If you have a subscription you can read it here.
I compared the work of Honda and Toyota as they used social media to launch their most popular models in 2012 - the Honda Civic and the Toyota Camry. Both companies have had challenges in recent years, and 2012 is an important year for both models.
In comparing the two I used data from Social EQ, a model developed by my company, APCO Worldwide. Social EQ's model uses opinion research to help determine what "Social Informants" - that's the name we give to those uber-users of social media who influence the online discussions the rest of us have all the time - consider to be an effective social media presence for a company or organization. Since the Social EQ team already reviewed the 40 "Most Admired" companies as rated by Fortune Magazine, we already had a good snapshot of Honda and Toyota.
Both companies basically got middling reviews when compared to the other most admired companies. They both have decent, easy-to-find online content, but Social Informants want more direct access to the people who work there when they have questions or feedback. I notice that both companies are trying to do just that, but in different ways. Honda is trying to strengthen its reputation with its customers by starting a grassroots-y YouTube-driven original music video contest. Toyota is rolling out the model - quite literally - via webcast and trying more direct outreach to leading voices in different online communities, like my good pal Tim Hurst at Earth & Industry.
The Social Informants initially gave Honda a slight edge over Toyota when the Social EQ team did their research, but I have to say I like what Toyota did with the Camry a bit more than what Honda did. Honda was creative and fun, but Toyota was more direct and did a good job identifying online community leaders. Bottom line I think both companies deserve credit for trying new things but I think Toyota closed their social media gap with Honda a bit here.
Showing posts with label reputation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reputation. Show all posts
13 September 2011
14 April 2011
Science, Ethics, and SEO
David Kroll alerted me to a local tidbit with some interesting PR applications:
Now the Duke Chronicle reports Dr. Potti has hired a service to "manage his online reputation." The service apparently uses some fairly basic search engine optimization (SEO) tactics. Basically he's just creating a bunch of websites with his name on them so people who enter his name in Google will (hopefully) find the sites he's created before they find anything else. Dr. Kroll and others wonder if it's ethical.
OK, let's start with the basics.
Dr. Potti has apparently created accounts with the large social networking utilities - Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn. Nothing wrong with that. He's purchased the URL's that spell his name. Also fine. He's created some websites that say he's a doctor and that he worked with cancer patients. As far as I know nothing on the websites is inaccurate. He just leaves out the whole "retracted my papers and resigned in disgrace" thing. Which, if you're an academic, is a pretty big deal.
Yet everyone has a right to tell you what they want you to know about them. Potti is under no obligation to volunteer the fact that he got into loads of trouble at Duke. That would be like the guy who launched his campaign for a Senate seat by disclosing his drunk-driving arrest and restraining order from an ex-girlfriend at his kick-off press conference. (Yes, that really happened.)
I'm not going to put myself out there as the authority on ethics. But I can say this - if this SEO stuff represents the entirety of Dr. Potti's reputation do-over, it's a pretty stupid strategy.
All it does is sweep some significant negative information under a virtual rug - and for whom? Potti's field is clinical oncology research. This is not a large community. They all know his story. Hiring decisions in this field are not based solely on a Google search. His reputation in this field is most likely beyond repair.
Further, Potti's PR strategy (if this is actually a strategy) lacks what some of my colleagues call an "admit point." If you want to regain credibility, you have to acknowledge an error in judgment, and explain how that error won't happen again. This SEO tactic suggests Potti isn't interested in redemption, he's interested in forgetting the whole thing - and he hopes you will too.
Maybe Potti knows his career is over and he just doesn't want the scandals to be the last word on his work. Or he doesn't want his family to Google his name and read the record. If that's what this is about, then the SEO tactics are fine. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking this will repair his professional reputation.
Go ahead and Google Anil Potti.
No longer do the majority of top search results for the former Duke cancer researcher detail allegations that he falsified his resume and produced faulty research that has been retracted from renowned medical journals and led to the termination of three clinical trials. Instead, more than a dozen websites and social media accounts created in the months following Dr. Potti’s November resignation contain solely positive information about his research and medical experience.For those who don't know, Anil Potti used to be a research scientist at Duke University. He resigned in November 2010 after he retracted a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology and questions were raised about accomplishments listed on his CV. More retractions from top journals soon followed. The whole affair caused quite a stink and it remains a reasonably common topic among academics here today.
Now the Duke Chronicle reports Dr. Potti has hired a service to "manage his online reputation." The service apparently uses some fairly basic search engine optimization (SEO) tactics. Basically he's just creating a bunch of websites with his name on them so people who enter his name in Google will (hopefully) find the sites he's created before they find anything else. Dr. Kroll and others wonder if it's ethical.
OK, let's start with the basics.
Dr. Potti has apparently created accounts with the large social networking utilities - Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn. Nothing wrong with that. He's purchased the URL's that spell his name. Also fine. He's created some websites that say he's a doctor and that he worked with cancer patients. As far as I know nothing on the websites is inaccurate. He just leaves out the whole "retracted my papers and resigned in disgrace" thing. Which, if you're an academic, is a pretty big deal.
Yet everyone has a right to tell you what they want you to know about them. Potti is under no obligation to volunteer the fact that he got into loads of trouble at Duke. That would be like the guy who launched his campaign for a Senate seat by disclosing his drunk-driving arrest and restraining order from an ex-girlfriend at his kick-off press conference. (Yes, that really happened.)
I'm not going to put myself out there as the authority on ethics. But I can say this - if this SEO stuff represents the entirety of Dr. Potti's reputation do-over, it's a pretty stupid strategy.
