Measuring Up

Can social media bring divided factions together?

Anyone who’s ever worked inside a large company understands that corporate politics and turf battles are almost always a reality of day-to-day business. From our consultant viewpoint, we’ve pretty much seen all of the ways companies get stuck in their own inertia. One run-of-the-mill infrastructure issue we often see involves functional departments competing over budget sizes and resource allocations. And, within departments, managers often jockey for control over specific projects/campaigns or groups of employees. In these cases, the end goal (whatever it might be) is typically sacrificed because of power battles.  My least favorite (though) is when great ideas (that have the ability to “move the needle”) are killed for no other reason than because of petty personal insecurities (i.e. it didn’t come from me, and I don’t want that guy to look good).

We were discussing many of these issues last week during a day-long workshop that Peppercom co-led with CableFax, the cable industry trade publication, and Access Intelligence (its parent company). The workshop focused on how cable and media companies can learn to leverage social media more effectively within their current internal and external communications/marketing efforts. No surprises really came from this group. In many cases, even the largest companies are just dipping their toes into the digital water right now. Others haven’t created a social media strategy due to lack of resources, expertise or because their organization is still figuring out where this new functional discipline should be housed internally.

We also had two excellent guest speakers, a research team from MTV Networks who discussed how their organization is using social media research to serve its many properties (i.e. MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, etc.) from a content and marketing standpoint. What I found most interesting, though, is how they’ve leveraged social media to unite so many different business functions within the organization. In their experience, this still misunderstood medium can bring many factions within a company together for the first time. And that’s exciting.

How is this possible? Well, after applying some logical analysis, it makes sense. What we heard is that most companies (at least in the cable and media industries) have not yet created one social media function or division within the organizational chart that runs across the company. Instead, various resources are often siphoned from different departments within the organization to take the lead on figuring out social media. These people are then deemed “social media experts.”  I’m sure that outside specialists are also brought in to show the way in many cases as well. But the point for MTV Networks is that, because its many business lines, brands and marketing areas are all intently trying to learn how to apply social media to their communications/marketing/audience engagement efforts, these factions find themselves opening up, integrating and simply working better with each other to learn and leverage best practices. More specifically, our guests discussed how social media research serves to play this unifying role (i.e. everyone wants it to make better decisions about specific campaigns/projects that should be created or not based on this first-time research).

In essence, because social media is so new and still somewhat mysterious (at least to its ultimate effect), it can actually serve to change the unwritten political rules that govern how internal behavior works within large organizations. Of course, this was but one example from one workshop. But, the possibilities are still pretty exciting.

The pot calling the kettle black

Ever notice how many famous (or highly regarded) public figures who go through scandals (or are disgraced) rehabilitate their image only to jump right back into the spotlight a few years later? I’ve always been intrigued with the ease that most gain acceptance. And, although their lapses aren’t forgotten… typically they are forgiven.

Don’t get me wrong. In many cases, these former politicians, dignitaries or celebrities come back even stronger and have every right to do so because their new found visibility has little to do with past crimes or indiscretions. One case in point is Martha Stewart. Martha went to jail for insider trading (actually the official crime was lying to the government.) With her jail term served, those who cherished Martha’s wise home living advice and tips before, accepted her quite affectionately again by enthusiastically watching her shows, reading her magazines and books and maintaining their overall fan status.

Take a look at Eliot Spitzer and we see a completely different scenario, albeit an interesting storyline. It wasn’t so long ago that the former Governor of New York went through this state’s largest political scandal in recent history when the news broke that he was caught red handed frolicking with an expensive call girl. The governor quickly resigned from office and then created his own Richard Nixon-like, self exile scenario. We thought that would be the last of Mr. Spitzer, until 18 months later when he appeared on many talk shows to offer his very relevant commentary on the plummeting financial markets and Wall Street’s blame in the economic disaster that had resulted. Yes, people were shocked to see the disgraced governor in the spotlight again. Some were even outraged. Yet, in the end, this was most likely the smartest move Mr. Spitzer could have made to rehabilitate his image because the only positive and credible piece of his reputation that still existed was forged over a 12 year period as having an Elliot Ness approach to fighting Wall Street corruption and greed by standing up for all those ‘little people’ who needed to be protected.    

Then, there exists a few hypocrisies that I simply don’t understand. These include real life examples of larger than life successful people who fell from grace because of some misdeed, or simply because their success was built on a lie. Yet, somehow, they managed to come back in the most credible and public way to provide counsel or advice on the very same issues or manners that caused the controversy in the first place. One such example I’m thinking of is the former dot.com super star analyst Henry Blodget.

Do you remember Henry? I certainly do. Think back to 1998 or 1999. This young buck was seen as a God within the investment/technology community for his outlandish Internet investment picks. At that time he worked at Merrill Lynch and instantly reached star status after predicting that Amazon would rise to become a $400 stock (which it actually did.) Every technology or Internet company wanted to get on the radar screen of young Henry after that. He was paid at the highest Wall Street levels, treated like a rock star in all public circles and seen as a new sage on Wall Street. This all worked beautifully well until the Internet bubble busted and it was later found out that Henry and others from Merrill’s research/analyst department were conducting questionable activities within the firm.  He was sharing information (and more importantly) helping Merrill’s investment banking customers prosper by writing favorable financial reports on questionable business models. The Wall Street Chinese Wall relationship between research and investment banking was torn down because Henry (and others) helped Merrill make lots of money through these investment banking relationships at the expense of individual investors. In return, top analysts like Henry also received special early investment considerations into a number of the firm’s hot IPOs.

In the end, Henry’s picks all went south and his conflicted relationship within Merrill caused then New York State Attorney General to investigate him. Though he wasn’t ever convicted of anything, Henry was later barred from the securities industry and paid a fine of $2 million.

