.

30 August 2007

The problem with candidate blogs

Jeff Commaroto for Tech President and Election Geek:
Did you read the blog post on the candidate Web site where the blogger gushed over the candidate and outlined the talking points of the campaign? So did I, over and over and over again. I have to be honest, I follow a lot of blogs but I almost never read the blog sections of the candidate’s sites. I cannot imagine most of you do either.
He's right - I don't read "candidate blogs." (I do sometimes follow candidates on twitter.) That's because the current assumption of what blogs should be isn't a particularly strategic component of a political campaign. In an organization where message control is the ONLY communications priority, a "campaign blog" is really nothing more than "candidate went to event and was a big hit." That's a press release, not a blog post. I'm also assuming comments are screened to maintain consistency with the message. Frankly, I'm not convinced the campaigns should spend resources on something if it isn't strategic.

Unlike Jeff, however, I might be interested in a series of issues-based discussions. Maybe a surrogate blog if it were single-issue focused and there were several of them under one candidate's umbrella, and I could see a bunch of these single-issue posts in an RSS feed or something. I could explore one issue in-depth if I wanted.

I might also read a campaign blog if it became a clearinghouse of the candidate's journey with links to the places the candidate visited locally. There are a lot of 2.0 tools you could build around that, and you'd drive traffic and interest to local blogs and sites as you go through town. Local online people would remember that.

The problem with campaign blogs right now is they're locked into a one-dimentional assumption of what blogs CAN'T do - namely, go off message. They're just playing it safe; it's as if someone is just checking the box marked "write campaign blog." They're not being used as tools to broaden messages and invite new supporters the way they could be.

29 August 2007

Best Blog EVAH: Technology, Health & Development

What happens when you bring academics together from different fields to talk about an important global issue?

Technology, Health and Development. From the authors:
We want to bring together public health advocates, teachers, engineers, computer scientists and business/technology experts who may not normally interact in order to combine forces. Our goal is to document solutions and exchange ideas on innovative projects in global health.
I found TH&D when I was doing some online outreach for Africa Malaria Day and put together a conference call with bloggers, academics, business leaders and government officials.

The site is an authoritative clearinghouse on global health topics that focuses on solutions and invites participation from the private sector. They've done an outstanding job recognizing the importance of the private sector in global health, and they're helping to create a constructive communications environment for businesses to discuss the things they do.

The authors have solid credibility and they aren't afraid of tackling tough issues. They've also assembled one of the best global health and development blogrolls I've ever seen.

In putting together the blog, the authors have also strengthened their positions as advocates and leaders in their fields, and more importantly, they've made the research and the work they do more accessible to a broader audience. TH&D is a great example of how people use blogs to harness the perspectives of diverse groups.

28 August 2007

Brad Levinson has (almost) left the building

So, Brad has decided to accept the offer he couldn't refuse at Blue State Digital. This means that I have to do something that truly disgusts me.

I have to say something nice about a Yankees fan.

So, I think it's fitting that I post this on the morning when the evil empire is a full 8 games behind the best baseball team EVAH, knowing that even if the Yankees sweep the Red Sox over the next 3 games they'll still be five back. That DOES make this a little easier.

Brad joined the company less than a year ago and has helped us build a competitive, innovative and successful social media offering. He really showed some serious initiative building the Imagine Cup Blog behind the scenes. He developed a blog research system that I think is second to none. He helped a lot of technophobes understand the value of social media tools.

We are already changing the way people inside the beltway and beyond look at blogs and social networks as drivers of policy-based discussions. In the next few months we're going to be showing some strong and innovative leadership at the nexus of business, policy, and social media.

Brad had something to do with that.

So congratulations, Brad. (and hi, Brad's mom.) Best of luck at Blue State Digital, and I'm sure we'll keep in touch.

(Yankees suck.)

27 August 2007

Beyond Bizlex: Global Water Resources

Tom Martin, my editor at Business Lexington, thought it might make sense to include a "global perspective" piece on water issues in the same edition as two differing perspectives on more local water issues.

