So I wrote a piece in PR News...

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.

Protecting yourself vs. owning your words

Much has been said recently about the Google+ "purge" of accounts that don't include real names and the similar Facebook policy and statements to that effect. As a PR guy and political wonk, I may have a slightly different take than many on this issue - while I certainly see the value and importance of protecting one's privacy, I think we must consider the (perhaps unintended) consequences of trumpeting the freedom of anonymity.  Specifically we have to be careful about insisting on transparency from some while preserving anonymity for others - particularly when the identity in question has the goal of influencing the behavior of others.

First, the case against the "real names" policy.  Alexis Madrigal at The Atlantic says bluntly,

The kind of naming policy that Facebook and Google Plus have is actually a radical departure from the way identity and speech interact in the real world.

You should read the whole thing.  The most compelling defense of anonymity or pseudonymity on the web that I found came from Danah Boyd:

The people who most heavily rely on pseudonyms in online spaces are those who are most marginalized by systems of power. “Real names” policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people. These ideas and issues aren’t new (and I’ve even talked about this before), but what is new is that marginalized people are banding together and speaking out loudly. And thank goodness.

Emphasis hers, and also worth a read.  So there are certainly times when masking one's identity provides a certain amount of comfort, or security, or freedom.  Mandating your identity strikes many as akin to "papers, please."

But what if the person who wants to be anonymous is actually someone working for Facebook, trying to pitch a story that criticizes Google?  Or the CEO of Whole Foods posing as someone else on the Yahoo Finance message boards to criticize a competitor (and hopefully talk down its stock price) before trying to buy it?  Or some random white American guy living in Scotland, pretending to be a lesbian blogger in Syria who gets arrested after protesting the government?  It seems to me that in these instances anonymity is, in Boyd's words, an assertion of power over vulnerable people.

Again, I'm not so comfortable with "transparency for you, anonymity for me." Because while the examples above are reasonably obvious, it's not always clear who has power and who doesn't.  I really ruffled the feathers of some anonymity advocates when I saw some bashing Darlene Cavalier's attempts to bring science mainstream:

I understand completely why some people feel the need to remain anonymous as bloggers. Sharing thoughts publicly involves some risk, and sometimes the only way you can safely get information "out there" is anonymously. This isn't unique to the science blogosphere - it happens a lot with people who write about finance. Further, some people just don't want the over-the-top abuse Darlene or people like Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney take when they put their names to their words. I'm cool with that.

But let's get real here. Sometimes - definitely not always but sometimes - some of this anonymous posting is really about avoiding accountability. It's about sidestepping the awkward moment when you meet the person you called an "ignorant fuckwit" last month. And sometimes maybe it's writing something that benefits you personally or professionally without having to disclose that teensy little conflict of interest. Maybe some people find anonymous bloggers to be completely credible. For me, there will always be that kernel of doubt.

I felt somewhat vindicated a month later when journalist Steve Silberman said in a ScienceOnline 2011 panel discussion "you can't call bullshit if you're anonymous." He clearly meant it as a journalist, but I think he also believes "unnamed sources" often deserve a stricter level of scrutiny.

Are Google and Facebook imposing "real name" policies because they suit their commercial interests?  Of course they are. Can anonymity protect the abused from the abuser?  Of course it can, and people have a right to publish under a pseudonym.  I'm not suggesting you be required to give your real name to anyone.  Let's just remember that a certain amount of credibility comes with full disclosure and sometimes it's very, very important to know the names behind the words.

Off the Cuff visits Raleigh Denim: social media at its best

Victor Lytvinenko of Raleigh Denim (L) and Chris Hogan

Last week my family got a visit from Chris Hogan's family.  We have known each other for years and I'm fortunate to call them great friends.

Chris is also founder and editor of Off the Cuff, one of the most prominent men's fashion blogs you'll find.  He's often featured in mainstream publications as an expert. His work in social media is a well-recognized case study of best practices. So as one might expect, when we firmed up the details of his visit Chris sent out a tweet to his followers:

"Heading to Raleigh, NC, in a few weeks. Looking for some stores/brands to check out, visit. Suggestions?"

