Personal accountability, crisis communication and the Patriots

Is there more to it than rings?

UPDATE: Consensus from the media is that Belichick did a very good job and put a lot of questions to rest.  I doubt the questions will stop, and the organization still has some work to do with internal communications and community relations.  But it seems as though there's been a turning point.

A lot of people think the coach of the New England Patriots has some explaining to do.  He will have his chance this Wednesday at 2pm when he meets the media a couple of days before training camp starts for the New England Patriots.

Many Americans and most American sports fans are aware of the horrific crimes that authorities allege former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez committed earlier this year. However it's not the only challenge to confront this team in the offseason. The so-called "Patriots Way" of obtaining talented players with questionable backgrounds at a discounted price has backfired in the worst possible fashion. So once again we have a crisis communications case study from the world of sports unfolding before us.

So far I think the team's reaction to the crisis has been pretty good, though not perfect.  They took quick and decisive action at an appropriate time, even though they would take a larger "salary cap" hit by doing so, making them a bit less competitive on the field.  They made a (largely symbolic) act of contrition by holding an event where fans could trade in their Aaron Hernandez jerseys for the jerseys of other team members.  Most importantly, the CEO made a public statement that was sincere and candid, acknowledging shortcomings and promising changes.

Where they've fallen short, however, is in the area of transparency. Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, who everyone knows makes the decisions on personnel, has had nothing to say about the Hernandez case (or about the other player with serious legal troubles, cornerback Alfonso Dennard). The team also came very close to signing another player with an, ahem, gun problem before backing out at the last minute.  They haven't said why. 

So I think it's smart to have the coach talk to the media about this ahead of camp, address the issues now, and eliminate the distraction as much as possible. However, Belichick isn't known for his warmth and grace at the podium or on the field. He's earned a reputation as someone who refuses to share information and stonewalls the media as much as possible. 

I think Belichick needs to strike a careful balance here. He has a lot of audiences to worry about. Players want to see a man who won't sell them out if they get into trouble. Fans want to see wins, but the community at large wants to know the coach understands he made a huge mistake here.  Further, the team could still get sued for any number of reasons. The team wants to draw a line between what they should have known and not just what they shouldn't but what they couldn't.

If the coach does what he's typically done on controversial topics - basically evade the question with a throwaway phrase like "I can only talk about the players that are here" - his reputation will rightfully get crushed.  This one is different. Someone is dead. If the coach begs off like that, the media will immediately go to the victim's family for a reaction. I think the coach will acknowledge the situation and express his sympathies for the victim's family.  I think he may acknowledge that he messed up, and he may echo what his boss said about re-evaluating how they evaluate players,  though I doubt he will get into detail.  I'm not convinced that's enough, but we will see.   Specifically, I think someone will ask him about how he holds himself accountable, and I think Belichick will defer to his boss. 

Finally, I'm very curious to know how the team has handled internal communication - not just to players but to all the employees.  Hernandez may be the player with the worst offense, but he's certainly not the first player on the team with a troubled history of violence. Employees deserve to know that they work in a safe environment, and that the leadership of the team isn't looking the other way with a maniac just because he can catch a football. I'm a bit surprised this hasn't come up.

We will see what happens Wednesday...

Crisis Communications and Social Media

I read a piece by Chris Syme called "Five Social Media Must-Haves for Crisis." Nothing about it seemed wrong to me - she listed 5 tools you should have if your company faces a crisis.  She included a dark website (i.e. a page you can make public in the event of a crisis), a Facebook page, a Twitter account, some monitoring systems, and a policy for your company on social media.  All good things, all useful, all important.

I think she left the most important one out - so important that she'd probably suggest it goes without saying, but in my experience I've had to say it - you need relationships.

Companies who are bracing themselves or preparing for a crisis need to take stock of the people who might rush to their aid (or at least provide a kind word) online.  I've been harping on this for some time now:

So if you're an organization in the middle of a crisis, you can't depend on news organizations to bring ample, experienced resources to bear and you can't depend on "some guy on Twitter" to get all the facts, what do you do? I say prepare for your crisis now. Build up more sophisticated monitoring systems that incorporate social media tools. Understand how information travels today - for example pay attention to the large and growing network of journalists on Twitter, and create lists of beat and trade reporters and other influentials. Most importantly - build relationships with those influential people now. Their learning curve isn't as steep because they already know you and your organization if and when a crisis hits. They will also be more likely to seek out your opinion or give you the benefit of the doubt. You're never going to get everything 100 percent right in a crisis, but these steps give you a fighting chance.

Emphasis mine. Again.

What, no Pulitzer? - the evolution of crisis communications

Yesterday the Pulitzer Prizes were awarded, and several people noted that for the first time no award was given in the category of "Breaking News Reporting" in a year filled with major disasters.  The reason given by the selection committee - the entries weren't impressive enough - strikes me as missing the mark.  Sad as it sounds, 2010 was a banner year for crises and crisis communications.  However, this development prompts us to examine how "breaking news" is compiled, processed and shared today.

First, we all know that financial pressures facing media companies have rocked journalism.  Corporate news organizations have cannibalized their news reporting functions for several years now.  Our largest media outlets are closing entire bureaus.  Daily papers and TV stations in mid-sized cities are lucky to have even a handful of news reporters working full-time. Independent reporting in radio (other than public radio) is virtually gone.  As seasoned (and therefore expensive) reporters leave, institutional memory goes with them.  So when a crisis hits, editors throw any and all resources they have at the story - and a huge chunk of the resources left are in the sports department.  So the 25-year old kid who has 2 years of experience quoting cliches from the local basketball coach is suddenly the "man on the scene" and the local weatherman is tabbed as the source of "expert commentary."   Local journalists have had no time to get badly needed background and context and they're immediately playing catch-up.  Product quality definitely suffers.