One of the things I enjoy most about the column I write is the opportunity to introduce a slightly different point of view into ongoing issues-based discussions. I'm not the first person to believe that these discussions in Central Kentucky are a bit provincial, whether the topic is water, coal, casino gambling, or even higher education. Discussions tend to be framed as parties attempting to acquire or maintain as much of a finite resource as possible. In most of the discussions, that resource is money.

I'm not trying to discount or diminish the importance of that discussion. I'm not saying this type of discussion is unique to Kentucky. I'm suggesting there are always other ways to look at things. My work in social media has really helped me explore and learn about new perspectives, and I'm very grateful for that.

Here are some global sources I found online that helped shape my perspective and hopefully added something of value to the ongoing discussions.

World Water Assessment Programme
UN Water
World Water Council's "Water Crisis" Page
Technology, Health & Development's post on Global Water Week

Posting will be probably be light this week because I'll be traveling and dealing with Brad's departure. I hope to have something smart to say about Professor Nisbett's Framing Science post about media coverage of science issues, and about how Brad did some pretty cool stuff in a fairly brief stint.

24 August 2007

How Beckham bends it

Now this is too cool.

Complete with multimedia.

Reminds me of the coolest use of federal funds EVAH.

23 August 2007

Blogging local

As public affairs and government relations pro's go beyond the traditional political blogs to have conversations with real-life voters about real-life issues, there's an increasing demand to geo-target blogs to match up with Congressional Districts, counties, even cities.

"Blasphemy! The Internet is a global medium!" You say.

Except that I read an article a while back in FP by Pankaj Ghemawat that said "web traffic within countries and regions has increased far faster than traffic between them." It said that 90 percent of all phone calls, web traffic, and even investment is all local. Another smart guy once said "all politics is local," too.

So if all the activity is actually happening in localized communities, is it possible to organize local bloggers of any stripe into a nationally coordinated effort?


Apparently it is if you add alcohol.

There are so many tools available to help build grassroots campaigns, build coalitions, share quick updates, manage events, discuss common interests and issues, invite new participants, and simply improve the quality of life.

Political blogs have driven so much innovation in building communities and grassroots campaigns. The toolkit is available to anyone who wants it and is creative enough to apply those tools in new ways.

22 August 2007

Candidates: Run Home to Mama

Joanne Bamberger, on Huffington Post and her own blog, PunditMom:
I am newly motivated, though, to start a PunditMom coffee campaign here in my neighborhood. What if I could convince a good number of my friends to chip in $27 to a fund for a candidate we could all agree on? I know things aren't going to change overnight, but it might be a good start to raising our profile and getting the attention of those who think we're just not that important.
This means two things to me.

First, moms are getting more involved, thanks to the online channel. Virtually any increase in civic engagement is a very good thing, and more involvement from moms is a great thing. They're putting a little coin on the table - and thanks to the 'net, you don't need huge dollar amounts, you just need groups of people - and this will get candidates' attention.

Second, the rhetorical bar has been raised for the candidates. It will no longer suffice to say the other side stinks. "Political blogs," whose stock in trade has typically been discussing the latest outrage from the other side, will see a new kind of blogger enter their space - one who isn't as interested in anger and vitriol but one that demands specifics on policy. And since they have kids, they know when they're being hustled.

It will take time for the candidates to figure this out. It will also take time for companies and trade associations that want to have political discussions. You can't market to this crowd like you used to. There is a huge opportunity out there for the candidate that seizes it - and gets it right - first.

21 August 2007

Metaphors vs. Strategy

So I was talking with Brad on Monday - and yes, I'm very depressed that he's leaving and I'll have more to say about that later - about how perplexed we are with some of the writings of some "thought leaders" in this field.

There's a guy we both read fairly regularly and we just shake our heads at some of the things he writes. Every week or so we see at least one or two of the following:

1) a new catchprase to describe the times or the era we're in
2) a metaphor or simile that typically begins with "the blogosphere is..."
3) a refrence to how this person uses a particular 2.0 feature instead of reading email
4) a vague list of hints or tips that you could find in any self-help book in America about anything.

Then I gag a little, then I email Brad, then we make a big joke about it.