All it does is sweep some significant negative information under a virtual rug - and for whom? Potti's field is clinical oncology research. This is not a large community. They all know his story. Hiring decisions in this field are not based solely on a Google search. His reputation in this field is most likely beyond repair.
Further, Potti's PR strategy (if this is actually a strategy) lacks what some of my colleagues call an "admit point." If you want to regain credibility, you have to acknowledge an error in judgment, and explain how that error won't happen again. This SEO tactic suggests Potti isn't interested in redemption, he's interested in forgetting the whole thing - and he hopes you will too.
Maybe Potti knows his career is over and he just doesn't want the scandals to be the last word on his work. Or he doesn't want his family to Google his name and read the record. If that's what this is about, then the SEO tactics are fine. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking this will repair his professional reputation.
09 March 2011
Curing "The Gay" - Now Available on iTunes
Old pal John Aravosis reports that Exodus International now has its very own iPhone app - one that tells kids they can relieve their burdens of homosexuality through prayer:
So they're in a similar situation to what Facebook was in back in 2007 - banning pictures of breastfeeding while allowing pro-anorexia groups to grow and thrive on their massive-but-closed network.
And let's be clear about one thing - there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence whatsoever that so-called "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" or whatever Exodus International wants to call it will turn people from gay to straight. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Zero. There is evidence, however, that this kind of "therapy" is harmful.
From a PR perspective, I think Apple just dropped a turd in the collective lap of its gay and lesbian employees, not to mention loyal customers like John. I understand the free-speech argument, but I don't envy Apple's position now as the arbiter of what's appropriate and what's not. Because as John points out, their position is already precarious.
Of course, they could open up the iTunes store, creating even more choice for consumers, allowing for more innovation and creativity... oh, right.
Pardon my French, but WTF? Why does Apple require you to click some "yes I'm old enough" button when downloading gay apps on the iPhone, but when downloading "ex-gay" apps - i.e., apps built by hateful anti-gay bigots who falsely tell young impressionable children that they can pray away the gay - Apple has no restrictions at all on that app. In spite of the fact that federal statistics show 1 in 3 gay kids tries to commit suicide. In spite of the fact that the very first thing in the FAQ of the app is focused at kids.Apple would be wise to be very, very cautious here. I'm sure the argument they'll make is on first amendment and restraint of trade grounds - people of faith have as much right to their marketplace as anyone else, and they can't be denying apps simply because their content is controversial. But they clearly are, and want to be, the dominant (if not the only) online marketplace for mobile applications. They undeniably exercise their market power to influence other market forces to their advantage - look at the fight over flash versus HTML5. And they review and approve any application that will be available for download - and quite often deny or restrict apps based on their content. This makes them first amendment traffic cops by default.
So they're in a similar situation to what Facebook was in back in 2007 - banning pictures of breastfeeding while allowing pro-anorexia groups to grow and thrive on their massive-but-closed network.
And let's be clear about one thing - there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence whatsoever that so-called "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" or whatever Exodus International wants to call it will turn people from gay to straight. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Zero. There is evidence, however, that this kind of "therapy" is harmful.
From a PR perspective, I think Apple just dropped a turd in the collective lap of its gay and lesbian employees, not to mention loyal customers like John. I understand the free-speech argument, but I don't envy Apple's position now as the arbiter of what's appropriate and what's not. Because as John points out, their position is already precarious.
Of course, they could open up the iTunes store, creating even more choice for consumers, allowing for more innovation and creativity... oh, right.
31 July 2010
BREAKING: Bloggers Are Misunderstood
Here's the point that perhaps I could have made more clear - we all know someone took an unfair shot at the science blogging community. Science bloggers have a choice - they can call that person stupid, or they can view this unfair shot as a fabulous PR opportunity.
What would happen, for example, if Heffernan were invited as a speaker at ScienceOnline2011? Would science bloggers throw tomatoes at her? Or would they take the time and demonstrate the patience to calmly, rationally, educate her on their community and what it offers? Isn't that a better strategy and wouldn't that create a better outcome? And wouldn't that encourage more people to read science blogs?
What did the Washington Nationals do with Miss Iowa this week? They took a PR turd and created a nice opportunity to bridge a cultural divide. Basically the same deal here.
I've been kicking an idea around with some great bloggers from different communities on exactly this issue. I hope the folks who have commented on this post will be willing to join us when it's ready - Nothing would make me happier...
I read with interest Virginia Heffernan's piece in NYT Magazine over the weekend, giving her spin on the whole SciBling exodus thing. Frankly, I'm about done with the meta-discussion and kinda want to get back to reading good stuff about science too. But there were a couple of things in her piece that made me scratch my head. First:
I was nonplussed by the high dudgeon of the so-called SciBlings. The bloggers evidently write often enough for ad-free academic journals that they still fume about adjacencies, advertorial and infomercials. Most writers for “legacy” media like newspapers, magazines and TV see brush fires over business-editorial crossings as an occupational hazard. They don’t quit anytime there’s an ad that looks so much like an article it has to be marked “this is an advertisement.”
I'm pretty sure the issue was that the "ad" needed the disclaimer but didn't actually have it. I'm also pretty sure there would be a few defections from the "legacy" media types if content at NYT was for sale.
The other item, though, got me thinking a bit.
What’s bothersome is that the site is misleading. It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers. And science blogging, apparently, is a form of redundant and effortfully incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science” and from occasional invocations of “peer-reviewed” thises and thats.
My first reaction was simple and snarky: "of course we've never seen 'incendiary rhetoric' from, say, the New York Times op-ed page." And then I thought Ms. Heffernan isn't reading the same blogs I am because I see plenty of good science there all the time. Ms. Heffernan is clearly smart enough to know she's painting a community with a rather broad brush. David Dobbs sorta shrugged this criticism off - "this is neither novel nor surprising."