Second, social media tools have turned us all into breaking news reporters.  Individuals using Twitter broke the stories of Captain Sully's amazing landing in the Hudson, the gunman at the Discovery Channel building, the terror attacks in Mumbai, and even a fire in the Old Executive Office Building.   These tools have given people the ability to "fact check" reports (like the protests in the Middle East) and crowdsource information so you can get an amazingly accurate and fast picture of events - if you know who to follow.  However, I'm not completely comfortable getting my news from "some guy on Twitter."  The core process of journalism is easily lost here.

So if you're an organization in the middle of a crisis, you can't depend on news organizations to bring ample, experienced resources to bear and you can't depend on "some guy on Twitter" to get all the facts, what do you do? I say prepare for your crisis now.   Build up more sophisticated monitoring systems that incorporate social media tools.  Understand how information travels today - for example pay attention to the large and growing network of journalists on Twitter, and create lists of beat and trade reporters and other influentials.   Most importantly - build relationships with those influential people now.  Their learning curve isn't as steep because they already know you and your organization if and when a crisis hits.  They will also be more likely to seek out your opinion or give you the benefit of the doubt.  You're never going to get everything 100 percent right in a crisis, but these steps give you a fighting chance.

Media Overhype and the Profound Wisdom of the Warlock Assassin

Over the past week I've watched with everyone else the nightmare that's happening in Japan.  I've seen the surreal videos, the ongoing drama of the situation at Fukushima, and the incessant commentary on it.

The team at Global Voices Online asked me to provide a summary of what science bloggers were saying about the whole mess, and I have two posts there now - one that provides explanations of earthquakes and tsunamis, and one that looks at what's being said about the partial nuclear meltdown.

I'm really struck by two things, however.  First, the panic the US media has instilled in everyone through their horror-movie graphics and end-of-days tone.   Earlier this week I heard Eliot Spitzer teasing upcoming segments on CNN by saying things like "is the situation as bad as the pictures tell us, or is it even worse?" and then peppering people on his show with questions like "so what is the worst-case scenario for us here."  Never mind that the worst-case scenario isn't close to being the most likely scenario, but hey, if it bleeds it leads.

The next morning CNN reports that people in the United States are stocking up on iodine pills, despite the fact that they're not even remotely necessary here and these pills have some side effects.   And I do note the irony that the media reports on the frenzy it helped create.

The second thing that strikes me is how amazingly polarized the discussion about energy is becoming, and how that is affecting our willingness and ability to plan. Rita King wrote a great piece at the Scientific American Guest Blog and summed it up thusly:

Opinions around nuclear energy tend to be binary, with industry proponents acting as if nothing could possibly go wrong while critics, terrified of nuclear apocalypse, remain convinced that old nuclear plants are time bombs.

She's right.   A very significant portion (though not all) of the environmental movement is now NO NUKES- NO WAY.  Make it 100 percent safe before you do it.  But the truth is there's no such thing as a 100 percent safe anything - particularly when it comes to energy.  Coal mines will cave in from time to time.  Oil rigs will explode.  Hurricanes will hit refineries.  Even windmills have their issues (though not nearly on the same scope).  And we sometimes forget that we have enormous energy needs and the only way we can meet those needs right now is through those high-yield, high-emission fossil fuels.

What's worse to me, though, is the PR position of the energy industry - perhaps in reaction to the environmentalists, but I think more likely in reaction to the regulatory environment - the idea that so many things that could go wrong are simply not possible.  The messaging apparently became part of the culture at BP and other companies.  It's why you submit a disaster response plan for the Gulf of Mexico that's simply cut and pasted from your disaster response plan for Alaska.  It's not like anything's going to happen anyway, so who cares?

We have moved forward on energy siting and building decisions with an incomplete notion of contingencies.  And of course, this isn't isolated only to the energy sector - essentially any company or government or NGO that has anything that serves as a potential risk is vulnerable.

Shockingly, so much of this can be resolved by following the advice of Charlie Sheen, the self-described warlock assassin with tiger blood coursing through his veins - PLAN BETTER.  Seriously, suck it up and acknowledge that crazy stuff can and eventually will happen and you should be ready for it.  Embracing this notion will make companies more, not less credible with their neighbors, customers and the media. The evidence that we don't do enough of this is staring us in the face in the Gulf of Mexico, in coal mines in West Virginia, and in Fukushima.

It's Official: Nomenclature Is a Weapon of Mass Destruction

this is what happens when oxygen levels drop in the ocean

It's a common practice in politics and PR. The easiest way to avoid responsibility for something is to just call it something else. Put it in another category and wait for people to focus on the next outrage.  It usually works.   The most salient example in recent memory is the depraved attempt to define waterboarding as something other than torture. Sure, the media covered the issue well for a while, but it's not as if anyone has ever truly been held accountable for torturing people. The experts on the topic never had a chance against a PR strategy run by political consultants.  That's because "experts" - scientists, academics, intellectuals - really have no serious influence in policy when it matters most.  (Seriously, they don't.  I'll debate anyone, anytime on this.)

Now nomenclature has suddenly (and perhaps officially)  made millions upon millions of gallons of oil miraculously disappear from the Gulf of Mexico.  A report earlier this month from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports:

The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed  much of which is in the process of being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts.

Which in government-PR speak means "we won't be spending a ton more time or money dealing with this because the way we've defined it, we're almost done fixing it. So chill out.  We got this."

Enter the scientific community, led by some really outstanding researchers from The University of Georgia. (Goooooooo DAWGS.)  They took a look at what the government said and then looked at what's actually going on and had this to say:

“One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless,” said Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant and professor of marine sciences in the University of Georgia Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade. We are still far from a complete understanding of what its impacts are....

The group analyzed data from the Aug. 2 National Incident Command Report, which calculated an “oil budget” that was widely interpreted to suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the spill remained.