Maybe I'm just stunted intellectually and lack maturity or vision. After all, this guy has a huge following, and sometimes he finds something interesting. But I just don't care what the "blogosphere is" this week, and I'm pretty sure my clients don't either.

This is a simple business from a tactical perspective. You identify opinion leaders and you build relationships with them. It doesn't matter if they're at church, in a boardroom, at home, in Congress, in the trading pits at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, or on the moon. You use whatever tools the audience uses.

We also follow simple rules. Don't lie. Say who you are, what you want, and what you offer. Know your audience.

Strategies separate us in this field. Are you building alliances and credibility? Are you re-framing a discussion? Are you positioning a company or person in a certain way? Are you responding to a crisis? How will you do that?

Not everyone can or wants to write specifically about the work they're doing. So sometimes I think people write blogs to convince people that they're smart.

Telling me what the "blogosphere is" or what age we live in, or coming up with new terms that define the obvious won't cut it with me.

20 August 2007

Antoher excuse bites the dust

Occasionally I hear from clients and potential clients as to why they refuse to actively engage bloggers and other online communities.

The excuse: Bloggers aren't journalists. They get their facts wrong, and it's almost impossible to correct the record with them.

The truth: Journalists get facts wrong all the time, and it's actually harder to correct the record with them than it is to correct it with a blogger.

That's right: a new study by Scott R. Maier at the University of Oregon shows that errors are rampant at daily newspapers, and corrections to those errors are issued about two percent of the time. So in the 98 percent of the time a correction isn't issued, your only option is a letter to the editor, which the paper can edit if it decides to print it at all. Companies will sometimes choose to buy an ad as "the only way we can get our side of the story out," and it's a lot cheaper to buy an ad on a blog than virtually any daily paper in the country.


Blogs are inherently self-correcting because they allow comments. The communities that read blogs police their own. And if the blogger won't allow comments, you can write and promote your own blog.

17 August 2007

may I never question the power of branding again

AP, via CNN:
Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the kids when they were wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.
If only my mom had known, all those years ago...

16 August 2007

Listen and learn

Earlier this week Kristen Chase hosted a radio show and had several smart guests on her show to discuss the perspectives from bloggers of color.

This is required listening for any professional the communications field. Here's something close to the comment I left on Kelly's blog.

Communications professionals need to understand that what we do isn’t just about pushing messaging or providing product. It’s about ensuring access. It’s about access to information. Sometimes the information is crap; other times it’s important. It’s not really about “getting free stuff,” - it’s about doing our part to make sure people of color are part of the discussion, and while we often choose who we contact for a number of legitimate reasons, we don’t have the right to exclude anyone.

We’re letting our own biases about race, ethnicity, culture, and class over-refine our “target demographic,” especially online. There is no excuse for it.

Gordon Brown is watching you...

A colleague of mine in London sent me this today, from FT.com:

The COI, the UK government’s communications agency, is working on a way to monitor what people say about policy on blogs and internet forums for the media briefings it sends to ministers...

The blog project was in part prompted by departments’ concerns at being caught unawares by debates spread on the web.

It reflects the growing media profile of the format and the fact some individual bloggers are moving from niche self-publishers to establishment opinion-formers.

It's about time. Bloggers are indeed the new elite punditry, as much as they may despise that word, and much to the chagrin of the bowtie-clad deep-thinkers of the cocktail circuit. In the UK, the online political discussion has the potential to be especially robust, since many members of Parliament are active bloggers. Even David Miliband only gave blogging up recently (and perhaps temporarily) when Gordon Brown made him Foreign Secretary.

My "official" prediction: the government will get this outreach wrong at first. A communications office is accustomed to working with journalists and under well-recognized and accepted rules. Most bloggers - many of the best bloggers - do not consider themselves to be journalists. Don't try to fit them into specific categories.

(pssst.... hey, PM Brown: speaking of bloggers, make sure you keep track of this woman. She's not what you'd call political, but she's moving back there soon and she and her colleagues can pretty much tell you everything about blogging you need to know.)