But then I thought maybe the science blogging community, rather than taking offense, might get beyond the over-generalization and take her comments to heart a little bit - especially if they want to be taken more seriously by people outside their own community.
Right now the most prominent voices in the science blogging community - at least in terms of "share of voice" - are probably PZ Myers and a guy who calls himself "Orac" (though his real name isn't hard to find.). Thanks to all the ScienceBlogs defections, Myers probably accounts for more than half of all the traffic on that network. I read their blogs regularly and I know they're both very smart. I'm pretty sure neither of them presume to speak for an entire community. But to put it kindly neither one pulls punches. They can be downright NASTY. Of course they have a right to be nasty, and frankly I personally think their targets deserve to be called out in some way, though my style is a bit different.
But here's the thing: the scientists and science writers/bloggers I talk with care very much about how they are perceived beyond their own community. They are concerned about the waning influence scientists have on policy, on public opinion, and on culture. At the same time, they think they have a critical job as "media." If you care about your role in media and how you're perceived, you should think about how the most prominent voices in your community "represent" you.
When people outside the scienceblogging community think of science blogs, they think of PZ Myers and Orac. And if they don't have the back story, they are not likely to get beyond the most provocative things these two have published. And they're going to react the way Heffernan did. By the way, Heffernan has a PhD in English Literature from Harvard. PZ Myers reacted to her column by writing a blog post tagged "stupidity."
I have some personal experience here. When I spoke at ScienceOnline2010, I asked people to work with me on reaching out to other bloggers in other communities. In doing so, I delivered a message that wasn't all that well received - it's hard to convince someone to reconsider a position when you're calling them a dick. And let's face it - the most popular blogs on that network devote much of their time calling people dicks.
It's not my place to tell PZ Myers or Orac or anyone else what they should publish on their own blog. And I'd bet Myers and Orac would be the first people to say they don't presume to speak for anyone but themselves. (I'd even be willing to bet they're probably nice guys.) But I know this - the scienceblogging community cares a lot about what people outside their community think of them, yet they do very little real outreach. Of course there's a place for provocative thought and for these two great writers - but the scientists and bloggers who want to be known for their own thoughts and their own work have to do more to make sure they're not drowned out by the loudest voices.
A consensus seems to be developing among science bloggers that says "if Heffernan knew us, she wouldn't have written that." I say if science bloggers took the time to introduce themselves and their work to people outside their own community - people like Heffernan - she would have known you.
23 July 2010
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.
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.
13 July 2010
Build Your Own App: Crisis Communications Game-Changer
So Google's open platform has sparked the next big innovation - Android operating system-based phone users will now be able to build their own mobile applications. It's a great idea for consumers, who want to pick and choose the features they like. Google has a cute little video that shows you how easy it is to use.
It's also enormously intimidating for those of us who practice issues management and crisis communications.
I saw this and immediately thought of what I wrote about the Good Guide mobile application:
The Android inventor labs already has a GPS feature, and a host of social network features. If they don't have a barcode scanning feature - the video seems to suggest they do - I'm sure it will be added soon. Google has also been working on a lot of image scanning and searching technology, so I wouldn't be surprised if you will soon be able to get a wealth of information about something immediately just by taking a picture of it.
So let's sum up - regular joes and janes will soon be able to go anywhere, scan any barcode or take a picture of anything, and access the news and databases - accurate or not - of their choice about the things and places around them. Things like "there has been a rash of violent crime near this store" or "that place has a discrimination lawsuit filed against it" or "this product kills kittens" or anything else.
And they'll be able to share that instantly with people they know (or in the case of some Facebook friends, people they barely know.) They'll be able to upload a blog post or a video of them talking about what they've just learned. And that information will be shared several times over before any company has a chance to monitor it, let alone respond.
"Real time" just got more real. Maybe we should call it "surreal time."
It's also enormously intimidating for those of us who practice issues management and crisis communications.
I saw this and immediately thought of what I wrote about the Good Guide mobile application:
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.
The Android inventor labs already has a GPS feature, and a host of social network features. If they don't have a barcode scanning feature - the video seems to suggest they do - I'm sure it will be added soon. Google has also been working on a lot of image scanning and searching technology, so I wouldn't be surprised if you will soon be able to get a wealth of information about something immediately just by taking a picture of it.
So let's sum up - regular joes and janes will soon be able to go anywhere, scan any barcode or take a picture of anything, and access the news and databases - accurate or not - of their choice about the things and places around them. Things like "there has been a rash of violent crime near this store" or "that place has a discrimination lawsuit filed against it" or "this product kills kittens" or anything else.
And they'll be able to share that instantly with people they know (or in the case of some Facebook friends, people they barely know.) They'll be able to upload a blog post or a video of them talking about what they've just learned. And that information will be shared several times over before any company has a chance to monitor it, let alone respond.
"Real time" just got more real. Maybe we should call it "surreal time."
17 May 2010
Orac, Mockery, and the Absence of Outreach
Orac spends a lot of his time mocking the anti-science crowd, as is his right. He's quite good at it. He does so from his perch at Scienceblogs, which according to their own marketing data is read mostly by scientists (or at least people with graduate degrees and people who manage scientific projects). He's apparently gotten some criticism that he's simply talking to other scientists when he makes his arguments - that he's "preaching to the converted" and this helps no one. I've made a somewhat similar argument, though I've never called out Orac specifically:
Science has a serious PR problem, and it's this: Critics of science are searching people out and talking with them in the simplest terms possible. Scientists and "science writers," if they talk at all, are basically talking with each other.