Hopkinson notes that the reports arrive at different conclusions largely because the Sea Grant and UGA scientists estimate that the vast majority of the oil classified as dispersed, dissolved or residual is still present, whereas the NIC report has been interpreted to suggest that only the “residual” form of oil is still present. 

This is science-speak for "Yeah, ummm... dudes?  Not so much.  'Dispersed' doesn't mean 'gone.'"  There is no doubt that the ecological impacts of this spill will be devastating for years to come. And NOAA is spinning it.  The media, to their credit, took the UGA folks seriously.

comes with a side of defibrillator

Here's how I might try to explain it.  First, grab a Double Coronary Burger, which can be found at the Vortex Bar & Grill in Atlanta - probably less than 2 hours from UGA.  (I learned about it at the website This Is Why You're Fat.)  The Double Coronary features a burger topped with five slices of bacon, four slices of cheese, two fried eggs, mayo, lettuce, tomato, and onion between two grilled cheese sandwiches.

Now, cut it in half.  Cut the halves in half, and eat one of the quarters.  Try not to die. Take another quarter and put it on another plate.


Take the remaining two quarters and cut them in half.  Then cut all those pieces in half.  Then repeat this until you basically have a bunch of little pieces of heart attack smeared all over a plate.  Then spray that smushed up death plate with some liquid borax or something like that.

Then take both plates, head over to the local supermarket, and dump the plates into the lobster tank and see what happens.  (Be prepared to pay for all the lobster. And maybe the tank.)


I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure our government would be pleased if you thought the borax-infused death smear in front of you doesn't really exist any more because it's in a bunch of little pieces.  You really only need to worry about that quarter on the other plate, and that's going away naturally or something.  

And when the borax-infused death smear makes its way up the food chain?  You can be damn sure the company that gets sued for selling food that got someone sick will say the government told everyone it was ok, so they shouldn't be held responsible.

This is what a blogging exodus looks like

As you know I've been following the developments at Scienceblogs.  I've read all of the departure posts from the Sciblings in exile.  Just for kicks, I thought it would be interesting to see if all the "resignations" struck common themes.  Here's what I got from pushing all the farewell posts from the bloggers listed on Carl Zimmer's post through the cloud generator at Wordle.  For those who may not know how it works, you enter the text and it spits out a graphical representation of the discussion - the more often a word is used, the larger it appears in the cloud.  It's not scientific analysis but it's nice to look at and it starts discussions.

I think it's interesting, though not surprising, that the writers there are / were far more interested in the ScienceBlogs network, and not Pepsi.  This is intriguing from a corporate crisis PR perspective - while Pepsico isn't exactly called a good guy in all this, the consensus among the bloggers is this had very little to do with Pepsico and very little to do with what Pepsico wanted to discuss.  It was always about transparency and accountability.  I also find it interesting that only 2 names showed up - Adam Bly, the CEO, and Bora Zivkovic, the heart & soul of the science blogging community.

I do think it's a positive development that the management from Scienceblogs has tried to establish a dialogue with the remaining bloggers. Seems like the strike has been called off.   It's true: ScienceBlogs still has some good blogging.  It's also interesting to learn how some of these bloggers have some unique multi-tasking skills. 

There has been some significant damage done, however, and the plan to rebuild trust and reputation must begin in earnest.  Bora is right that the science blogging ecosystem has evolved quickly, and the old-school thinking (and old-school response time) is a great threat to the network there.  I notice that Adam Bly still hasn't addressed the substance of this at his own blog.  That's a problem.

Readers deserve to know what's happening too.

Hey Gulf Coast Scientists - Don't Sign Those Contracts Yet

It's not at all surprising to read reports that BP is trying to "buy up Gulf scientists for legal defense" or to require that those in their employ not share anything with third parties.   Companies hire "expert witnesses" all the time and they expect those witnesses to sign confidentiality agreements.  It's standard practice.

It's also not at all surprising that BP is trying to sign on as many scientists as possible - doing so prevents plaintiffs (and media outlets) from talking with credible voices who might provide a point of view contrary to BP's interests.  It's a sound legal strategy, and it's a sound PR strategy.  As Rachel Maddow suggested,  does leave that smarmy bada-bing taste in your mouth, but it makes sense.

What is surprising is how little BP expects to pay the people who may ultimately may save their company:

More than one scientist interviewed by the Press-Register described being offered $250 an hour through BP lawyers. At eight hours a week, that amounts to $104,000 a year.

Let's be clear:  BP isn't hiring scientists to learn about the impact of oil on ocean life.  It isn't hiring scientists to assess flow rates, or review spill response, or learn how robot-guided diamond saws work a mile below the surface. BP is hiring scientists to limit the amount of money they'll have to pay in fines and settlements, and to control as much information as possible to limit the harm to its reputation.

If your role is really to provide expert-level credentials to a high-stakes legal and PR strategy, $250 an hour is chump change for a huge company like BP.  The best law firms and PR firms in America would charge probably double that right now.  For these firms, "crisis rates" tend to be higher because you're asking people to drop what they're doing with existing clients and work 24-7 for you. 

I have conversations with my wife the PhD all the time about how scientists are under-valued and PR flacks are over-priced.   The simple truth is both are paid what the market will bear.  I'm guessing scientists can demand a lot more for their services right now.

Seriously, if you're gonna work for these guys, don't settle for anything less than $500 an hour.

Earth & Industry's Gang of Four - The Deepwater Horizon Debacle

It's been a crazy few weeks but I did manage to get 12 minutes with my pals at Earth & Industry - Tim Hurst, Maria Surma Manka, and Jeff McIntire-Strasburg - for another podcast about the debacle in the gulf.

Here's where I think we are.  BP continues to stonewall and mislead people. They have zero credibility. In fact, they have negative credibility - they say something and I tend to believe the opposite - thanks to the fact that they apparently photoshoped a fake picture of a "command center" and put it on their website. 