Not surprisingly, he got a number of people suggesting he visit the proprietors of Raleigh Denim, one of the last  places in America where jeans (and some other items) are made by hand, all under one roof.  You can find their clothes in elite stores like Barneys New York.  They're not cheap, but they're not cheap, if you know what I mean. So Chris reached out to the owners and arranged a visit, and (after burgers and beers) he let me tag along.

When we arrived on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, founders/owners Victor and Sarah Lytvinenko were busy putting together denim bags for shipment. Victor took us around the shop and I assumed "fly on the wall" status as  Chris talked with him about his approach to making clothes and the company's story.

And it's a great story.  Victor is a rare blend of artist and entrepreneur.  He loved that schools in the Raleigh area were producing students with great ideas about textiles but lamented the fact that very few of those students were ever able to bring ideas to market.

He also talked about trying to start the business in late 2009 and early 2010, one of the worst economic environments in our history.  Family members were pitching in and they were working around the clock, making samples and trying to convince stores to carry their product.  After finally managing to send a small order to Barneys, he received a request for a larger order, but didn't have the capital to buy raw materials or tools to accommodate them.  Since the economy was in the depths of the credit crunch, no bank would lend him the money.  Then President Obama's stimulus package became law - and Victor soon after got a call from the bank, telling him he could get that loan.  Now Victor and Sarah aren't worrying about growing their business - they're worrying about growing it too quickly.

Most of the afternoon, however, was spent talking about the craftsmanship, history, and philosophy that goes into making clothes at Raleigh Denim.  It was clear from the outset that Victor and Chris were of the same mind on this - other than jotting down a few numbers, Chris didn't really have to take notes because it was all obvious to him.  Once Chris got home he wrote and published a great blog post that summarizes his takeaways from the visit.   He also sent out a tweet that suggested a potential new partner and opportunity:

Someone please explain why @jcrew_insider isn't knocking on @raleighdenim 's door? Amazing jeans, made like we used to make 'em in America.

This is how social media often works best - a person reaches out to a network for ideas, acts on those ideas, and develops more ideas that can benefit more people.  The fact that Chris used specific tools was secondary to the experience - what really mattered is that Chris reached out to people who were part of a community, and that he leveraged online relationships to accomplish a goal.

That's why he's better than you at this.

All you sucka sci blog networks better REALIZE you play for second place

Bora launched his blog network at Scientific American.  He took his time, did it right.

Don't get me wrong - I love the writing at Wired Science, ScienceBlogs.com, Discover, Scientopia, Guardian Science Blogs, Nature Network, PLoS Blogs, and so on - but Bora was really smart about this. He saw the growth in the niche, looked at what was working best, saw what could improve, and just plain NAILED IT:

Another thing I was particularly interested in was to find bloggers who in some way connect the “Two Cultures” as described by C.P.Snow. Some connect science to history, philosophy, sociology or ethics. Many are very interested in science education, communication and outreach. Some make connections between science and popular culture, music, art, illustration, photography, cartoons/comic strips, poetry, literature, books, movies, TV, video, etc. Several produce such cross-discipline and cross-cultural material themselves – at least two are musicians, two are professional photographers, several produce videos, two are professional artists, a couple are authors of multiple books, some produce their own blog illustrations. But there are also commonalities – they all have strong knowledge of their topic, they strictly adhere to the standards of scientific evidence, they are all very strong writers, and they are all enthusiastic to share their work with a broader audience. 

When I put together this group, with such diverse interests and styles, it was not surprising to discover that, without really having to try hard to make it so, they also display diversity in many other areas: geography, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, personal/professional/scientific background and more. This is something that is important for science, and is important in the science blogging world.

This is brilliant for two big reasons: first, diversity is a source of enormous strength in science and pretty much everything else.  It's the right thing to do.  Second because it makes science immediately relevant to people with diverse interests - music, art, history, pop-culture, sports, education, and so on - the network has the capacity to grow its readership much more than other science blog networks.

My initial reaction is that SciAm's emergence with a large, smart roster may thin the herd of networks a little bit. I notice some writers have left their networks to join SciAm's, and since there are only so many blog posts you can read in a day, readers will go for the quality content first.

