John Aravosis Is Just Not That Into You

If you're a PR flack, that is.

Seems John has a bit of an email firehose problem, and he's starting to resent it:

I get hundreds of emails a day. Far too many of them garbage like this from people who have added me to their email list without my permission. Then they send me crap. I'm not writing this to whine about my bad emails, I'm trying to make a larger point. Email is a critical part of the day to day work for many of us. The volume of email we are receiving keeps growing. And for many of us, it passed a tipping point, beyond which we are now losing emails from people, not even seeing them as they come in, because of the velocity of traffic hitting our in-box.

And crap like this isn't helping. Actually, crap like this is the problem. I already have a spam filter that catches all of my spam. This crap is what's ruining my in-box.

And he concludes:

If you're sending the same email to fewer than five people, it's not junk.

If you're sending the same email to five or more people, it's probably junk.

It's an interesting rule of thumb. And while one man's junk is another man's priority, it's probably the truth.

There's no easy solution to John's problem - we all get more email than we want, and just when you think you've found the fix someone finds a way around it. And this diatribe won't stop the PR flacks and other goobers from assaulting his inbox - because frankly, they don't really read his blog. They just know he's a big-time political blogger with regular access to the President's communications team and a bunch of big wigs on Capitol Hill, and a lot of other blogs link to his. They just want John to cut and paste whatever they're sending him and post it on his blog. For free.

John can't just stop using email like some of the social media "gliterati" keep saying they have, over and over again, sometimes via email. For those of us in the real world, and who depend on communicating with people other than our closest techno-geek pals, email is the communications vehicle of necessity.

There are a couple of things John could do - for example, he could start actually following the people he cares about on Twitter - he's currently not following anyone and seems to be using Twitter like it's just another RSS feed. By being selective about who he's following, he can accept direct messages from them (getting an alert in his email essentially "validating" the sender) and send them back. He could also get a fairly interesting stream of content - sure, there's a lot of "brushing my teeth" tweets but also some useful breaking news.

Or he could continue to write about his email problem and develop a reputation among Congressional offices as a bit of a snob. Of course, John isn't a snob at all - he's trying to do his job and he's expressing the same frustrations many of us feel - but you see, there are so many people politics and in PR whose egos are bruised far too easily. Last week Robert Scoble (if you know tech business and/or tech PR you've heard of him but if you don't you haven't) unleashed his inner diva just a bit on a podcast about how he hates lousy email pitches and PR flacks let him have it, with one notable exception. I can say this - I don't think "you suck" is the most constructive piece of advice, but it should make us review what we're doing.

Personally I go to Susan Getgood first when I'm thinking about this stuff. Her latest on the topic is here. She's said before that we tend to pitch things that are our client's passion but the bloggers' distraction. So we shouldn't get surprised when most bloggers react this way. She's right.

And I'm going to recommend the "Aravosis Rule" to my social media team. I've always recommended against blast emailing anyone. But this is my "validating third party" for my 3R's post a while back. It's hard to make the case why John should care about something if you're just blasting it out to everyone.

If you want space on John's blog, it's really easy to get it - buy an ad. Make it compelling enough for people to click on it and go to the site you want them to, or put enough info in the ad to prompt action right there. John has been called a lot of things, but he's not the trained monkey of PR flacks.

Priorities

Yesterday, the University of Kentucky fired Billie Gillispie, its basketball coach. His "memorandum of understanding" - both sides never actually completed a long-term contract - essentially says he's now due $6 million. Of course, UK is now saying they'll try to pay less than that.

Even if the "fair" settlement and separation agreement pays him half of that, Billie Gillispie will basically be Kentucky's highest-paid state employee this year.

His job description: NOT coaching the UK basketball team.

The state's higher education budget has experienced some rather significant cuts in the past couple of years. UK employees have been asked to do more with less, as have other state employees.

I realize Gallispie's buyout will probably be funded mostly or completely with "private" money - but I think this encapsulates the problem with our priorities here.

Further, I don't think you'd see this kind of media circus and incessant chatter from everywhere if UK were replacing its provost.

Horatio says the darndest things

Have a great weekend.

Carbon Tax vs. Cap and Trade? Ask the Green Tweeters!