So I was interested in his response, which you should read but is summed up like this:
When I hear such charges now, I think I'll just refer the one doing the complaining to this video:
Let me stress Orac is under no obligation to be a Science Ambassador. It's not his job to move the public opinion needle. He can write whatever he wants, and I'll probably read it and nod my head and smile. But given that he made this response, I assume he's at least interested in the issue.
I realize this response wasn't made personally for me. But it oversimplifies the criticism. First, who assumes there's only "agree and disagree?" It's precisely because there are so many people in the middle that I think Science's PR problem is so tragic. (oh, and the little bit in the video making a play on the word "converted" evaporates if you prefer the term I sometimes use, "preaching to the choir.")
This video is a curious defense of homophily. Of course it's good to have discussions within one's own community. Of course it's good to galvanize ideas and sentiment and rally the base - it just can't be the only thing you do. (See "Palin, Sarah.")
The thing that irked me the most about the video (and I realize this isn't Orac's original material) is this idea that posting material online "makes it available" so people can see it when they're ready to change their opinions or accept new information.
Sorry, this is a cop-out. Again, no one is forcing Orac or anyone else to be an Ambassador. But if he cares about "moving the needle" in the public, he's smart enough to know this isn't how diplomacy works. The anti-science cranks of the world aren't waiting around for people to find them. As Orac points out, they're showing up on Huffington Post and Oprah and daily news shows - you know, where the people are. And they're listening to people and communicating in terms that resonate. (And by the way, they're pushing their new book or their new line of organic herb supplements that remove "toxins" or cancer-curing magnets, which could be yours for just 4 easy payments of $29.95 but supplies are limited so ACT NOW!)
The whole premise of the argument is based on the notion that people outside Orac's circle are either already getting his information, or will actively seek it out and know where to find it in the future. That's just not how communication and persuasion works. You don't convince people that a particular treatment for a disease is important simply by publishing an article in JAMA. It's just the first step.
Calling the other side a bunch of quacks probably feels good. Using scientific data to show why they're quacks probably feels good too. And if that's all you want to do, that's fine. I'll keep reading it.
If you're interested in more, you have to get out and find those people in the middle (we know they're not reading scienceblogs and they're not likely to look for scienceblogs) and listen to their concerns and understand their motivation and explain your position in terms that are relevant and understandable. You have to get out of your comfort zone a little.
As always, more soon.
29 April 2010
Activists' New Secret Weapon: Databases
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?)
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.
29 March 2010
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.
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.
10 November 2009
When Will AP, Murdoch Pay Their Sources?
OK, so Associated Press wants to charge bloggers (and others) for using as few as five words of their stories, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is talking about removing their content from Google's search services.
Good luck with that.
Now I'm wondering how much those organizations will be compensating the people they interview and other sources for their contributions to "original" content. Information published by AP and News Corp. is a finished product with a set financial value. And all finished products have raw materials. And all makers of finished products pay for those raw materials. It's incomprehensible that the value chain begins and ends with the publisher.
Oh, and guess which website journalists go to first when conducting research for their stories?
I suppose AP stringers could be equipped with waivers for their sources to sign. They'd say something like "I hereby cede all ownership and authority of the information I provide to [insert publisher here], and grant said publisher any and all power to restrict access to this information from those unwilling or unable to pay for it."
Kinda wondering what would happen if Facebook put something like that in their terms of service.
Good luck with that.
Now I'm wondering how much those organizations will be compensating the people they interview and other sources for their contributions to "original" content. Information published by AP and News Corp. is a finished product with a set financial value. And all finished products have raw materials. And all makers of finished products pay for those raw materials. It's incomprehensible that the value chain begins and ends with the publisher.
Oh, and guess which website journalists go to first when conducting research for their stories?
I suppose AP stringers could be equipped with waivers for their sources to sign. They'd say something like "I hereby cede all ownership and authority of the information I provide to [insert publisher here], and grant said publisher any and all power to restrict access to this information from those unwilling or unable to pay for it."
Kinda wondering what would happen if Facebook put something like that in their terms of service.
13 October 2009
"How can you work for them?"
As I watch the Blog With Integrity folks continue their steady streak of AWESOME, I sometimes think about that question. I've heard it a few times in the past 7 years. Typically it comes from someone I worked with in politics or health care and they hear me rattle off a client list.
Companies don't hire PR firms because they need help selling sunshine or puppies or high-quality free dental care. Generally speaking, people hire PR firms because they have PR problems. And while very few of them are actually bad people, a great many of them tend to do things that don't make them popular.
If you do a lot of issues management or crisis communications work, as I have, you're probably not interested in just hanging out with people who think exactly the way you do. You have to thrive on bringing different viewpoints together, cobbling diverse interests into coalitions, and finding influential people who cross social and cultural barriers.
But I've been asked how I can work for x company or y organization and still sleep at night. The truth is simple - this is one of very few jobs I can think of where it's important, even encouraged, to give an unvarnished and completely candid opinion to a client whose viewpoint is diametrically opposed to mine. Sometimes it's called "speaking truth to power." Sometimes it's called "tough love." Typically this counsel is confidential, and while it's candid it's also respectful. But if the information is accurate, it's often useful.
As communication has become more social, it's even easier. My job has become connecting clients directly to thoughtful people online. I'm still a middle-man, but I'm not a filter anymore. Yes, I'll try to connect clients with the people who find relevance in what we're discussing, and the odds are much better that the conversation will be a positive one. But there are never any guarantees online. And I wouldn't want it any other way.
Companies don't hire PR firms because they need help selling sunshine or puppies or high-quality free dental care. Generally speaking, people hire PR firms because they have PR problems. And while very few of them are actually bad people, a great many of them tend to do things that don't make them popular.