I may flesh this thinking out a bit more but here's one prediction/caution for those writing for another network. If you start to get several emails from your editors or managers providing "guidelines" on how to write in ways that generate more traffic like throwing celebrity references in the titles or providing more posts with repetitive phrases, your network is following an unsustainable strategy.  Your editors care more about Google search terms than you.  They want your words but not necessarily your thoughts.  The first network to do this will probably be the first one to go.

UPDATE: PZ Myers is already declaring ScienceBlogs.com "dead" and hinting that he's leaving.  Pharyngula is basically half of SEED/SB's traffic and I notice that the new SciAm network has at least a couple of SB peeps on it. I'm guessing the folks at National Geographic aren't pleased.  Leave it to an evolutionary biologist to tell us what happens when something doesn't adapt to a changing environment...

AMA vs. Photoshop: think of the children

This pic is everywhere now

Last week the American Medical Association officially condemned the "photoshopping" of models in fashion advertisements and magazines to make those models appear unrealistically thin.  While the "models are too skinny" debate has gone on for decades, this is a rare and important step.  Their stance is obviously more of a statement on our runaway culture of beauty than our use of technology, but it also should send a clear message to those of us in the communications business (marketing, advertising, or PR) - just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should.  Earlier this month I warned against pretending to be someone you're not. This is a similar principle - don't use deceptive images to promote your products.  This example demonstrates the consequences can extend beyond looking like a creep.

I'm not going to pretend to be the moral authority on these issues and I'm not going to say it's wrong to retouch a photo or get a nip and/or tuck if you want.  However, it seems the AMA believes things are getting worse, not better - and it's clear that technological advancements have enabled some people to take things to the extreme.

This issue reminds me of two other issues where some segments of the medical community have already weighed in but I wish the AMA would add its rather hefty and credible voice - promotion of breastfeeding and reducing the influence of pro-anorexia groups on social networks.  I've written about this before. People who freak out over nipples on breastfeeding pictures in Facebook profiles aren't simply advocating for more modesty, they're reducing our ability to promote breastfeeding - and that has negative health consequences.  Social networks like Facebook have made some progress on cleaning up pro-ana sites, but they're still around - and this is also a threat to public health.

Don't take my word for it - take my wife's.  She's the health researcher at the big-time university, and she wrote about both issues several years ago. Discouraging breastfeeding is bad.  Facilitating the harmful practices of people with anorexia is also bad. Of course, I look at the Facebook terms of service and I don't see anything in there that would address these issues. I'm not sure if other social networks have different terms.

Bottom line, there's an opportunity here for the AMA to get more involved in the online space. There's no question that our culture affects our behavior, and our behavior affects our health.  While we should be mindful of protecting free speech rights, we should be giving the medical community a larger voice here.

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.

What I'm Reading This Week

Or more specifically, what I'm trying to read because work has gotten busy again.  Hey, I haven't done a "link post" in a while so cut me some slack.

• Where Do Bad Moods Come From? by Jonah Lehrer at Wired Science Blogs' The Frontal Cortex
• In Defense of the Selfish Parent by Catherine Connors at Her Bad Mother
• Grid-based Energy Storage: Widely Misunderstood Challenges and Opportunities by John Petersen at Alt Energy Stocks
• Why the Quest for Social Media ROI Will Never Die! And Why It Shouldn't by Kami Huyse at Communication Overtones
• Pre-Tax Purchase of OTC Drugs: A Prescription for Compromise by William Pewen at Health Affairs Blog
• Where All That Wine Is Going by Alder Yarrow at Vinography

I hope to have the time very soon for more podcasts with smart people.  Stay tuned.

Neil deGrasse Tyson's mortal sin in online PR

Dr. Tyson (h/t: Wikipedia)

I recently listened to a Point of Inquiry Podcast - Chris Mooney interviewed Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Dr. Tyson is an astrophysicist, director of the Hayden Planetarium, host of the NOVA ScienceNOW tv show, and probably the best science communicator in the United States right now.

He's also an agnostic - not an atheist.  And while he says the public "God debate" is really not something he chooses to engage in much, he seems willing to disobey a rule so well-established in social media PR these days you might even call it one of PR's Ten Commandments - "thou shalt not edit thine own Wikipedia page."