Of course, the United States government trails significantly behind other governments when it comes to engaging the blogosphere. I think the next administration will be much better at this, no matter who is elected next year.

15 August 2007

another early warning signal

I dont' want to forget mentioning this National Football League news in a previous edition of the Boston Globe:
In a high-stakes struggle for control of NFL news in cyberspace, the league has prohibited news organizations from airing more than a total of 45 seconds per day of online audio or video of team personnel from its stadiums. The action could foreshadow other major sports leagues imposing similar restrictions.
First the NCAA kicks a reporter out of the stadium for live-blogging a baseball game. Now this. No, they're not exactly the same thing, but both events resemble the canary in the coal mine to me. Communications technology innovation is dramatically outpacing even industry's ability to control content, to the point where sports leagues are now simply clamping down. After all, there are billions of dollars at stake. What they provide journalists is only the beginning.

The leagues and the networks know they have to develop new ways to make content more accessible and interesting to meet the demands (and abilities) of the increasingly sophisticated consumer. But I suspect the "innovation discussions" aren't actually about technology - they're understandably focused on property rights.

Of course, sports leagues ARE quite innovative in communications technology -for example, they 've struck commercial agreements with videogame developers to keep their brands fresh. But the tech-based innovation only occurs once the licensing and distribution questions have been resolved. Innovation happens everywhere now, and the lines of who "owns" content that takes place in venues of public accomodation, is broadcast over public airwaves, and is reported by journalists are blurred more every day.

From a reputation standpoint, the property rights vs. technology innovation debate carries significant risks for the leagues (and the networks they own) as well. The recording industry was, arguably, well within its rights to protect its intellectual property from peer-to-peer networks, but its reputation took a serious hit.

Sports leagues are, in effect, starting to tell journalists which technology tools they can and can't use when they do their jobs. If they continue this course of action, the leagues must prepare for more criticism and scrutiny from journalists.

If they continue dictating those terms to consumers, they need to be careful, because consumers will either innovate their own trapdoors to content, or worse - find something else that interests them. The NFL is currently much more popular than, say, the National Hockey League or the National Basketball Association. They need to think about how they protect their intellectual property without erecting virtual tollbooths that separate content from consumers. There are a lot of options out there.

13 August 2007

A quarter of all Americans...

Posting will probably be light this week (I have a couple posts on standby that might see the light of day, but that might be it) because I'm traveling and writing a lot of big-thinky stuff for work.

Saw this Pew report on the "internet news audience" - roughly a quarter of all Americans, a bit younger and more educated than the population as a whole. Seems they're skeptical of mainstream media:

The internet news audience is particularly likely to criticize news organizations for their lack of empathy, their failure to "stand up for America," and political bias. Roughly two-thirds (68%) of those who get most of their news from the internet say that news organizations do not care about the people they report on, and 53% believe that news organizations are too critical of America. By comparison, smaller percentages of the general public fault the press for not caring about people they report on (53%), and being too critical of America (43%).
I did notice they got a little more excited about the Youtube debates, though. If this group actually heads to the polls this November, we're going to see a lot more of that sort of thing. If they consistently raise money for candidates the way the Democratic political blogs are now, the Internet will start becoming the focus, and not the "add-on," of political mass communication. It will be a simple matter of going where the audience is. The Republicans better get smart fast on this, or they'll be left behind.

I remember a conversation I had with a conservative political activist and blogger. He used to work on the Hill, he's ahead of the curve when it comes to blogging, and I like him. He made a casual comment about the money being raised on a liberal political blog for a Democratic congressional candidate in a rural, midwest district - they raised about $30K in a couple of weeks. "That's such a miniscule amount of money," he said. "It's what we raise for a single table at an RNC fundraiser." And ultimately, that candidate lost.

But that candidate is back. And he has a broader, deeper list of support this time. And the Republicans are finding themselves defending seats where they hadn't expected to - last cycle it was Senate seats in Missouri, Virginia and Montana. This cycle it will be congressional districts in the mountain west and - mark my words - a handful of districts in places like Florida and even Texas.