If you do a lot of issues management or crisis communications work, as I have, you're probably not interested in just hanging out with people who think exactly the way you do. You have to thrive on bringing different viewpoints together, cobbling diverse interests into coalitions, and finding influential people who cross social and cultural barriers.
But I've been asked how I can work for x company or y organization and still sleep at night. The truth is simple - this is one of very few jobs I can think of where it's important, even encouraged, to give an unvarnished and completely candid opinion to a client whose viewpoint is diametrically opposed to mine. Sometimes it's called "speaking truth to power." Sometimes it's called "tough love." Typically this counsel is confidential, and while it's candid it's also respectful. But if the information is accurate, it's often useful.
As communication has become more social, it's even easier. My job has become connecting clients directly to thoughtful people online. I'm still a middle-man, but I'm not a filter anymore. Yes, I'll try to connect clients with the people who find relevance in what we're discussing, and the odds are much better that the conversation will be a positive one. But there are never any guarantees online. And I wouldn't want it any other way.
29 July 2009
WOMMA Update...
John Moore, who among other things serves as WOMMA's spokesman, was good enough to comment on yesterday's post. Since most people don't read comments, I thought it would be appropriate to devote a post to his comment. Here's what he had to say:
There's a back story going on here, but it's really not mine to tell.
Ethics in word-of-mouth online and offline is something WOMMA deeply cares about. Honesty of relationship, opinion, and identity is paramount to word-of-mouth retaining its credibility. We believe our code of ethics offers a thorough guidance on do’s and don’ts.I'm glad that WOMMA has a review process and has tried to provide some semblance of enforcement through reprimands. And kudos to John for starting his comment with the WOMMA talking point. He clearly saw my post as an opportunity to let everyone know what WOMMA is about, and he took advantage of it. That's his job.
However, as Susan points out in her comments to my post, the BLOGGING WITH INTEGRITY code is less about marketing. Agreed. Understood. I've pledged by it.
David, I didn’t mean to come across condescending. Not at all. (That ain’t my style. That ain’t WOMMA’s style.) Your points are well stated.
FYI … WOMMA enforces its code with member companies through a review process. (You can learn more here: http://womma.org/ethics/disciplinary/.) And yes, some companies have been reprimanded.
There's a back story going on here, but it's really not mine to tell.
15 December 2008
Note to Self: Never Promote Arm Girdles to Feminists.
So late last week I and a couple of my colleagues in the social media world got an email from a prominent blogger - she was forwarding a series of emails from a PR pro pitching a new product.
If you read this blogger for even a week, you know immediately that this blogger is progressive in her thinking, clearly a feminist, and the mother of young daughters.
The PR pitch's opening-line grabber - "What might you have in common with Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy?"
I may be a guy, but I can tell you I'd love to have a lot in common with these two people -brains, ambition, a strong work ethic, charisma and a commitment to helping people. Those people would certainly appeal to a progressive, feminist mom. It turns out, however, that this wasn't exactly what the pitch was going for:
That's right, jiggly arms. Someone is pitching arm girdles to feminist moms, just in time for the holidays. I'm not linking to the company because I don't want to drive their traffic, but you can see the company name above.
This pitch is utterly crap-tacular on multiple levels. I think I should probably leave it to Joanne "PunditMom" Bamberger, who also received the pitch (she wasn't the one who forwarded it to me), to explain the sort of message this sends to young girls. And kudos to Susan Getgood (who got the forwarded email along with me) for breaking down the ethical shortcuts taken here, like invoking celebrity names and pictures even though they haven't endorsed the product. When Susan calls you a scumbag, believe me, you've earned it. I took a look at the picture of Caroline Kennedy (she looks pretty damn good in this picture if you ask me) and noticed that they lifted the picture from a story about her butterfly tatoo, not her non-existent arm flab, from the Huffington Post.
My beef with the pitch is it assumes social media is simply "online media relations" where you blanket the world with your pitch. Maybe there are people who think this product is a good idea. But it's clear that had this PR pro done even a little bit of vetting, if this person took even a few minutes to understand the community involved, the flack would know this was a huge mistake.
But it gets worse. The blogger who passed this on to me also sent me her response to the PR pro who pitched her, and that PR person's response back.
The flack basically said that nobody was questioning the accomplishments of Caroline Kennedy or Oprah Winfrey, but the product was still important - and hey, Oprah's friend said last week that Oprah was worried about her weight. Further, in another show of disrespect to the blogger, the flack also mentioned a couple of other placements the company scored - the Rachael Ray show and the NY Post.
Seriously.
This flack is not suggesting Caroline Kennedy or Oprah Winfrey are insecure or insignificant - just that they should wear arm girdles. And maybe you should too - if you read the NY Post, you might know that.
Happy holidays.
If you read this blogger for even a week, you know immediately that this blogger is progressive in her thinking, clearly a feminist, and the mother of young daughters.
The PR pitch's opening-line grabber - "What might you have in common with Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy?"
I may be a guy, but I can tell you I'd love to have a lot in common with these two people -brains, ambition, a strong work ethic, charisma and a commitment to helping people. Those people would certainly appeal to a progressive, feminist mom. It turns out, however, that this wasn't exactly what the pitch was going for:
That's right, jiggly arms. Someone is pitching arm girdles to feminist moms, just in time for the holidays. I'm not linking to the company because I don't want to drive their traffic, but you can see the company name above.