A few colleagues of mine were having a discussion about some of the options policy makers have to reduce carbon emissions in the United States and we quickly boiled it down to "carbon tax or cap & trade." Of course, we're a bunch of PR flacks (not that there's anything wrong with that) and not enviro-brainiacs, so I thought I'd ask some of my green peeps on twitter where they fell on the issue. These are the people I trust the most on environmental issues.

I have to admit I was a little surprised at their answers, but I probably shouldn't have been. Among this non-scientific sample of quick responses from a handful of tech-savvy environmentalists, it seems the carbon tax idea is seen by most (not all) as the more practical solution, though there are some doubts about its political feasibility. At the very least, I think it's safe to say you can find some environmentalists with some serious green street cred willing to work with either idea.

Obviously this isn't an issue that gets resolved in 140 characters or less, but it does give a good snapshot of first reactions. And it opens the door to more substantive discussions. Here's a sample of the reactions I got:

sustainablog I used to say cap and trade, but, more and more, I lean towards the carbon tax... it's simpler...

ecopolitologist I'd say carbon tax. In some respects, there's more certainty. It would be a Herculean shift, but we could replace income tax with it.

GreenSmith ...market fluctuation with permit values, and includes those that don't necessarilly have an enviro bent.

GreenSmith Carbon tax. That way, it's a straightforward proposition. You pollute, you pay. The more you pollute, the more you pay. This eliminates...

greenbiztweets I think cap & trade gets the ball rolling towards improving the political climate for a carbon tax. One begets the other.

LighterFootstep I think carbon tax is the most direct solution. Sure could use a better name, though. The complexity of C&T hides its real costs.

thegoodhuman i like cap better, but carbon tax prob easier to implement/follow.

MariaEnergia Cap and trade: there's a set limit to the CO2. Haven't heard of limits w/ carbon tax. If there could be a limit w/ tax, I'd revise opinion.

tomkimmerer C tax would be easier to administer than cap-and-trade. C&T is vulnerable to market speculation (AIG!).

tomkimmerer It's that awful word 'tax'. A huge tax increase, even if directed only at a segment of economy, is hard to sell.

tomkimmerer Cap-and-Trade is working for Sulfur could work for C. Devil in details. Carbon tax is simpler, but politically unacceptable

drjonboyg cap and trade did work very well for acid rain, so it could work as long as appropriate limits were set, but what about China etc

jtshelton carbon tax, most definitely. turning to markets when they started the problem doesn't make a bit of sense.

drjonboyg A carbon tax that included China would be OK I guess.

jetsongreen very tough ... c&t has more problems, but I'm more apt to go market-based than a tax. C&T needs accuracy, should apply to everything.

David's Green Picks of the Week

Here's my picks this week. A virtual cornucopia of wholesome eco-goodness.

RNC Chairman Steele: "We are cooling. We are not warming." by Tim Hurst. Ummm.... dude? We're warming.

EPA makes landmark finding: Global warming threatens public health and welfare at Climate Progress. Welcome to the new administration's position on science impacting policy.

Making the Most of Earth Hour 2009 by Robin Sheeves. Some nice tips for any hour of the year.

World Water Day was last week. It's amazing how little is known in the US about this incredibly important issue.

And finally, this from Hank Green:

Bonuses, Bailouts, Social Media and Anger

President Obama's communications people are making the argument that the AIG bonuses issue is an obsession for the Beltway chattering class but little more than a distraction for the rest of us. So just for kicks, I went over to Blogpulse to track mentions of "AIG" in the blogosphere over the past six months - as well as mentions of AIG and "bailout" together and AIG and "bonuses" together. Here's what I saw:



Not surprisingly, online chatter about AIG spiked when news broke about the company's "retention bonuses." The smaller blue spikes coincide generally with news about more taxpayer dollars going to bail out the company, as the yellow lines tend to show. But since the blogosphere tends to extend beyond Washington DC, I'm thinking it's a fairly major topic of discussion these days. Nearly one percent of all blog posts Blogpulse monitors mentioned AIG on a single day.

Looking at the chart it's easy to assume, though perhaps not conclude, that people are not necessarily angry about AIG getting bailed out, but they're angry about AIG getting bailed out and AIG employees making large sums of money in the process.

But there's more to it than that. To me, the anger is so strong because people feel this information has been intentionally hidden for so long, and because people don't feel they have any ability to correct a mindnumbingly obvious problem. And more importantly, developments in both mainstream and social media over the past few years have given people the expectation of more access and control.