The federal government continues to look at BP and say "fix it," without knowing what else to do.   Scientists continue to be marginalized, despite a few decent stories.  Politicians on the gulf coast are grandstanding and offering some pretty stupid ideas.  People are fighting over money that's been committed but not dispersed yet.

And I have this sinking feeling that we don't know the worst of it.

Then I see this:



I have a couple of problems with it - first, there's no real context. There's no explanation of "parts per million" and just how many parts per million pose a threat. The pictures are creepy, and having a "chemist" say there should be zero oil in the water is somewhat credible, but I think you need to go the extra mile when putting something this sensationalist on the air and give people the background they need to understand what's harmful and what's not.

Whither ScienceBlogs?

UPDATE:  Bora's leaving.  He's my favorite.  Wow.

I've watched the science blogging community blow its collective stack about "Pepsi-gate," the quickly-canceled sponsored content blog hosted at Seed Media's ScienceBlogs called "Food Frontiers" that featured scientists (and, perhaps, their lawyer-approved ghostwriters) from Pepsi writing about nutrition issues.

The folks at SB made two big mistakes - they botched the disclosure of the sponsorship, and they did a less-than-stellar job telling the other SB contributors that the sponsored blog was coming.   These mistakes, along with some issues that may have been percolating for a while there, prompted at least a dozen bloggers to leave the SB community. (Bora kept a decent list of reactions to it here.)

Shortly after the pepsipocalypse, The CEO of Seed Media started his own blog on SB.  His introductory post said he'd be addressing the issue, but in the two weeks following none of the posts he's published ever addressed the substance of it.   I'd argue that's mistake number three - but the fact that the management addressed the issue a bit in a pair of posts at Page 3.14 mitigates this somewhat.  This is the most important passage in a post there, written by the CEO: 

We apologize for what some of you viewed as a violation of your immense trust in ScienceBlogs. Although we (and many of you) believe strongly in the need to engage industry in pursuit of science-driven social change, this was clearly not the right way.

I've worked in the public affairs industry for some time now, and I've done my share of crisis communications work.  I've done work for more than one major, multi-national beverage company - though I've never worked for Pepsi, and I'm not doing any work for beverage companies now.  I'm also a longtime fan of science blogs and science writing generally.  I've had discussions with people who write for SB, people who read SB, and people who follow the PR issues around SB.   So I hope I have something of value to contribute here.

From a crisis PR perspective, what SB should do is relatively simple - it's basically a by-the-book response.  Acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, and explain how you won't let it happen again. (the post I linked to above is a decent start, but not close to sufficient.)  Do this emphatically and repeatedly for a while.  Avoid the passive voice, or qualifiers to your apology or explanation. Embrace the bottom line - you screwed up, you're sorry, you won't do it again, and you're implementing substantive changes.  Let the aggrieved parties know that you really care about them.  Then shut up and listen for a while. Make at least some of the changes those aggrieved parties recommend.

Having gone through this process with clients a few times, I know it's a lot harder than it looks.  People have pride. They may feel that not all the facts are getting out there.  They may be worried about liability, and they retreat to a bunker, thinking they should remain silent until the whole thing blows over.  Sometimes they feel they really haven't done anything wrong, even if the wrongdoing is obvious to everyone else.  When it's your company, or your organization, or your reputation, these are all understandable reactions. The actions these reactions prompt, however, typically make matters much worse.

From an issues management perspective, the desire to partner with SB is a no-brainer.  SB's brand is enormously credible, thanks to the contributions of the bloggers there. Of course Pepsi would want a space there. When making soft drinks is your core business, you're going to have challenges to your reputation on health, environment and science grounds. You have to be creative to address those challenges, and building relationships with "validating third parties" is one of the things you do.

Further, it's not like Pepsi is some fly-by-night operation.  Their communications team isn't a bunch of idiots. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt they had any intention of hiding the fact that this was sponsored content, written by Pepsi employees.   Frankly I don't think SB had any intention of hiding that relationship either.  I think the mistakes about disclosure are more likely the result of poor management of the relationship or poor communication between the parties involved.

That said, I don't question the decisions the now-former SB bloggers made to leave. For many of them, particularly the science journalists, objectivity is paramount. Sharing a blog platform with a network that has even the appearance of a conflict may be too much to risk. 

But it's as a fan of ScienceBlogs that I hope and expect the network will endure this, develop better internal systems of communication (particularly between management and the bloggers), and rebuild and strengthen their reputation and their credibility.  I've talked with enough people close to the situation to know the mistakes were unintentional and there are efforts underway to improve lines of communication there.  I hope they'll continue to apologize, and I hope they'll make the substantive changes necessary to survive.  They're a big part of a vibrant and important community.

Let's not forget why the sponsored blog came about in the first place.  The current business models for online publications don't work very well. The management is trying to find new revenue streams, and they're bound to make mistakes along the way.  I hope the people who protested this arrangement will be just as assertive and vocal about developing new ideas to sustain the community.

You can't compromise your integrity or your credibility, but I would think science bloggers understand this better than most: you have to adapt and evolve to survive.

A Joke Without A Punch Line

UPDATE: OK, this is substantial and frankly, historic. It was still a terrible speech, but the White House scored a major victory for those affected by this spill. I'll take crappy speeches if they're accompanied by real action any day.

The President's Speech as a Text Cloud

That's what I think of the President's speech last night.

Yes, this situation merits a strong communications response, and a speech from the Oval Office is one way to convey the sense of urgency the White House has finally embraced from a communications perspective.  But last night's speech convinced me the government doesn't have the ability to solve a fairly basic physics problem - prevent floating oil from reaching shore - let alone solve the ridiculously complex engineering problem of closing a gusher a mile below the surface.