This pitch is utterly crap-tacular on multiple levels. I think I should probably leave it to Joanne "PunditMom" Bamberger, who also received the pitch (she wasn't the one who forwarded it to me), to explain the sort of message this sends to young girls. And kudos to Susan Getgood (who got the forwarded email along with me) for breaking down the ethical shortcuts taken here, like invoking celebrity names and pictures even though they haven't endorsed the product. When Susan calls you a scumbag, believe me, you've earned it. I took a look at the picture of Caroline Kennedy (she looks pretty damn good in this picture if you ask me) and noticed that they lifted the picture from a story about her butterfly tatoo, not her non-existent arm flab, from the Huffington Post.
My beef with the pitch is it assumes social media is simply "online media relations" where you blanket the world with your pitch. Maybe there are people who think this product is a good idea. But it's clear that had this PR pro done even a little bit of vetting, if this person took even a few minutes to understand the community involved, the flack would know this was a huge mistake.
But it gets worse. The blogger who passed this on to me also sent me her response to the PR pro who pitched her, and that PR person's response back.
The flack basically said that nobody was questioning the accomplishments of Caroline Kennedy or Oprah Winfrey, but the product was still important - and hey, Oprah's friend said last week that Oprah was worried about her weight. Further, in another show of disrespect to the blogger, the flack also mentioned a couple of other placements the company scored - the Rachael Ray show and the NY Post.
Seriously.
This flack is not suggesting Caroline Kennedy or Oprah Winfrey are insecure or insignificant - just that they should wear arm girdles. And maybe you should too - if you read the NY Post, you might know that.
Happy holidays.
09 December 2008
Creative Destruction in the Media
Word of the Tribune Company bankruptcy moved fast through my social network, though most weren't surprised by it. I also heard McClatchy was trying to sell off the Miami Herald and closing some regional bureaus.
The other piece of news that moved almost as quickly was that online-only publications were now eligible for the Pulitzer Prize.
Combine that with an ever-increasing number of times that corporate media gets scooped by people using Twitter and I think you're seeing more each day how the people who stick to the old model of delivering news are dying out.
Today we call it "disruptive technology," which I guess sounds a bit better than the term Josef Schumpeter popularized, "creative destruction." While consumers will have many more options to get their news and information, we are definitely going to see fewer newspapers in the near future.
To me the whole thing is more than a bit Darwinian. The Tribune Company would certainly have lasted longer in a better economy. But the simple truth is the corporate media won't survive for long under its current business model.
Corporate media isn't failing simply because there are more choices - they're failing because those choices are competing effectively in terms of accuracy, speed and quality. The journalists who continually rail against social media users with the "they're not journalists" cry and the talk about ethics and standards need to look at how the public views journalists these days. Not the worst, but definitely not the best, and negative attitudes toward journalists have inched up over the last couple of years.
The bottom line: while journalists work relentlessly to be accurate, they make mistakes like the rest of us. There is still plenty of "advocacy journalism" where bias rules or where facts are taken out of context. And as a PR guy who has done his share of crisis communications work, I've found that many journalists don't like it much when the spotlight is shined back on them.
I'm not sure some in the media realize how much trust they surrendered when they failed to be a true check on power in the buildup to the war in Iraq. And I'm not sure they realize how much more trust they surrender when they present "news" in pre-packaged ideological niche formats like the shows you see on Fox and MSNBC. They prompt people to search out information for themselves.
That may be great for consumers; it's not so nice if you're running, say, the Trib.
The other piece of news that moved almost as quickly was that online-only publications were now eligible for the Pulitzer Prize.
Combine that with an ever-increasing number of times that corporate media gets scooped by people using Twitter and I think you're seeing more each day how the people who stick to the old model of delivering news are dying out.
Today we call it "disruptive technology," which I guess sounds a bit better than the term Josef Schumpeter popularized, "creative destruction." While consumers will have many more options to get their news and information, we are definitely going to see fewer newspapers in the near future.
To me the whole thing is more than a bit Darwinian. The Tribune Company would certainly have lasted longer in a better economy. But the simple truth is the corporate media won't survive for long under its current business model.
Corporate media isn't failing simply because there are more choices - they're failing because those choices are competing effectively in terms of accuracy, speed and quality. The journalists who continually rail against social media users with the "they're not journalists" cry and the talk about ethics and standards need to look at how the public views journalists these days. Not the worst, but definitely not the best, and negative attitudes toward journalists have inched up over the last couple of years.
The bottom line: while journalists work relentlessly to be accurate, they make mistakes like the rest of us. There is still plenty of "advocacy journalism" where bias rules or where facts are taken out of context. And as a PR guy who has done his share of crisis communications work, I've found that many journalists don't like it much when the spotlight is shined back on them.
I'm not sure some in the media realize how much trust they surrendered when they failed to be a true check on power in the buildup to the war in Iraq. And I'm not sure they realize how much more trust they surrender when they present "news" in pre-packaged ideological niche formats like the shows you see on Fox and MSNBC. They prompt people to search out information for themselves.
That may be great for consumers; it's not so nice if you're running, say, the Trib.
18 November 2008
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.
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.
10 November 2008
The difference between "can" and "should"
I agree wholeheartedly with Amy Gahran - CNN's hologram technology was an unnecessary distraction from their otherwise solid election night coverage.
There may be a time when the addition of a hologram adds value to a two-dimensional television news broadcast. Sometimes it takes a while to discover the strategic application of new technology tools.
I don't know how much time or money CNN spent on this. But it reminds me a bit of companies who get the thinking backwards - they have this cool new tech gadget and they try to find a place to force it in to their existing strategy. It's like they decided to debut it on election night because they knew a lot people were watching, and not because they had a strategic need for a tool like that. I always thought you add things to your newscast to get more viewers, not the other way around. Maybe more people will tune in now that CNN has holograms, but I tend to doubt it.
It's like when a company spends a chunk of money to get into Second Life, without really having a need to do it. Virtual worlds may indeed have strategic applications, but when all you get for the money you spend is an article in a tech publication that says you're now in Second Life, well, you should have bought an ad. Better ROI.