The development of the 24-hour news cycle by cable networks such as CNN conditioned consumers to expect news as it happened. As other networks and news outlets were forced to compete, consumers were literally inundated with information. They remain so to this day.

As social media technologies developed and matured, consumers began to share their own voices and created a new set of expectations. Consumers often want news to fit their own world view, so they go to the outlets that suit their ideology or interests. They helped shape the news by providing faster and more powerful feedback. Finally, consumers started reporting the news themselves - we hear about earthquakes and terrorist attacks via twitter before any news network can even get the sattelite truck in place.

These developments have created a cultural shift and have altered our expectations for information. While it's never really been acceptable to cover up injustice, it's easy to argue the frustration is amplified today.

This cultural shift remains at odds with some of America's most venerable and powerful institutions. Wall Street, certainly. Many corporate board rooms. The halls of Congress. And yes, at times, the traditional media.

The AIG situation is just the latest example. Look at the relatively slow pace information has been released and the questions that remain unanswered - who are the 11 people who received "retention bonuses" but are no longer with the company? Who negotiated the bonus agreements? Who rejected the Senate provisions capping executive pay in the bailout legislation?

To be fair, I think it's understandable at times to want to resist providing this kind of information. But this isn't one of those times, and there's been a profound cultural disconnect between the Washington-Wall Street axis and the rest of the country - and that disconnect has played itself out through social media channels.

Bloggers call you out when you call a cap of $500,000 on annual executive pay "draconian." Or when you call struggling homeowners "losers." Or when you ask for only half of the bonuses back. People see the hypocrisy of railing against "socialist" healthcare or insisting on "merit pay" for people like schoolteachers - all while threatening armageddon if trillions in public funds aren't handed over to banks without strings, and then given away in annual bonuses for an underperforming derivatives trader worth more than a schoolteacher will see in several lifetimes.

But what really sets people off is when you try to hide it or, when discovered, spin it. Some advice: bottom line, the public is going to find this out eventually. Don't prolong the agony - come clean, say you're sorry, and show how you won't do it again. Subpoena-driven drip, drip, drip stories like this one will kill you. Further, don't insist that the people who caused the problem are the only people who can fix it. It's just not true.

In my career in politics and communications, I've heard the same refrain from corporate execs, lobbyists, and politicians more times than I can count - "it's not our ideas or our actions that are the problem - we're just not explaining them very well."

In this case, actually, the people understand you just fine. The solutions are obvious. That's why they're so mad.

Sustainable Communities

I'm back in the office and I had some ideas for posts that I haven't had a chance to get to but I did want to mention this.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is blogging about the new partnership between DoT and HUD on Sustainable Communities:

After housing costs, transportation takes the biggest bite out of the typical household budget. That's why a partnership between HUD and DOT can be so effective; we have the ability to ease the largest financial burden on many American families. We're talking about 60% of the average working American family's expenses. HUD Secretary Donovan and I can cut these costs by focusing our departments' efforts on creating affordable, sustainable communities.

It's great to see government working in a bipartisan way (LaHood is a Republican) to do something meaningful. This didn't get a ton of press - granted, there are some other newsworthy things going on - but if this is done right it's going to be a big deal.

Now I'm just wishing EPA was in on it. Make those communities sustainable from a financial AND environmental perspective.

for bloggers, by bloggers

I'm really excited about Parent Bloggers Network's new series of free webinars that are designed to help bloggers be better bloggers. They will offer all sorts of tips about things like SEO, writing skills, photography, design, and so on. If you're a blogger who would like to get more traffic, attention, prominence, whatever - or if you're just trying to hone your craft - these are for you.

And they're posting them all to vimeo. Here's the first.


PBN Webinar Series "Building Better Blogs" - The ABCs of SEO - March 4, 2009 from Parent Bloggers Network on Vimeo.

David's Green Picks of the Week

Traveling this week, so posting will be light for a while. But here's some interesting stuff.

The Top "Ten Top Ten Lists" from Green Options Media by Joe Mohr. It was just a matter of time before someone did this. Cute.

10 Green Ways to Cut Business Costs by Jennifer Kaplan. Looks like Joe missed one.

Are Green Jobs Good Paying Jobs? by Gina-Marie Cheeseman. Yep, there's another top-10 list in this one. Sensing a theme yet?