About 36 minutes or so into the podcast, Dr. Tyson talks with Mooney about how he feels mislabeled as an atheist, and then makes an admission that makes an online PR flack like me raise an eyebrow:

It was funny – I don’t know who created my wiki page – but in there, a few years ago it said “Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist who is an astrophysicist” and I said “what… that’s not really..” so I said, so I put in there, “Neil deGrasse Tyson is agnostic” and then three days later or so it was back to “atheist.” So there’s an urge to claim me in that community. So then I had to – So I had to put it - word it in a way that would survive an edit so I said, “widely claimed by atheists, Tyson is actually an agnostic” so that managed to stick. I haven’t checked it lately but that’s how I left it off.

(Note: the edits to which Dr. Tyson refers don't appear on his Wikipedia page today.) Let me be clear about something:  I don't think what Dr. Tyson did is "wrong" - he took steps to correct the record as he sees it, and protect his own reputation. After all, this is essentially what I do for clients. When people write things about you, you have a right and an obligation to ask that those people get the "facts" right.   And in a forum as public and influential as Wikipedia, Dr. Tyson is quite right to be paying attention.

But let's be clear about something else - this sort of edit runs counter to Wikipedia's guidelines about conflict of interest and "neutral point of view"edits.  Dr. Tyson may view his action as simply correcting a minor point, but there is a clear public relations interest in a popular science communicator avoiding the unpopular, often misunderstood label of "atheist." It has been argued that Dr. Tyson's use of the word "agnostic" rather than "atheist" represents a distinction without a difference. And there's also a public relations interest in avoiding getting sucked into a debate over religious nomenclature.

Put it this way - If I, a public relations professional, were working for Dr. Tyson or the Hayden Planetarium or NOVA, and made exactly the same edits at exactly the same time, I'd be absolutely slaughtered for it. Companies and PR firms have been called out publicly for making far less substantive edits to their own or their client's Wikipedia pages.

The problem here isn't with anything Dr. Tyson did - the problem is with Wikipedia's guidelines.  Wikipedia's relatively inflexible guidelines have created a situation where "neutral" third parties can purposely or inadvertently post inaccurate or misleading information about a person or company - and that person or company is essentially "forbidden" (or at the least strongly discouraged) from responding quickly on the same forum. No, Wikipedia should not be a place for people to post their CV's or companies to plant marketing materials and press releases. However, just as Dr. Tyson has a right to weigh in on what's being said about him without fear of being labeled as a whitewasher, companies and PR flacks have a right to do so as well.

I do think we should disclose when we're making edits or additions.  Frankly, I have no problem with some special kind of citation that an edit to a page was made by the subject of that page or one of its agents. We should be using legitimate sources and follow the same rules as everyone else on this platform.

Wikipedia's popularity (and search engine optimization) has unquestionably positioned it as an unbiased and authoritative resource.  It's increasingly cited in other publications.  But even the "outs" you can find in Wikipedia's guidelines - things like "if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then break the rule" or "use common sense" - haven't made it acceptable for the subjects of pages to correct the record.  We're left with contacting the Wikipedians and hoping that they'll get back to us before they deal with any of the 738 gazillion other pages on the site, and even then there's no guarantee that the matter will be dealt with appropriately.

This is crap.  And it should change.

Online PR: In Need Of A Colon Cleanse

Dr. Val passed on a post by Gary Schweitzer, a healthcare media critic and publisher of a valuable site, HealthNewsReview.org.  Schweitzer wrote his version of the bad pitch blog as a year-end post, running down some of the garbage he got this year. I snipped out some of my favorites:

• "natural essence water" that saves men from nagging wives or girlfriends who may think you're a "schlub"
• an offer of a free sample (street value of $60) of a colon-cleansing/detoxifying product. (What do they know about my colon? Is it toxic? I didn't take them up on the offer.)
• a note that was entitled "Chill Your Buns" that offered free samples of a "cold therapy" for hemorrhoids. (OK, what do they know about my buns and beyond?)

Read the whole list - it would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.  It wasn't just that the pitches ranged from silly to snake oil.  It's that the pitches were sent to a media critic.  He's the guy who actually evaluates healthcare journalism.  He's pretty good at it.  He'd likely slam a publication that ran with one of these pitches. And he clearly got dozens of them.