I'm shocked the Republicans haven't invested more in this - there's no doubt in my mind they can do it as well as the Democrats can. It may be because the 15 people at the fundraiser table want to maintain their power in the party, and know they won't have it if the Republicans can get money from other sources. Regardless, the advantage Democrats may enjoy now is temporary - unless they're still the only ones engaging voters online in 2 years.

10 August 2007

I'm John F. Kennedy, and I approved this message

Thought this was relevant, given the issues of the day.

09 August 2007

Facebook's worst nightmare

I know Facebook is spending a lot of time right now worrying about a lawsuit. The downside of social networking mega-sites, however, has absolutely nothing to do (well, almost nothing to do) with lawsuits. Facebook's worst nightmare is stuff like this:
Pro-anorexia websites offering tips on extreme dieting are nothing new, but their growth on social networking sites is a disturbing new twist and brings them within reach of a wider audience.
I can only imagine the anguish the parent of a child or teen with anorexia or bulimia would experience reading something like this. Social network sites are now so commonplace among teens. New groups pop up on Facebook every day. Youngsters (and adults) are looking online for health information, and for real-life stories and support from people who have common experiences. It's just too easy for a child suffering from these conditions to have unfettered access to this. Parents know to look for stalkers online, but now they have to worry about "health" information?

Facebook has done an incredible job building an outstanding social networking utility, and by opening up their platform to developer-generated applications, even the founders of Facebook can't predict its power and growth. However, with that power comes an incredible responsibility. The larger ISP's were reasonably effective in shutting down many of the most harmful "pro-ana" sites. The advent of massive social network sites brought this problem back. The capacity exists on facebook not only to send kids harmful messages, but to actually develop IT-based tools designed to "help" kids develop "strategies" to maintain this condition. Parents have to pay even closer attention to what their kids are doing online -- a "healthy diet and lifestyle" group or application may not be what it appears at a glance.

Facebook clearly has some liability and responsibility here as well, and there are a few options. For example, Wikipedia is monitored by a cadre of volunteers that fight against "vandalism" and inaccuracies. It's not a perfect system, but it's a model the for-profit Facebook should consider. Clearly this is a proceed-with-caution, free speech issue, but I really can't think of anything more important than health and safety.

While some might move to shut down social networks (or keep kids away), I think the answer is actually more engagement, not less - if for no other reason than these should not be the only voices in a discussion online, and they're not going away. I see two takeaway lessons here for companies in the food, nutrition, and health industries.

First, these companies need to move into the social network space strategically and quickly. The audience is there, and frankly, many in the audience may not be anywhere else online. While they may not be visiting blogs or branded health sites, they're still looking for the information companies provide. Seed the environment with facts, not over-the-top marketing platitudes. The audience is there and they're talking about the relevant issues and companies anyway. Be transparent part of the discussion, and part of the solution. This is your audience. Be where your audience is.

Second, vigilance is an absolute necessity. Keep track of what's happening on Facebook and other social network sites. Monitor the groups that are starting up. Companies won't necesarily be notified in a Google alert if someone is talking about you or your issues. Take action and notify the administrators when there's something wrong. Make sure the company is providing the facts and is responding to questions directly in the environment. Companies monitor everything else that's said about them - this should be no different.

08 August 2007

Green Options: taking the road less traveled (without leaving a huge footprint)

Shifting gears from all things mommy-blog for a moment to take a look at trends in the green-o-sphere.

The news is out that Discovery Communications has purchased uber-enviroblog Treehugger, with its ultra-efficient global staff of 50 and 1.4 million readers per month. The site will no doubt be the online anchor for the network's Planet Green channel. And kudos to Discovery for scooping up some excellent talent and providing an enthusiastic audience with a wealth of choices to get branded content.

Of course, the news may have other enviroblogs wondering if there are enough green eyeballs to go around. Of course, competing with big media companies is not a new thing for blogs, but Discovery/Treehugger will make a strong claim to advertisers that they have the audience. How will other green blogs survive?

My favorite, Green Options, is aggressively moving into more grassroots social media channels to actually build an audience. Within days of the Treehugger deal, GO had a facebook group, a squidoo lens, and a makemesustainable group up and running. These steps, of course, cost virtually nothing. I'm sure they have a few other ideas as well.