Jim Cramer would like his testicles back

Umm... wow. John Stewart has really kicked the crap out of CNBC for the past week. And it really came to a head last night. (warning - there are some nasty words in these videos.)

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

I've now read that Jon Stewart is the next coming of Edward R. Murrow.

I think that's the worst statement you could possibly make about the state of journalism.

How social media covers cerebral beltway speeches

I've been giving some thought to how social media could play a much stronger role in international affairs and global finance. (Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what you were thinking about too.)

Then I learn Ben Bernanke gave a talk on Tuesday morning to the Council on Foreign Relations.

I'm surprised at how small the initial response in the social media world was to the speech. Granted, there wasn't much in terms of groundbreaking news, but this is one of those moments when thoughtful, serious people can and should give global finance issues the airing they deserve.

So what did I find? The mainstream media - yes, that organization I essentially buried for the last two days - led the coverage. But there was one major exception - Dan Drezner live-blogged the event at his new FP blog. He essentially took quotes from the speech and gave a few thoughts on the Q&A session. It's worth a look.

I found it interesting that both CFR and the Fed haven't done more to make this information more accessible via social media channels. CFR only made Bernanke's remarks available as a pdf document and not html. The Federal Reserve's website did publish the text for all to see without downloading. Neither site gave the option of bookmarking or sharing the remarks or asked for comment.

Since I'm addicted to wordle, Here's the "speech cloud" for Bernanke at CFR:



The first bit of analysis I saw - not much more than a quote, but it's the context more than the content here - came from a Wall Street Journal blog post. I also saw quick responses from BBC ("Worst Crisis Since 1930's"), the New York Times and Associated Press ("Bernanke Says Regulatory Overhaul Needed").

I did catch some twitter chatter. It's interesting to see which news outlets are using Twitter (in multiple languages to just push content out like an RSS feed, and who's actually using Twitter to comment:

• Nieuwslijstnl: Bernanke: meer internationale financiële regels (BNR Nieuwsradio) http://www.nieuwslijst.nl/t/13138 10 minutes ago from web · Reply · View Tweet
• VanessaAlvarez1: Bernanke: :We may see a recovery of the economy as early as this year", depends on the banks 10 minutes ago from web · Reply · View Tweet
• RTLZ: RTLZ Nieuws: Bernanke: meer internationale financiële regulering, herstel in 2009?: Regeringen werel.. http://tinyurl.com/bhno7w (expand)
  10 minutes ago from twitterfeed · Reply · View Tweet
• cajunmaverick: Wait, did I hear Bernanke say we need to get rid of mark-to-market accounting? #tcot 11 minutes ago from TweetDeck · Reply · View Tweet
• Indexhirek: Gazdaság: Bernanke: Meglepő, milyen mély a válság: Az amerikai jegybank elnöke szerint akkor érhet vég.. http://tinyurl.com/dmkf57 (expand)
  11 minutes ago from twitterfeed · Reply · View Tweet
• ftuseconomy: Bernanke urges regulatory overhaul http://tinyurl.com/cp3qqm (expand) 12 minutes ago from twitterfeed · Reply · View Tweet

• itzpapalotl: I know it's probably just me, but Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke is kinda hot. 17 minutes ago from twhirl · Reply · View Tweet
  
  
• capitalbeat: Bernanke Says More Study on "Mark to Market" Would Be "Useful" http://tinyurl.com/bdgmh3 (expand) 18 minutes ago from twitterfeed · Reply · View Tweet
• syafiza: Bernanke: Reform before rebound: U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke says economic recovery hinges on sta.. http://tinyurl.com/cf3ylu (expand)
  18 minutes ago from twitterfeed · Reply · View Tweet
• thebodybreaks: Worst crisis since 1930s says Fed: US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke says the world is suffering from the wo.. http://tinyurl.com/cmm4ac (expand)

Let me stress that I do NOT necessarily share the above expressed opinions, especially @itzpapalotl.

How to save journalism from the news industry

Yesterday's post showed what went wrong with corporate news. Today, here are a few simple ideas to protect the most important thing the news industry provides - investigative reporting. These are just my ideas, and I'm happy to hear any criticism from people who would shoot them down.