The moral of Schweitzer's story isn't that the pitches are pathetic, it's that healthcare journalism is too dependent on PR and the impenetrable wall between editorial and advertising seems to be thinning a bit. He's clearly right about this, but I'm more concerned with the apparently auto-generated and mind-numbingly stupid outreach. Schweitzer was far more restrained in his criticism than I would have been.

The sad truth is we're going to have more, not less, of this crap in 2011.  Companies will try even harder to commoditize online outreach to the point where cost and speed become the only criteria for choosing an approach.  I already get the emails - "buy my blogger database" to cut down on your research costs and send bulk pitch emails.  I'm in a lot of these databases already - and in several of them, the blog is called a "music blog," a "tech blog," an even a "sports blog."

I've also gotten generic emails with nothing more than a press release and a "please share with your readers" - from a college on the west coast announcing new courses in social media marketing. I assume this is where students will learn all those advanced techniques people use to build strong, personalized relationships with bloggers.

Online PR - at least what I think of it - is headed in the wrong direction.  We're obsessed with all the shiny new tools and the new networks and all that.  But for cost control reasons we label people and bloggers without even looking at what those people have to say - and we're getting worse, not better.  Social media is not static, and people can't be tagged with a single label.  Database-driven bulk email strategies are more risk than they're worth.

To any companies reading this blog, I can say without reservation that buying a well-developed ad program with a thoughtful placement strategy yields a much higher ROI than what we're doing now, and at comparable if not better cost.    If you're really concerned about building or protecting reputation for your brand or your company, throw away the database and do the work necessary to earn the trust of people.

And to all a good night

I'm getting as far off the grid as I can for the next week.  This blog slowed down as my activity on other blogs stepped up, but I think I'll try to be a bit edgier next year on this space.   My sincere thanks to everyone who stopped by here for a bit.

And now, the token "viral videos of the year" I hope to share with clients who tell me they want a "viral video" for their communications campaign.  I'll say "I don't think 'viral video' means what you think it means."  Looking forward to more fun next year.

Posts I'm Thankful For This Year

I'm obviously thankful for a lot this year - family, friends, a job that gives me flexibility and keeps things interesting, and so on.  I"m very grateful for the opportunity to contribute at some great blogs beyond my own - Science Cheerleader, Earth & Industry, and Global Voices Online.  I thought I'd put together a post with some of my favorite links from the year -all from other people (aside from my participation in one podcast) that help me appreciate the variety of the communities I navigate.  I'll get right to it...

Links to all the posts that reviewed ScienceOnline 2010.  Looking forward to #scio11 as I've gotten to know the organizers a bit more over the past year.

Earth & Industry's Gang of Four Predictions for 2010.  Listen again to this podcast and see how we did. I'm very thankful for the opportunity to collaborate with three real-deal green bloggers.

So I went to the White House today... few posts demonstrate the influence and independence of political bloggers than my pal John Aravosis' summary of his meeting with a few folks at 1600 Pennsylvania.  Since then other contributors to Americablog have met with the President directly.

Three Bad Ideas for Helping Haiti. This was the post that really turned me on to Alanna Shaikh's ideas about global development. I'm very grateful that I had the chance to chat with her - it was the first time I ever spoke with someone in Tajikistan...

The Great Backyard Bird Count.  I admit it - since I moved to NC and have a bigger backyard I've become a bit of a bird nerd.  Identifying birds and bird calls has become a bit of a family thing now, and that's a lot of fun.

Nothing is Going to Change Until We're in the Room.  Joanne Bamberger makes a pretty simple point here.  And she's right.  Her writing reminds me the mom-o-sphere is absolutely the most important online community there is.

Team WhyMommy's Virtual Science Fair.  To me this is one of 2010's best examples of a community coming together to support one of its own.  I'm very thankful that I had the opportunity to meet and talk with Susan Niebur this year, and watch her bridge communities.  I spent some time this year trying to think of ways to get mom bloggers involved with science bloggers and this remains better than anything I've tried.

Visualizing the BP Oil Spill.  To me the #1 story of the year was the underwater volcano of oil that gushed for three months in the Gulf of Mexico.  A lot of clever people used social media and technology tools to help spread the word and help people understand the magnitude of the crisis. This was just one example.