We were told (again) that the government has thrown a lot of people out there, set a bunch of fires, laid out a ton of boom, and put a bunch of boats in the water.  We were told (again) that this is BP's fault, and they're going to pay for this mess. We were told (again) that bureaucrats are feverishly looking busy, with a brand new National Commission, a new person to run a federal agency, a separate panel of brainiacs, and some kind of idea storm thing led by the Secretary of the Navy.   And then we got the half-hearted "we need to stop being so dependent on oil" rhetoric that is SO twenty years ago, the "we'll do whatever it takes" thing and the pep-talky, schmaltzy appeal to people of faith wrap-up. Oh, and we learned that the President will actually be meeting the Chairman of BP on Wednesday - nearly two months after this thing happened.

Of course this is BP's mess and of course they'll (eventually, probably) be made to pay.  But what astonishes me is the underlying assumption that the company would ever do anything that wasn't in its immediate best interest.  BP is a company.  Companies exist for one reason - make profits for shareholders. 

There's money in deep water drilling, so they do as much as possible.  Disaster planning costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Taking the time to develop and publish real, site-specific reports for the govement costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Acknowledging the existence of subsurface oil plumes costs money, so they do as little as possible.  Pictures of dead, oil-soaked animals washing up on shore cost money, so they prevent as much of it as possible.   Respirators for cleanup crews cost money, so they buy as few as possible.  Demanding all sorts of paperwork from people who have been wiped out and filed claims saves money, so they do as much of it as possible. Meaningful climate change legislation costs money, so they fight it as much as possible.

None of this is excusable. All of this is predictable.

So rather than another speech that warms over last decade's talking points, rather than sending "we really mean it this time" letters -- LETTERS! -- to BP, rather than more commissions and blue-ribbon panels and asking the Secretary of the Navy to do something other than run the Navy, let's just take some baby steps here.

1. Until further notice, the world revolves around Thad Allen, the guy running the response efforts. He doesn't have to send letters to get a response.  He gets a cattle prod and he gets to shove it up the ass of anyone who stalls on him.
2. Rather than re-designing the Department of the Interior or writing some other massive bureaucratic opus, let's just agree it's a good idea to actually read the applications for drilling that are already submitted to it.  If the application mentions animals that don't live within thousands of miles of the area or it has dead people on its "who to call" list, deny the application.
3. Anyone who prevents journalists from doing their job is immediately sent to Thad Allen for cattle prodding. If the government really is "in charge," that means this is America's cleanup and Americans have a right to know what's really happening.

I'd have more ideas, but frankly I think that's about all the government can handle right now.

And this is why we have scientists (and public information officers)

Sifting through my twitter stream today (constantly in the background while I'm working) I see this nugget from Patric Lane at UNC - Chapel Hill:

Tip: if tmrw’s NOAA tests = positive match w/BP well http://ar.gy/Mt, UNC experts can explain oil plume phenom. http://ar.gy/N1less than a minute ago via Argyle SocialPatric Lane
patriclane

And I immediately thought how important it was that we have university-funded scientists who do this sort of thing. Patric linked to a YouTube video of some experiments performed at UNC-Chapel Hill that suggest how undersea oil plumes can form. Apparently it has something to do with whether the oil gushes out "in the form of a turbulent jet" or if it just seeps out, and variations in the density of water based on temperature and salt content.  Here's the video:



I also note these scientists estimate the oil flow rate at 56,000 barrels per day, considerably higher than BP's and the government's estimates.  The "third party" evaluators of this have been very forceful in asserting their opinions on this. In my experience scientists are actually very cautious bunch when it comes to making estimates like this; it's actually quite rare that scientists make such confident statements unless they're very sure of their work.

Last week I suggested university scientists were the real ones holding people accountable to the facts since BP's CEO flatly denied the existence of these plumes while the government was hesitant to acknowledge anything.  At least one scientist expressed grave concerns his work would be censored.

I can say this - if the University of South Florida comes back and confirms what many scientists expect them to, it's another blow to the credibility of those "officially" measuring the spill, and another reason to support your local university scientist.

Science, Politics, PR and Social Media

One of the biggest complaints I had about the previous administration was its hostility toward science on everything from climate change to sex education to stem cell research.   Scientific reports were edited and censored to conform to a political agenda.  Scientists were marginalized.  These guys were "creating their own reality," and facts weren't simply inconvenient, they were irrelevant.  There's a book all about it.

So when I see something like this it makes my blood boil.  Scientists are apparently being told by a government agency (in this case, NOAA) that any data from the gulf oil spill they collect while on that agency's boats may only be publicized with that agency's permission.   The debate right now is over the existence of huge subsurface plumes of oil - a group of scientists (including these folks - GO DAWGS) have collected data that suggests the size, location and density of these plumes, while BP's CEO says flatly "there are no plumes."  Right now the head of NOAA is calling the scientists' data "circumstantial."

I'm not a scientist, so let's just assume these oil plumes, if they exist, are probably "bad."  

I really don't have a problem with the NOAA head being careful and hesitant to come to any conclusions on the plumes - the language of science is typically cautious, focusing on limitations and generally leaving open the possibility of error.  (Yet another PR challenge for scientists.)  But I strongly believe that if government wants to regain trust - particularly when it comes to issues of science - they need to err on the side of sharing, not concealing.   Here's why.

Scientists share data.  It's what they do.  They collect data, analyze it, and then publish it.  That's essentially the entire job. Telling a scientist to stop sharing data is like telling a Red Sox fan to stop chanting "Yankees Suck."  Social media has helped scientists share data faster and more effectively than ever before.  Seriously, look at what the folks at Georgia and the University of South Florida and LSU and Southern Mississippi are doing. It's amazing stuff.  Then look more generally at what platforms like the Public Library of Science's PLOS One can do, providing open access to scientific research and then promoting that research.  No matter how hard you try to hide, say, a massive undersea oil plume - these folks are gonna find it and let others know.