Let reporters be entrepreneurs, reporting from anywhere. This is harsh, but the business model newspapers currently use has to change dramatically, and employees of those companies have to embrace the change. Right now major papers and networks hire reporters who only write or report for them. I think reporters could be more entrepreneurial - work for themselves, and shop their product to the networks who need them. (yes, I know these people are called "freelancers." I'm saying we need them to be the rule, not the exception.) I'm not talking about McClatchy. I'm talking about McClatchy 2.0.

The models already exist online - I've said it before: if you want to see the news network of the future, just look at Global Voices Online or Green Options today. These networks leverage resources (i.e., writers) that are already in the places old-school networks would establish bureaus. Most of these independent writers already have their own platforms - and since they're freelancers, they have the ability to shop their work to a number of outlets at once. Right now it may seem weird to think you'd see the same reporter working for multiple papers or networks. But I follow the reporters I think do the best work, just as I look to specific bloggers who demonstrate their expertise in certain subjects. You could still have one network send a particular reporter to, say, a war zone and pay their way for exclusive content. But getting paid by the job might work best for both sides.

This business model would still be ad-driven, I think. I like the pro publica idea but it's limited to the resources of the foundation community. BBC is also an interesting model but difficult to justify in the US.

Strengthen FOIA laws and educate the public on how to use them. Let's face it - while most bloggers aren't journalists, the "citizen journalist" is here to stay. The truth is any citizen can request information from their state or local government under either the Freedom of Information Act or a state equivalent. But most government agencies don't make FOIA compliance a priority. It's time to change that. In the social media age, a person's individual information is shared in a few clicks. If we can do that to people, we should be able to do that to the government. The challenge here is arranging the information agencies and congressional sources generate in an accessible format.

Expand the universe of reliable sources. Newspapers like to demonize social media, but they sure do use a lot of social media tools these days. Most daily papers have dozens of blogs and even "Twitter feeds." They just don't use them strategically.

For example, Twitter is quickly becoming the best source of breaking news I know. But right now newspapers only use Twitter and other tools like it to speak, not to listen. There are over six million potential sources available to any reporter with an internet connection or a cell phone. Crowdsourced news needs verification but it's an amazingly effective tool if you know how to use it.

Learn from the people who are already doing it. Independent journalists like Mark Rendeiro ("Bicycle Mark" from Citizen Reporter) use blogs and podcasts along with social networks like dopplr to build a following and share their work. Some of the other things that really impress me about this guy: he doesn't hide his world view, he works hard to make sure his work is accurate, he corrects his mistakes, he always tries to give those he criticizes an opportunity to respond, and he follows up his stories.

You know, like an ethical journalist.

There are a number of other ideas out there - I'd love to hear some from others.

I come to praise newspapers, not to bury them. OK, maybe I do come to bury them.

This is a rant - the first part of a 2-post gig. I'll offer my solutions to save investigative journalism tomorrow.

Watching and listening to the news industry's collective hand-wringing and navel-gazing about the impending or actual demise of some of its most storied names - Rocky Mountain News, Philadelphia Inquirer, Seattle P-I, Chicago Tribune, McClatchy, and so on - leaves a rather bitter taste in my mouth.

This isn't going to be one of those posts about how the blogosphere killed newspapers. (I wrote about corporate media's five stages of grief nearly a year ago.) It didn't. Dozens of factors led to this decline. It will take dozens of significant steps to save the most important thing newspapers give us - investigative journalism.

To me, the bottom line here is simple - the quality of the product has diminished. Instead of being truly innovative, the corporate leaders of the news industry has taken one model and driven it into the ground - and in the process they've lost credibility and effectiveness. Here are just some of the ways they've done that.

The fundamental lie of being unbiased. There isn't a single news outlet - not today on in the history of mankind - that has been unbiased. Not even close. It's just not possible for a human to exist without bias of some kind. (for the record, the media does NOT have a liberal bias, or a conservative bias. It has always had a NEGATIVE bias.) So every time a news outlet claims to be "fair and balanced" or giving "just the facts" or "no bias, no bull" they lose a bit more of whatever credibility they have left. Everyone has a point of view. Just say so. People look for news to fit their world view. They really do. Let people know yours and let the market decide. I'm guessing there's plenty of variety there for multiple outlets to grow and thrive.