As logical as this sounds to many of us in the social media crowd, It's clearly not considered a tried-and-true method by mainstream communications folks yet. Two roads are diverging in a wood and Green Options is taking the road less traveled. We are about to witness two competing promotion strategies of similar properties (in terms of content, not size) and we're in a position to mark a baseline for each and chart progress. I have nothing against Treehugger or Discovery, but I'm rootin' for my Best Blog EVAH. We'll see how it goes.

07 August 2007

where was the Post the week before?

Jose Antonio Vargas of the Washington Post files a report that notes that the faces of Yearly Kos look much more male and white than one might expect:
Walking around McCormick Place during the weekend, it became clear that only a handful of the 1,500 conventioneers -- bloggers, policy experts, party activists -- are African American, Latino or Asian. Of about 100 scheduled panels and workshops, less than a half-dozen dealt directly with women or minority issues.

A panel called "Blogging While Female," held Saturday morning, was an aberration -- an overflow room of about 75, mostly women, a few of them minorities.
While I think Vargas makes an important point about diversity, it's more about one convention than it is the entire blogosphere. To be candid, Vargas didn't find diversity because he only looked in one place at one time.

This is an important lesson for those who incorporate social media into issues management and public affairs strategies. As was discussed in a panel at BlogHer07 the week before Yearly Kos, "political blogs" are not the only online venues that discuss politics. The real diversity of opinion - and the homes for the truly diverse and substantive political discussions in which companies may want to participate - often happen elsewhere.

In fact, I'm more than a little surprised that the political media all but ignored a conference with 800 bloggers that featured a keynote from Elizabeth Edwards and launched an international political education initiative on global health and the environment.

And I have to say the program and audience at BlogHer07, with a couple of noteworthy (and outstanding) examples, appeared to skew left.

I really wish Stefania and Kelly had the time to go back to Chicago to ask the candidates the same questions they asked me.

04 August 2007

the kos phenomenon

It's Monday, so I must be hungover from markos madness. the mainstream media that all but ignored BlogHer can't seem to get enough of Yearly Kos, with everything from Washington Post Op-ed's to Bill O'Reilly battle cries.

It's fascinating to watch professional pundits try to explain why Markos Moulitsas has built so much power in politics. They point to his partisanship, his snark, his to his ability to raise money for candidates, and so on. I think they leave out the most important point - and oddly enough, it's the point that I think Moulitsas makes most.

Daily Kos is successful because it's a community. It's not just Markos Moulitsas telling people what he thinks on the front page. Moulitsas was one of the first politically-oriented bloggers to build a platform on which other bloggers write about whatever they want.

There's a conservative version of Kos - Town Hall. But Town Hall is subtly different -it's more of echo chamber. Sure, people can join Town Hall and start their own blogs there, just like Kos. But Town Hall also asks members to sign up for email updates from the site's leaders, which no doubt prompts members to write about the topic of the day. Town Hall is a cog in a wheel of a larger communications machine. I don't have a problem with that at all, I'm just noting the difference.

I actually like Town Hall. I think it's an efficient way to distribute messaging, but it's still top-down. Kos really is more of a discussion.

Here's an admittedly partisan but I think fair point - and I hope some R's out there will feel comfortable weighing in here. When conservatives are asked why they're supposedly "behind" in online communications, many of them acknowledge they're "losing" (though I'm not sure how that's defined) to democrats but quickly note that they completely dominate talk radio. But political talk radio, despite appearances, really isn't a conversation. Political talk radio is a lecture with a 7-second tape delay where dissenting voices are typically filtered out. It's one of the reasons that women have largely stopped listening to talk radio.

I'm not saying that talk radio lacks value or inspiration. I do, however, note that American political conservatives seem to do better when the message is controlled by a centralized voice and readily admit they're doing worse when the conversation has more participants.