Now of course the old political axiom "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" comes into play.  RULE NUMBER ONE in PR:  NEVER LIE.  Nothing good ever comes of it.  The truth reveals itself one drip at a time, and you just look like the guy who can't plug a massive leak.

The Fierce Urgency Of We'll Get Back To You

Contrary to my post of earlier this week, I do have a couple of observations on how social media has changed how we handle crises - specifically as they pertain to the oil spill - which conservative estimates now peg at almost double the size of the previous "worst spill" in US history (until they revise upward again).

First, social media gave smart people a platform to contribute and disseminate information, despite the fact that they were not in the inner circle of those dealing with the problem. I'm specifically thinking of the scientists who scoffed at the initial estimates of the rate of flowing oil from the pipe.   While BP has clear incentives to obfuscate or not measure the flow rate, NOAA doesn't.  What started on a small handful of mainstream outlets quickly exploded on blogs and Twitter.  The steady stream of criticism on this issue from both mainstream and online media channels meant that the government could not credibly maintain its "official" estimates.  

That's actually a very big win for transparency, and Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts deserves a lot of credit for this.  Markey and his staff have been tech-savvy for quite a while, and knew exactly how feasible it was to deliver a live video feed from the disaster site. It was a great idea  and it really took some guts to keep pushing for it. From a political perspective, the White House probably didn't need a constant visual reminder of their inability to fix this beamed directly to the world.

Second, social media in a wired country like the US just demonstrates how quickly and efficiently people can consume and process news today.  The news that the "top kill" approach may be working came just a few minutes before the news that the head of the Minerals Management Service had been asked to resign.  It came the day before the President was scheduled to visit the affected area and give a press conference.  It punctuated a month-long soap opera in which the feds in Washington seemed impotent at best.  Now (hopefully) the leak has been plugged before the President can tell us what he plans to do. 

TOO SLOW.

The social media-infused news cycle demands milestones and results.  It demands decisions and actions.  The political entities involved spoke only about process.  Whatever "threats" the government made have been essentially empty (see the whole dispersants issue).  The takeaways I got from the federal government's response: 

• They showed up at the platform "on day one" - and did what, exactly?
• They had a lot of boats around which I think set up some buoys and set patches of ocean on fire.
• They put a bunch of scientists in a room - no word on what ideas they generated, though.
• They told BP to stop using a particular dispersant but when BP said no they said OK.
• They continued to give out offshore drilling permits and waivers after the President said they wouldn't.
• They fired a person who had been on the job for less than a year.
• The president has shown less emotion on this crisis than Tiger Woods does when he hits a golf ball into a sand trap. Seriously.

Meanwhile, I've heard nothing about what we plan to do about these massive plumes of oil and chemicals meandering under the surface, and there are too many reports of people in Louisiana telling government and company representatives about oil washing up in front of them - and getting nothing more than "we'll get back to you."

Social media tools have the effect of pushing more, faster feedback on to you than you may be ready to handle.   Maybe this is a no-win situation.  It's certainly not a fair criticism of all the actions the feds HAVE taken, especially the amazing folks in the Coast Guard.  But each day they could be estimating how much damage they have prevented.  They know how much "oily water" they've recovered - 11.5 million gallons as of May 27.  How much oil is that?  What does that mean?  That might suggest what they're doing has made a real difference, and that's the story the government hasn't told.

Activists' New Secret Weapon: Databases

A while back I wrote about the "scariest mobile application EVAH," Good Guide.  It's a leader in a new and growing field of mobile applications that use barcode-scanning technology, GPS, and a variety of databases to tell consumers about the product they just scanned. These applications give consumers unprecedented information about products, brands, manufacturers, retailers, and pretty much anything else at the point of purchase.  They include the popular Red Laser, which lets you compare prices among stores in your area and online, and Label Lookup, a production of the Natural Resources Defense Council that helps you "find labels you can trust."

Tech-savvy and issue-conscious consumers will be getting information not only about how a given product is a buck cheaper down the road or online, but also anything a database of that consumer's choosing says about the product, brand, or company.  And remember, this information comes just moments before the point of purchase, giving the company almost no time to share its side of the story.  So when I tried Good Guide I learned that the makers of my breakfast cereal "violated the Clean Water Act."   I never got a link to the company's explanation.

So think about the databases out there. Think about current events and politics. It's not just review sites/apps like Yelp (dealing with a somewhat iffy reputation lately). It's not hard to imagine a mobile app that tells you:

• If the CEO of the company that made a product contributed to Proposition 8 (Human Rights Campaign could probably tell you)
• If the manufacturer is headquartered in Arizona, where you can now be pulled over for looking Hispanic (I'm thinking National Council of La Raza might be interested)
• If a company is a "union buster" (just a matter of time before SEIU launches this bad boy)
• Class action lawsuits filed against a company (ATLA, anyone?)

Building a comprehensive, accurate, and huge database for mobile apps to access takes time, talent, and resources.  Even the Red Laser database isn't all-encompassing. However, it's not nearly as hard as it used to be. Some database developers may sacrifice a bit of accuracy to get more volume or speed.  Some will probably be built by crowdsourcing - my favorite crowdsourced database comes from the brainiacs at Cornell who helped put the Great Backyard Bird Count online.   In the not-too-distant future, government databases will be accessible from your phone - a company's EDGAR filings with the SEC, actions brought by the EPA, and so on. 

So there are a few things companies should be doing YESTERDAY to protect their reputations and their brands:

• Upgrade your social media monitoring efforts to see what's written about you in all these mobile-accessed databases.  Good Guide is a start.  Make sure the info is accurate. Contact them if it's not.
• Build relationships with the folks who make these databases and these apps.  Understand their motivation, work with them to make sure you're presented in the best possible light.
• Partner with credible organizations to build your own databases and applications.  Support some of these groups by underwriting some of the cost, providing technical support, and letting them know they can work with you. 
• Promote responsible efforts to give consumers all the information they want and need to make smart decisions.  Consumers reward the companies that advocate for them.