An amazingly thin skin. I've been in politics and communications in one way or another for nearly 20 years now, and I've seen my share of politicians and businesses bristle at criticism from journalists. But I've also seen how rarely newspapers correct their mistakes - and when they do, it's in a small section near the back. I've witnessed far too many "media panels" where journalists do the same type of back-slapping and excuse-making that politicians and CEO's do. If I hear one more reporter call for a "blogger ethics panel" I'm gonna puke. Look in the mirror.

Dropping the ball. I'm biased here, but I don't think it's a stretch to say a lot of corporate media did more cheerleading than reporting in the lead-up to the Iraq war. I'm amazed at how hard news outlets today are advertising the fact that they'll be "keeping the Obama Administration honest" and I keep wondering where that sentiment was in 2002 and 2003. Perhaps you can't go back in time and maybe the best thing you can do is keep government accountable moving forward, but it's not as if the Bush Administration is ancient history. I still think there are plenty of good and important stories that deserve resources and attention. We need to know more about issues such as torture and secret renditions, and the politicization of the Justice Department, and the decisions that led to America's greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. If the corporate media spent half the resources on these issues as, say, earmarks that anyone can find by reading the damn bill, then I'd think much more highly of them. News outlets really don't have a lot of fans among conservatives. The light touch they gave the Bush Administration for so long lost them a lot of supporters among liberals as well. They still don't have them back.

Bad business decisions. Hey, I'm not a corporate whiz. But it occurs to me that when you have substantial revenue and relatively fixed costs, you should be able to turn a profit. Most newspapers still have decent revenue, and have the same kinds of cost issues that other companies do. When corporate parents take on the kinds of debt they did, that's a problem. When they do nothing but complain when consumers found other sources of information, Charles Darwin smiles and says "I told you so."

Still thinking it's a lecture. This is the fundamental point that many newspapers and corporate media outlets still don't understand. Brian Williams still doesn't like the fact that he has to compete against Vinny the basement-dwelling blogger and he doesn't get Twitter. That's fine. Brian Williams is smart, works hard, and is a really good journalist who tries to be creative and deserves the success he has, so he doesn't really have to worry about Vinny or telling people what he's doing. The problem is when his network and so many other networks out there want to use the tools that bloggers use but still want to own and control all the content. Everyone gets to talk and everyone should listen now. Brian Williams shouldn't try to control the discussion. He should take heart that he's offering the best stuff in it. But if he tries to denounce Vinny or suggest his opinions or contributions are somehow less important than others, Brian is in trouble. Let the contributions and opinions speak for themselves. Cream will still rise to the top.

Tomorrow, how we rescue investigative journalism from the news industry.

Now THAT'S what I call good video editing

Have a great weekend.

David's Green Picks of the Week

More green reading this week:

Wind Power: Subsidies Are Nice, But Strong Winds Are Nicer by Keith Johnson. That's why companies like 3Tier Group (full disclosure - they're a client) are so important - they help show you where the strong wind is...

Clean Energy Quick Clicks by Maria Surma Manka. It's like David's Green Picks of the Week, only by someone named Maria with impeccable green credentials.

Small Business Wins Grant for Green Fast Food by Tina Casey. Stunning revelations about underfired charbroilers. Seriously. And I kinda like the idea of EPA helping businesses go green as opposed to, say, not. (kidding.) (sorta.)

Emerging Careers: The Exploding Solar Industry by Frank Marquardt. See, it used to be that you could only work your way out of a recession by increasing economic growth, and increased growth always meant more pollution, which caused more externalities and eventually slowed the economy again. This is why the stimulus bill is so revolutionary - "green growth" or "smart growth" or whatever you want to call it actually serves to stimulate the economy while limiting externalities. Think of it as strong coffee that wakes you up but doesn't make you jumpy after 2 cups.

SEIU's "Scary Movie"

I think the social media folks at SEIU (hey there, Brad) may be on to something - one way to get your message across online is to mock your opponent for being over the top. So they're pushing out a video that highlights some of the more, umm, colorful comments from the business community on the Employee Free Choice Act:



I think they're distributing this video out rather aggressively. There's been a discussion of the legislation on the merits inside the beltway but to be candid I haven't seen a lot about it here in the Bluegrass beyond snippets of political rhetoric. Of course, the online audience that will be interested in this video probably already understands the merits of the argument. I think if this video is part of a series that includes another video that explains, in simple terms, what the legislation is and what it does for working families SEIU may be able to expand its online base a bit. They could effectively use humor in such a video.