A Farewell to ScienceBlogs.  To me this post is the science blogging community's equivalent of Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the door of All Saints Church.  (OK, that's a stupid analogy for so many reasons, but still, it was a big deal.)  Bora Zivkovic's departure from SEED Media's mothership wasn't the first act of defiance, and it probably wasn't the most impactful from a financial point of view.  But Bora is the heart and soul of this community and he's been at the forefront of a renaissance in science writing.

What is UP With All the Tutus?  Another great example of the mom-o-sphere coming together to help one of its own.  Catherine Connors didn't want to be the Belle of BlogHer, but a comedy (tragedy?) of errors made that happen.  The sad, sweet story of her nephew and how she enlists the support of other mom bloggers to help is enormously touching.

New Media, Old Media.  The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism published an eye-opening report on the differences in coverage between the traditional media companies and the new-skool social media crowd.

Why Veterans Day Deserves To Be Celebrated.  Julie Marsh issues the serious smackdown to Penelope Trunk.  I know Julie pretty well and I think she really took her writing up a notch this year.

Ending Isolationism in Politics, Science, and Social Media - The Battle For Mom

One of the things I like about my job is the freedom I have to work with (online) communities that interest me - parenting, environmentalism, politics, and science.  One of the things I don't like about my job is how so few people in one community really know or care about people in another.  From a work perspective, moving from project to project, or from community to community means I often have to "shift gears" considerably - I have to reacquaint myself with a community's vocabulary, cultural norms, influential players, current events, and so on.   It's not crippling but it requires some time and effort.

The promise of the "World Wide Web" - breaking barriers, bringing people together and solving problems for the greater good - has been largely unfulfilled. Arguably, social media has contributed to even more isolationism, more homophily, more entrenched positions in our civil discourse. I'm by no means the first person to suggest this.

But it really struck home for me when I saw this: half of the incoming GOP Members of Congress deny the existence of man-made climate change.

The incoming Congress is preparing to conduct hearings and investigations based on a premise virtually all climate scientists know to be demonstrably false.  Their actions will prompt the collision of three of "my" online communities - politics, science and environmentalism.  The key to how things shake out lies with the fourth community - parents, mainly moms.

First, consider these points:

• The Internet has transformed American politics.  In 2008 it gave Democrats a fundraising tool to to compete with the GOP. In 2010 it gave Republicans (or more specifically, hard-right conservatives) an organizing tool and communication platform.  It has also prompted the rise of a new community of punditry - political bloggers.
• The blogosphere has given science writers a home. The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that science topics get ten times the amount of coverage in blogs than in traditional publications. 
• One of the reasons commonly cited today for "why the Democrats lost" this week is the decline in support from women - I realize not all women are moms, but moms are actively engaged in civic and political activities.
• Environmentalists are currently struggling mightily to find their collective voice - their "organized" communications efforts range from ineffectual to disgusting.   

I'm not trying to make a political statement on energy and the environment here.  People can and will have strong differences of opinion on policy; about diversity of fuel portfolio, about efficiency standards, subsidies, and so on.  But these discussions should be based on facts.  The facts are crystal clear: climate change is real, man's activities contribute significantly to it, and the consequences of inaction are measurable. It's really not even an issue of "agreeing on a set of facts" - facts are facts, whether you agree with them or not.  So we're asking communities who frankly don't talk with each other much - scientists, environmentalists, and political activists - to begin a vital conversation with either accusations of fraud or declarations of lunacy.

And this is where the moms come in.  Mom is the opinion leader of everyday life.  She decides everything from what we're eating for dinner to what car we're buying to what the local school will teach the kids.  She represents the demographic that tips the balance between winners and losers.  Most importantly, mom is the one who is going to tell each side to stop yelling, accept reality, and figure out a solution anyway - because that's what moms do everyday.  And nobody - NOBODY - has really made a meaningful effort to do anything with this community beyond selling it stuff.

So from a competitive standpoint the side that engages mom first and best will probably win.  But more importantly, if ANY side engages mom at all, we all win.

So I bought a "book."