Or, sit back and wonder why people stopped buying your stuff.

The Scariest iPhone App EVAH

I mentioned the Good Guide iPhone app in a podcast with Maria Surma Manka a while back. It's a database of consumer products and corresponding ratings based on health and nutrition value, impact on the environment, and commitment to social causes or priorities. Until recently, the shortcoming of the app was its usability - you had to work your way through categories and brands etc to find the product you wanted, and if you're at the market it becomes a time suck.

Now they've added a barcode scanning feature so you don't have to work your way through their lists to get the info you want right away. Nice time saver. So I tried it out on a box of cereal.

And I learned immediately that the company that made the cereal has "violated the Clean Water Act."

And then I realized it's just a matter of time before I'm going to learn if a company discriminates against gay people, or is a union buster, or has a CEO that denies climate change, or has a political action committee that gives only to Republicans, or has a slew of OSHA violations, or doesn't pay any taxes, or has another product that's being recalled - ALL AT THE POINT OF SALE.

This means that a company will have nothing more than the time it takes to reach for the next product on the shelf to present its side of the story and restore its reputation. And if it hasn't built up its relationship with a customer ahead of time, and inoculated its reputation against this kind of "breaking" information, it's about to go the way of the dodo.

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.

Social Media at work in Mumbai and How the Corporate Media Still Doesn't Get It

The corporate media is jumping on the Twitter bandwagon, even as it lobs not-so-subtle criticisms at it. They continue to try to integrate social media tools without truly embracing their purported applications. In short, they forget the "social" in social media.

I noticed that the Boston Globe was sharing information about statewide Thanksgiving Day high school football games via twitter, and the Lexington Herald-Leader was live-tweeting Black Friday at a variety of retail chain stores in town. I'm sure other publications were as well, and this is kinda cute, but it's still mainly the one-way communication the mainstream media prefers to employ. They see twitter basically as an RSS feed, hoping to drive traffic to other sites. They remain largely uninterested in a conversation unless it's on their terms.

I was actually impressed with CNN's online coverage of the attacks in Mumbai, but basically because they just cut live to their Indian English-language "sister station," IBN. I still went first to BBC and Global Voices Online, which quickly set up a special coverage page.

Then I noticed a curious piece on CNN's website called "Tweeting the Terror." The Mumbai violence certainly wasn't the first time an emergency was broadcast by several people at once on Twitter, but it is the first time I've seen the suggestion that people shouldn't tweet and the oft-used "they're not journalists" screed from a dying media that keeps getting scooped:

However, as is the case with such widespread dissemination of information, a vast number of the posts on Twitter amounted to unsubstantiated rumors and wild inaccuracies.

For example, a rumor that the Indian government was asking tweeters to stop live updates to avoid compromising its security efforts was published and republished on the site.

This was seemingly given credence by at least one major news Web site, which posted the tweet on its live update.

It read simply: "Indian government asks for live Twitter updates from Mumbai to cease immediately. ALL LIVE UPDATES - PLEASE STOP TWEETING."

Then it was suggested via Twitter that terrorists were using the medium to gain information about what Indian security forces were doing, which led to numerous abusive postings urging the terrorists to "die, die, die, if you're reading this."

As blogger Tim Mallon put it, "I started to see and (sic) ugly side to Twitter, far from being a crowd-sourced version of the news it was actually an incoherent, rumour-fueled mob operating in a mad echo chamber of tweets, re-tweets and re-re-tweets.

"During the hour or so I followed on Twitter there were wildly differing estimates of the numbers killed and injured - ranging up to 1,000."

What is clear that although Twitter remains a useful tool for mobilizing efforts and gaining eyewitness accounts during a disaster, the sourcing of most of the news cannot be trusted.

Actually, in my opinon it's not clear that Twitter is any less reliable than many if not most mainstream media sources. I counted several bits of information from mainstream channels during the crisis in Mumbai that turned out to be inaccurate. I also know that I learned - quite correctly - about a number of breaking stories via Twitter.

This tool has taken away one of corporate media's most important assets - the ability to report "breaking news" first - and they're having serious difficulties grappling with this. It's just the latest innovation that shows how corporate media will have to redesign their business model sooner rather than later.

The OTC Painkiller Who Must Not Be Named

I asked my wife if she heard about this Monday night and she told me it was "old news" by then.

I'm secure enough in my masculinity to say I've worn a baby in a sling. In public. Several times. And after a while my back gets sore too. But it's clear the ad was a mistake.

However, give McNeil credit for responding to the fairly robust criticism rather quickly and doing the right thing.

Of course all the social media folks are writing their "behold the power of Twitter" and "behold the power of mommybloggers" posts. The truth is in this situation Twitter probably saved McNeil here, not harmed it. It served as the canary in the coal mine, giving the company a strong warning that something was wrong. And McNeil was smart enough to be watching for it and courageous enough to apologize and change direction quickly. Now they need to take the next step - building strong relationships with many of the discussion drivers and opinion leading parents who talk with each other online.

Social Media and the Crisis in Zimbabwe

For those of you who only get news from American sources who think "foreign news" is whatever Amy Winehouse is doing right now, Zimbabwe is a country of about 12 million people in Southern Africa. It's known for its rich mineral deposits, beautiful places like Victoria Falls, its high poverty and HIV rates, and its ruthless leader, Robert Mugabe. On March 29 the country held general elections and most impartial observers concluded that the opposition party, led by Morgan Tsvangirai, won a clear majority. The "official" results, released by Mugabe, declared that no party won a majority and a run-off vote would be required on June 27.

Leading up to the run-off, the country has seen a systematic campaign of intimidation and violence, including the arrest of Tsvangirai, who ultimately pulled out of the run-off to prevent further bloodshed. Today the western world has tried to convince other countries in Africa to refuse to recognize the Mugabe government and find a diplomatic solution to transfer power in a way that reflects the will of the people. These efforts have had limited success.