There may already be such a video out there. If not, I think that's something else to keep Brad and his SEIU buddies busy.

The Mom-O-Sphere Goes Corporate and Cultures Clash

I've been watching with interest some of the discussions taking place in the Mom-o-sphere. (hey, it's my job.)

Specifically, I'm interested in a couple of posts from Kristen Chase and Liz Gumbinner - you may have heard of them as the co-founders of Cool Mom Picks. In a very real sense, they represent an important case study in next-gen online entrepreneurship.

In addition to CMP, Kristen and Liz have built strong online platforms (i.e., personal blogs) that have attracted a significant readership - and in doing so, they've gained the attention of marketing and PR firms. No surprise there. Further, beyond the raw numbers of unique visitors and inbound links, the above-average flacks will see the value that Kristen and Liz demonstrate as credible and influential members of an important community. I still remember Liz essentially shutting up an executive from the Conference Board who questioned the validity of social media metrics with a single line - "how do you measure the value of placing a can of Diet Coke in George Clooney's hand?"

(WARNING: I'm gonna get all PR-speak for a second. I'm even gonna use pictures. Don't worry, though - we'll get through this.)

However, I think Kristen and Liz (and dozens of other online moms) are frustrated right now because they thrive in a multi-directional communications environment that depends on transparency and encourages people to participate in multiple community discussions. (You know, SOCIAL media. It's SOCIAL.) The environment they and other online moms have entered - the world where you get paid essentially for what you do and what you write - is still largely transactional and one-way, tends to be more opaque, and emphasizes hitting a very specific demographic and staying there. To me, the old PR/marketing world looks like this:

THE OLD LECTURE



So a company's message gets shaped and filtered through media to an audience, who simply receives it and acts accordingly. Companies and their PR firms simply expect bloggers to serve as one of those intermediate media outlets in the middle. It's much easier for them, because they've done this forever and really aren't interested in doing it differently because that would cost time and money. But then there's...

THE NEW CONVERSATION



Today's reality simply shows that companies are just one player in a larger group discussion. Yes, the traditional media is there and they still wield disproportionate influence on opinion and behavior. But in this world, everybody talks and (hopefully) everybody listens. I could put any number of communities up here and even more arrows, but I hope you get the picture.

(OK, I got that out of my system. It's ridiculous, I know.)

Call it whatever you want - new media rules vs. old media rules, the people who "get it" vs. the people who don't, or even good vs. evil - the bottom line is the two worlds operate on different terms and it's an enormous struggle to find a situation where both companies and bloggers are completely comfortable.

So Liz gets frustrated when she sees other moms who don't necessarily assert their position in the new communications environment, or worse, disclose that they're getting compensated for what they publish. And Kristen gets frustrated when the organizers of a marketing conference choose to introduce her with a "dramatic reading" of one of her sassier posts - positioning her as the "prominent mom" that transactional marketers value - and not with a rundown of her entrepreneurial endeavors or her expertise. That's more than a "personal branding" issue - it's a reflection of conflicting corporate cultures.

And they both get demonstrably upset when PR flacks treat them as they'd treat any other media outlet, only with less attention to detail.

I can say that some of us in the PR/social media world are struggling with the same issues that Kristen and Liz are. As they try to explain the new reality to flacks, we're trying to do the same to some of our clients, and even some of our colleagues.

Moving forward, I see three options:

• the moms (and everyone else) do everything they can to accomodate the institutional flackitude, since PR firms have the money and the stuff they want;
• the PR/marketing world moves to accomodate bloggers and other social media mavens; or
  
• the two groups meet somewhere in the middle.

This is typically where the "meet in the middle" option presents itself as the moderate and essentially preferable model, but I tend to lean toward the flacks accomodating the bloggers. The larger communications environment continues to evolve toward the social media model. Even mainstream media is starting to adopt social media tools, even if they're not yet completely embracing the concept of multi-directional communication - so we should try to get ahead of it . The cost of publishing high-quality multimedia continues to decline, giving more people a voice and the ability to persuade larger groups of people. Finally, I've found that the more you can accomodate people where they are, on their terms, the more success you have. If someone wants to try to accomodate me, that's great - but I can't and shouldn't expect it.