In case you never heard of the term, I looked it up.

book  Pronunciation: \ˈbu̇k\ Function: noun  Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bōc; akin to Old High German buoh book, Gothic boka letter  Date: before 12th century
1 a : a set of written sheets of skin or paper or tablets of wood or ivory b : a set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together into a volume c : a long written or printed literary composition d : a major division of a treatise or literary work

It's great to see someone you like and respect have success.  Susan Getgood not only has the best name in social media marketing, she's also very smart.  She put together a valuable and clear guide for people who want to write, publish online, and maybe make a little coin while they're at it.  Susan sets herself from competitors by being an effective advocate for bloggers - as a co-founder of Blog With Integrity and the author of i-don't-know-how-many posts on how (and how not) brands and bloggers should interact, she really sets the standard for the rest of us.

In addition to the bloggers many people knew she'd highlight in the book - smart, entrepreneurial moms like Liz, Kristen, Julie, Joanne, Devra & Aviva, Mir, and a bunch of others - I was very pleased that she went beyond the mom-o-sphere and looked at some pals of mine like Chris, Preston & Jeff.  The book blends the case studies with the useful advice quite well, and it's worth a read for anyone who wants to do this social media stuff for real.

Congrats Susan!

Why the old spice social media stuff REALLY works

Did you come here from twitter?

Seriously people, it looks like people click on ANYTHING old spice today.  It was smart and funny and they got lucky.  They were also on television.  That's basically it.

I sense a disturbance in the force

The force known as the mom-o-sphere, that is.  Silicon Valley Moms Group is closing down.

I'm sure there are a variety of factors contributing to this, and I plan to write more about it, but right now I think it's important to recognize Jill Asher as a successful entrepreneur who really helped build a strong online community.  I know she had a lot of help from people like Beth Blecherman, but it's clear that Asher was the face of this organization and accomplished a great deal. 

I know she has a lot of great things going on in her life right now and I'm sure we'll be seeing her again.

Buying Google Ads Is Not a Crime

I think it's safe to say I haven't been too kind to BP in the past couple of weeks.  But when I saw a bunch of "mainstream" media breathlessly report that the company bought up all the sponsored links on Google searches about the oil spill - like that was some sort of scandal - I had to chuckle.

Buying search ads is one of the first things I'd do if I worked for them.

You can take issue with the way the company has addressed the crisis.  You can take issue with the content of the ad itself. You can at least make an argument that the company doesn't need any more attention and shouldn't ask for it.  But at least on this, the company has something to say in their own voice and has the right to buy an ad.  It's really not any different than buying an ad in a relevant section of a newspaper.

This isn't a transparency issue.  Ads are clearly marked on Google.  And contrary to what Howard Fineman said on MSNBC the other night, the company didn't "buy the algorithm." It's only logical that their site would rise to the top of organic search rankings.

But here's the thing for me:  Nobody is forcing anyone to click on a specific search result. There are no "google police."   We're acting like scrolling down to the bottom of the screen and clicking "next" is some kind of monumental task.  

Just wait - I'm sure someone will sue over this.

E&I's Gang of Four (minus one): Deepwater Horizon

I had the chance to chat briefly with two of my favorite environmentalist bloggers, Tim Hurst and Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, for another edition of Earth & Industry Radio.  (Maria Surma Manka sent her regrets.)  I wanted to get their reactions to everything we've seen and read about the oil spill.  Jeff grew up in Southern Louisiana so he brings some personal perspective, and I've come to admire Tim's political instincts.   As always the podcasts are available on iTunes or you can listen right from the page.

I also note with interest NOAA's "confirmation" of measurements from the University of South Florida on the existence of subsurface oil plumes. I haven't seen BP's reaction to it yet.  USF and the good people from the University of Georgia have done some incredible work, and I really don't think the government would have been as forthcoming if these researchers hadn't pushed forward on this work AND promoted it through social media channels.   I'm hopeful their aggressive work on issues such as more accurate estimates of the rates of flow will continue - not for any PR purpose but to make sure people have all the information necessary to make the right decisions on addressing the spill.  It also means that people will take scientists like the folks at UNC - Chapel Hill very seriously when it comes to addressing mitigation, remediation, and so on.

The spill is tragic and the response is much less effective than everyone wants.   If it's even possible to say there's a positive here, it's that scientists are doing great work AND they're using social media effectively to get relevant, useful and important information out there.

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.

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.