Not surprisingly, the best coverage of the crisis in Zimbabwe has come from inside Zimbabwe. But it's come from bloggers. I'm particuarly impressed with Sokwanele's efforts to map incidents of violence at the blog This is Zimbabwe. You can follow Sokwanele on Twitter for breaking news, and it's amazingly good - when Twitter's working, of course.

Global Voices Online had been following and linking to some of the more noteworthy posts, but that's dropped off a bit. There's been a lot of commentary about Zimbabwe at Open Democracy, and thankfully not all of it is from the Western intellectuals' perspective.

Why Campaigning Will Never Be the Same - Social Media and a Bad Friday

The Friday afternoon before a long weekend has traditionally been the time that a government, a business, or a political campaign decides to "take out the trash," i.e., release embarrassing information that simply has to be released. The theory is nobody's paying attention, and until now that's typically been the case.

Last Friday demonstrated, in the age of social media and live internet streams, that's no longer the case. That's when a fatigued and frustrated Senator Clinton went to an editorial board meeting at a South Dakota newspaper and re-hashed an ill-conceived and politically and culturally tone-deaf talking point intended to justify continuing her campaign:

My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it.

Of course she's not saying she's in the race because something terrible could happen to the presumptive nominee - she's saying that June is not all that late if you put this race in the context of history. But this is a poor talking point at best - President Clinton had the race wrapped up two months earlier and the "wrap-up" was mere formality. The Dukakis nomination would probably be a better example of what she meant. And let's face it - given our nation's history on racial issues, raising the specter of assassination when running against an African-American candidate, no matter where you are in the campaign, is not something I'd advise a candidate to do. (Frankly, I'd take the word "assassinated" of the table altogether.)

Not surprisingly, the media pounced on the comments and made it the outrage du jour.

But here's the kicker - the New York Post reported on the flub before the press corps traveling with the Clinton campaign did. In fact, the Post reported on it even before the South Dakota paper did - because the Post was watching the live internet stream of the editorial board meeting.

Today's communications technology is so inexpensive it allows relatively small newspapers like the Sioux Falls Argus Leader to broadcast events live. All you need is a webcam, some software, a laptop, and a broadband internet connection. So that's what the Argus Leader did.

The New York Times' Caucus Blog has a very interesting post-mortem on the day:

Mrs. Clinton had three events. First was a meeting with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, which was live-streaming the interview, something a few newspapers just started doing in this election cycle.

The press corps, meanwhile, was on a bus from the airport to Brandon, a few miles away, to set up for her second event at a supermarket. (The media are sometimes in a different place from the candidate, usually when the event is private or small.)

Her interview began while we were on the bus, but Internet access was so poor, we could only pick up bits of her comments intermittently. We did hear her bat back reports that her campaign had made overtures to Senator Barack Obama’s campaign about some kind of deal for her to exit the race.

At the supermarket, we were ensconced in a café off the deli counter, where many reporters were writing about her denying the overtures while also trying to follow the live stream. Here, too, Internet access was spotty and the stream came over in choppy bursts.

Mrs. Clinton arrived from the newspaper in the midst of this, and began addressing a couple of hundred people who were seated adjacent to us, in the fresh produce section. Then our cell phones and Blackberries went off.

On the other end were editors who had seen a Drudge Report link to a New York Post item online. The Post was not with the traveling press _ and apparently had a decent Internet connection.

The Caucus blog mentions Drudge but doesn't do justice to how quickly the news spread, despite the press corps' relative isolation and the Friday-before-a-long-weekend phenomenon. Thousands upon thousands of people learned about the flub through social media channels. For me it was when all of the political people I follow on Twitter reacted with shock - making Twitter's already bad day get a little worse, I think.

There's no question the Clinton campaign was caught flat-footed on this one. After all, while perhaps an eyebrow or two was raised when Clinton recited the talking point back in March there wasn't anything close to this reaction. Social media helped whip this up into a frenzy, prompting melodramatic "special comments" and descriptions of "implosion" from snarky pundits.

True to form, the Clinton campaign is in overdrive trying to work through this latest error with typical tactics like blaming their opponent while some members of the "mainstream" punditry are apparently showing their true colors. (THAT'S the comment that truly deserves scorn.) We're essentially returning to business as usual, but the damage is done - and the Clinton campaign's protestations to the contrary, Senator Clinton's candidacy remains a longshot hope at best.

So what does this mean for campaigns in the future?

First, it means the "online team" on a campaign just got a lot more important. 2008 will be remembered as the year that the Internet drove not only the bulk of political fundraising, but carried the most effective (or damaging) campaign communication as well.

It means the people running those online divisions have to be involved in the larger strategy discussions of the campaign, because they're the ones who will be responsible for managing and distributing a campaign's message. It also means the people running the "mainstream" media operations in campaigns will have to learn all about social media tools and internet technology - as we can see, the MSM is using the 'net too.

It means campaigns must stop dismissing bloggers with a "they're not journalists" and a wave of the hand. The people currently fanning the flames on this latest gaffe aren't journalists, but they're having an enormous impact. Ignore social media mavens at your own peril.

It means campaigns have to invest in more sophisticated online monitoring systems. A Google alert isn't going to cut it anymore. Google doesn't look at Twitter or Friendfeed or Seesmic. More political conversations are happening there, and those conversations matter.

It also means that campaigns are going to have to spend some meaningful cash on ads in social media. Eyeballs - or more appropriately, well-educated and politically-engaged eyeballs - will be focused on newspaper a little less, blogs a little more.

It should surprise no one that the almost certain winner of the Democratic nomination for President embraced social media early and continues to use it well, while the losing campaign essentially defends against social media. We'll see much more of this in future campaigns.