I'm really quite surprised that this is the case. Conservatism isn't, in my opinion, inherently hostile to dissent or diversity. It just seems that right now some of the strongest conservative voices in the media are. I think that's what keeps smart, tech-savvy conservatives like David All or The Irritable Elephant up at night.

03 August 2007

more for moms...

I have so much going on lately that I can't bloviate today, so instead I'll do the link thing.

First and most importantly, every mom should check out Attention Moms: Got Stress? where Dr. Leigh Ann Simmons (my wife) gives the momosphere some news about important mental health research.

And while I love the momosphere, here are two reasonably non-mom but still really cool (at least to me) links:

Crowds: The Other Renewable Energy. Enviro-blogger Maria Surma Manka keeps us up to speed on what the brainiacs at MIT are up to.

The Tribrary. Andrew Wyllie (a friend) shows us what you can do with open source technology, a flair for working with Google Maps, a global perspective, and a passion for triathlons.

01 August 2007

Because we really stink at this

So I'm at the State of the Momosphere panel, offering apologies on behalf of corporate america and stuff, and Kelly "Mocha Momma" Wickham gets the microphone and asks a question that basically stumps me:

My question, then, was directed at those two marketing professionals and I asked when they would tap into the mothers of color and bring us into the fold because they are leaving us out of the loop. When will the diversity come into play?

The microphone is passed around, and Kelly never gets an answer to her question. Then Stefania issues the smackdown:

I also told them that even though I get pitches everyday at CityMama, over at Kimchi Mamas we get none. Not a one. Ever. Because people of color do not matter to advertisers.

I've already offered my personal defense: I'm not really in marketing or advertising, I do issues, blah blah blah. But it's all a load of crap. I did a quick review of the work I've done recently, and looked at the bloggers I've "pitched." With only a few exeptions, my "target lists" are predominantly white.


And frankly, Mocha Momma and Kimchi Mamas easily "make the cut" in terms of the kinds of blogs I typically look for. I use the available search and ranking tools (which aren't all that great but are all any of us have to work with), and their numbers are stronger than some of the blogs I've occasionally pitched. And as for content relevance - I only pitch the folks who have expressed an interest in a particular issue - Kimchi Mamas have discussed plenty of health issues as well as immigration. Mocha Momma has discussed some of her experiences as a teacher (she's now a high school dean). So they discuss or at least seem interested in discussing any number of issues. In short, they deserve an invitation to participate in some top-level discussions.

I really don't know why the pitch lists I and others develop aren't as diverse as the blogosphere as a whole. The short answer: we just stink at this.

Maybe it has something to do with the relentless specialization that happens in our industry. I'm the "blog guy" at my company. A number of entrepreneurs approached me at BlogHer wanting to partner with my company, explaining that "we know how to market and communicate with moms." In DC, there are "republican" and "democratic" lobbying firms. And there's a constantly growing number of boutique firms that specialize in any "core demographic" - GLBT, African-American, Latino, you name it. Some might think it's harder and more expensive to develop your own core competency when you can just outsource it.

In one way, that's not such a bad thing. For example, the writers at Kimchi Mamas share a distinct cultural perspective, and I'm sure they're proud of that. The people in my industry who might pitch them should take the time to learn more about that perspective. Those who do it best might want to do it full-time.

However, it's also a huge cop-out. It's our obligation as communications professionals to know our audience. I can't say I put together an all-encompassing discussion about health care, for example, if I haven't taken the time to include as wide a range of perspectives as possible. And this isn't the web2.0 version of "political correctness" - this is my job.

Maybe it also has something to do with the sheer size of the blogosphere and the fact that the tools we use are so nascent. I'll readily admit I don't know what I'll find when I enter keywords in technorati sometimes. Sure, I have to read more fully to get context, but most searches start with really vague keywords and you have to refine from there.

But here's the bottom line: We just haven't made a point of including as many perspectives as possible in the discussions we'd like to join or lead, and there's no good reason for it. It's not about tools, it's not about specialization, it's not about the size of the blogosphere. It's because we just haven't made it a priority to include everyone. We have the power to change that. It's not like diverse voices are hard to find online.

I'd love to hear from the moms and anyone else who cares to speak up on this issue.