There may be a time when the addition of a hologram adds value to a two-dimensional television news broadcast. Sometimes it takes a while to discover the strategic application of new technology tools.
I don't know how much time or money CNN spent on this. But it reminds me a bit of companies who get the thinking backwards - they have this cool new tech gadget and they try to find a place to force it in to their existing strategy. It's like they decided to debut it on election night because they knew a lot people were watching, and not because they had a strategic need for a tool like that. I always thought you add things to your newscast to get more viewers, not the other way around. Maybe more people will tune in now that CNN has holograms, but I tend to doubt it.
It's like when a company spends a chunk of money to get into Second Life, without really having a need to do it. Virtual worlds may indeed have strategic applications, but when all you get for the money you spend is an article in a tech publication that says you're now in Second Life, well, you should have bought an ad. Better ROI.
14 October 2008
The (Not-So) Secret Lives of Cleantech-Bloggers
If Hank "EcoGeek" Green had any idea how many PR flacks talk about him and his blog on a regular basis and how it's such a social media coup to get such an authoritative and smart clean-tech blogger to write about their stuff, he'd probably chuckle. (He really IS that good.) Somehow I don't think the guys at WSJ Environmental Capital can get away with "Nerdfighters."
Just the latest example of why I LOVE my freakin' job. I get paid to check in on guys like this.
Just the latest example of why I LOVE my freakin' job. I get paid to check in on guys like this.
09 September 2008
Recessions Demand Better Metrics
UPDATE: I just saw this piece by Jen Zingsheim via Kami Huyse. Both are insightful pieces, and I think they remain consistent with my overall point. "Pitching" is not the way to succeed in social media. Building relationships is. Yes, you can only have so many quality relationships - but I'm not building relationships for myself, in many cases I'm brokering them for my clients. If 150 is the "max" for relationships - and I don't doubt that number - the key is to have the most strategic relationships. I also submit that relationships are fluid. But that's a post for another day...
As I've mentioned before on this blog, years ago as a Senate staffer I would send my boss a brief note every Friday I called the "weekly economic update." It was typically a one-pager that highlighted the latest data from federal agencies or other organizations that tracked the economy, plus information and analysis on what these numbers meant to "regular folks" back home. Along with the weekly jobless claims I'd include things like the retail cost of a gallon of milk, a gallon of gas, and so on. Of all the things I sent my boss, this weekly memo always produced the most questions from him.
If I were in that job today, I'd tell my boss to forget about the popular but false definition commonly used to determine if we're in a "recession" - i.e., two consecutive quarters of decline in the Gross Domestic Product. I'd tell him to look at the entire jobs situation - not just the unemployment rate - and the business pipeline, as well as the cost of certain things like fuel (it affects virtually everything) and how consumers are spending money. And right now, I'd tell him that people are hurting out there, and for the most part businesses continue to brace for hard times. It doesn't matter what you call it - when the economy is wrong, nothing else is right.
In the PR industry, it means we're more pressed than ever to convince businesses that we add value. For a few of us, it's a new and critical opportunity to demonstrate the value of social media - in many ways a less expensive alternative to a massive PR blitz or a huge advertising campaign. But there's a trap here as well.
In tough times companies insist on rock-solid numbers for "return on investment" in communications plans. Since it's PR, companies will quickly ask for "hits" or "placements" and want to know how many eyeballs saw their "messaging" and compare it to the cash they're shelling out.
This is a common mistake - confusing "social media" with "online media relations." If you simply want your messaging in front of blog readers, the best possible thing you can do is buy an ad on that blog. Just make sure the ad is compelling and engaging. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm just as happy to build a blog advertising strategy for a client as I am anything else.
"Social media," at least the way I practice it, is about building relationships with opinion leaders. That's really it - the rest is just technology-based details. I do what most health care companies do with top physicians and other health care leaders. I go out and find the smartest, most influential people in a given community and I build relationships and loyalty.
Health care companies have historically invested millions in this type of activity. And while the metrics have never been as cut-and-dry as they are in media relations or advertising, these companies have never questioned the value of having strong relationships with opinion leaders. The metrics they use are simple - here are the people we know well, and here's who they reach. Those companies don't typically expect a "Key Opinion Leader" to send a direct mail or a press release to peers, or publish a book extolling the virtues of the company's brand. Companies expect that person to provide thoughtful and candid input; to maybe speak with their peers about the issues the company (and the community) finds most important, and generally to be available for comment if there is a larger mainstream communications campaign in place.
Of course, companies have a right to ask about the value of such relationships. I've been asked, "what's the point in knowing a blogger if he or she won't write about you?" Again, I think this question misses the point a bit, but if I'm providing information and experiences that blogger finds relevant and interesting, chances are you'll see a blog post eventually. Or something in Facebook or Twitter. Or a mention at a conference or in a conversation. The important (and measurable) thing is having someone with credibility and influence talk about you, your issues, or your brand in a meaningful and positive way. In social media, this isn't a transactional process. It's a community discussion driven by relationships.
The PR industry as a whole has, in my opinion, led many companies to ask these questions. We've all written posts about "blogger relations" and "how to pitch bloggers." The more I think about it, the more I think this sets PR pro's up to fail. Perhaps someone has mastered the art of "pitching" a wide swath of online writers, but I suspect not.
We need to reframe the discussion to apply the right metrics, and we need to make the case that this adds value to existing communications efforts - especially in the current economy.
As I've mentioned before on this blog, years ago as a Senate staffer I would send my boss a brief note every Friday I called the "weekly economic update." It was typically a one-pager that highlighted the latest data from federal agencies or other organizations that tracked the economy, plus information and analysis on what these numbers meant to "regular folks" back home. Along with the weekly jobless claims I'd include things like the retail cost of a gallon of milk, a gallon of gas, and so on. Of all the things I sent my boss, this weekly memo always produced the most questions from him.
If I were in that job today, I'd tell my boss to forget about the popular but false definition commonly used to determine if we're in a "recession" - i.e., two consecutive quarters of decline in the Gross Domestic Product. I'd tell him to look at the entire jobs situation - not just the unemployment rate - and the business pipeline, as well as the cost of certain things like fuel (it affects virtually everything) and how consumers are spending money. And right now, I'd tell him that people are hurting out there, and for the most part businesses continue to brace for hard times. It doesn't matter what you call it - when the economy is wrong, nothing else is right.
In the PR industry, it means we're more pressed than ever to convince businesses that we add value. For a few of us, it's a new and critical opportunity to demonstrate the value of social media - in many ways a less expensive alternative to a massive PR blitz or a huge advertising campaign. But there's a trap here as well.
In tough times companies insist on rock-solid numbers for "return on investment" in communications plans. Since it's PR, companies will quickly ask for "hits" or "placements" and want to know how many eyeballs saw their "messaging" and compare it to the cash they're shelling out.
This is a common mistake - confusing "social media" with "online media relations." If you simply want your messaging in front of blog readers, the best possible thing you can do is buy an ad on that blog. Just make sure the ad is compelling and engaging. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm just as happy to build a blog advertising strategy for a client as I am anything else.
"Social media," at least the way I practice it, is about building relationships with opinion leaders. That's really it - the rest is just technology-based details. I do what most health care companies do with top physicians and other health care leaders. I go out and find the smartest, most influential people in a given community and I build relationships and loyalty.
Health care companies have historically invested millions in this type of activity. And while the metrics have never been as cut-and-dry as they are in media relations or advertising, these companies have never questioned the value of having strong relationships with opinion leaders. The metrics they use are simple - here are the people we know well, and here's who they reach. Those companies don't typically expect a "Key Opinion Leader" to send a direct mail or a press release to peers, or publish a book extolling the virtues of the company's brand. Companies expect that person to provide thoughtful and candid input; to maybe speak with their peers about the issues the company (and the community) finds most important, and generally to be available for comment if there is a larger mainstream communications campaign in place.
Of course, companies have a right to ask about the value of such relationships. I've been asked, "what's the point in knowing a blogger if he or she won't write about you?" Again, I think this question misses the point a bit, but if I'm providing information and experiences that blogger finds relevant and interesting, chances are you'll see a blog post eventually. Or something in Facebook or Twitter. Or a mention at a conference or in a conversation. The important (and measurable) thing is having someone with credibility and influence talk about you, your issues, or your brand in a meaningful and positive way. In social media, this isn't a transactional process. It's a community discussion driven by relationships.
The PR industry as a whole has, in my opinion, led many companies to ask these questions. We've all written posts about "blogger relations" and "how to pitch bloggers." The more I think about it, the more I think this sets PR pro's up to fail. Perhaps someone has mastered the art of "pitching" a wide swath of online writers, but I suspect not.
We need to reframe the discussion to apply the right metrics, and we need to make the case that this adds value to existing communications efforts - especially in the current economy.
18 August 2008
What's In Your Profile?
Last week I participated on a conference call with the founder of a tech startup in Tel Aviv. They're asking for a proposal to help promote a new product online.
Within a few hours of the call I got a Facebook friend request from the company's CEO.
I immediately accepted the request comfortable in the knowledge that no pictures exist in my profile or tagged with my name that portray me:
I can't tell you what to put in your profile, but I can tell you who's looking at them.
Within a few hours of the call I got a Facebook friend request from the company's CEO.
I immediately accepted the request comfortable in the knowledge that no pictures exist in my profile or tagged with my name that portray me:
- Drunk
- Picking my nose
- Wearing a thong
- Dressed like an oompa-loompa
- Shoving straws up my nose
- Flashing gang signs
I can't tell you what to put in your profile, but I can tell you who's looking at them.
22 April 2008
Resisting the Earth Day Urge
If you want some ideas on what to do on Earth Day go follow @sustainablog or @mariaenergia or @jetsongreen or @ecopolitologist on Twitter. Today's post is about what I won't do.
Today this blog will not be used to convince anyone that a company is "greener" than it really is.
I will not spam enviro-bloggers with slap-happy press releases from clients announcing "bold new initiatives" that really amount to switching light bulbs and not cranking up the AC in the summer.
I will not advise a coal company that blows up mountains to retrieve its product to start a new branding campaign with a green, flowery logo.
I will not drive 2 miles downtown shouting "Look at me! I'm wearing organic cotton!" out the window.
I will not try to impress anyone by falsely hinting that I drink only fair-trade coffee.
I will not sing the praises of an "alternative" fuel that burns more oil to produce than it saves.
When people in my line of work do any of these things, we earn this reputation:
Today this blog will not be used to convince anyone that a company is "greener" than it really is.
I will not spam enviro-bloggers with slap-happy press releases from clients announcing "bold new initiatives" that really amount to switching light bulbs and not cranking up the AC in the summer.
I will not advise a coal company that blows up mountains to retrieve its product to start a new branding campaign with a green, flowery logo.
I will not drive 2 miles downtown shouting "Look at me! I'm wearing organic cotton!" out the window.
I will not try to impress anyone by falsely hinting that I drink only fair-trade coffee.
I will not sing the praises of an "alternative" fuel that burns more oil to produce than it saves.
When people in my line of work do any of these things, we earn this reputation:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)