That’s why it makes no sense to me and truly comes across as the ultimate hypocrisy when I see that Henry is a top anchor and host on “Tech Ticker,” a heavily watched Internet news segment which dissects and analyzes the latest developments on Wall Street and within the technology world. I’ve watched these videos for over a year. While they are entertaining, it’s absurd that Henry actually plays the ‘heavy,’ watchdog role at times by beating up Wall Street executives and their companies for having ethical lapses and questionable judgment.

I’m not sure how Henry could be seen as credible by any audience on this topic based on a history laced with suspect decisions himself. Talk about the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black…

You need to "live it" to get it

This morning, I read about Rupert Murdoch's bold prediction to stop the flood tide that is swiftly forcing almost all online media/content to be free. More specifically, Mr. Murdoch announced that he intends to charge for all of his company's news Web sites. And, he confidently believes that this will create a counter revolution, allowing for all other media to follow suit.

Rupert Murdoch is one smart dude. He's established a global media empire in the shrewdest of ways. There should be an entire class in business school offering case studies of how this man successfully built the News Corporation from the ground up.

But this time, I think he's finally lost his golden touch. You see, from everything I've read, it appears that Mr. Murdoch has only actually been on the Internet once or twice (and never by himself.) So, it just seems kind of crazy for a man to think he can be the force that halts the Internet's natural evolution towards providing free content and actually find a way to reverse current consumer wants and demands... when he clearly hasn't even experienced what it's all about.

Free. Yes, we've all heard it many times. Free is the optimal word now for news and information online.

Why?

Well, it's pretty simple. There are just too many free blogs, information sites and knowledgeable Web columnists with opinions for the masses to read. And, when almost any news story (or opinion about that story) can be searched in a second and clicked onto for free, why in the world would consumers pay to receive it, even if it's coming from a newspaper that they subscribe to or read every day?

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. Some folks like and need the special alerts, feeds and other information that can provide up to the minute news. Thus, any number of trade magazines and even internationals such as The Financial Times do make revenues from real subscriptions. But, those are anomalies (and we're not talking about a lot of money generated, either.) The fact remains that the media industry has never found a way to create a sustainable revenue line from consumer subscriptions. And these days, many are facing real uphill battles maintaining their only real source of income -- selling advertising.

Maybe Mr. Murdoch's entertaining announcement is nothing more than a blustery (but weak) attempt to bridge attention away from his weak earnings (off more than 30 percent this quarter.) Or maybe, he has some grander scheme in mind to prop up one or more of his media properties in the hope of catching the eye of a suitable buyer.

Either way, it makes no difference to me. It just feels like his provocative prediction would prove a tad more credible if the man actually put himself in the shoes of today's consumer by actually "living" on the Internet for a while. Lord knows, he'd certainly have a better understanding of the subject at hand.

Twitter’s been unmercifully exposed… but is it all bad?

For those of you who haven’t been following this story, it’s a wild one. Seems that digital phenomenon Twitter  was recently hacked into in the worst of ways. Some thief who goes by the name ‘Hacker Croll’ found the easiest way to break into the email accounts of Twitter employees, including co-founder Evan Williams. It seems that Croll didn’t even have to work too hard to do this. No, all he did was guess or figure out new passwords as they were reset and… viola… he was in.

The damage that incurred is simply scary. Many of the company’s most sensitive business strategy/finance/competitive approaches documents were stolen and the popular tech blog/quasi media outlet TechCrunch decided to actually focus on two of them in this article.

Reading through this article is a bone chilling experience. Twitter’s business strategy and some of its deepest secretive deliberations and possible next moves are simply laid out for anyone to see. These include: How it plans to compete and/or partner with Google moving forward, real details on its goals and strategies (i.e. should it get into the licensing content game,) how it plans to deal with any possible identity crisis (not sure I get that one, but planning for this is certainly smart,) it’s acquisition strategy (according to rough notes, it has no intention of being acquired,) what it’s financial goals are (reaching $4 million by end of year,) how RSS is the enemy and what it intends to do about it, etc., etc. etc. I think you get the point.

There are many different story angles that I could pursue through this post. For starters, how ethical was it for TechCrunch to exploit Twitter’s misery by publishing all of these very confidential approaches to attack the market? Some would say that this is fair game. Even though Twitter was victimized by a theft, once the media/bloggers obtain something, it’s in their purview to report on it. Others would question the tactic since this had nothing to do with documents being leaked by an employee or someone just being careless at the company. No, they were stolen. My feeling is that (because of the special circumstances surrounding the release of this information) TechCrunch should have backed off. Of course, some other ambitious Woodward/Bernstein wannabe media outlet or blogger would have just picked up on what TechCrunch passed on. So, this issue really doesn’t matter.

We could discuss the technology ramifications behind what happened. I certainly am not knowledgeable enough to offer any views on what security platforms should have been used by these executives to ensure greater safety within their accounts. But, it does seem like the company didn’t take a whole lot of much needed precautions by allowing a hacker to break in so easily by just obtaining new passwords.

Then there’s the topic that I’d like to focus on… which I find most interesting. As I read through the excruciating details of Twitter’s thinking on so many key business and reputational issues, I cringed thinking about how the company will clearly lose a step in its competitive race to maintain dominance on the Internet because so much of what it plans to do next will be reacted to and mitigated. But, I also got to see how this global tech phenomenon thinks. And, it’s pretty damn impressive.

Many companies in Twitter’s enviable position would be more than happy to simply focus on how to maintain their current status. (I would refer to that as being complacent.) Not Twitter. Its executives are clearly thinking about hundreds of ways to move this organization (and what it offers) into the next stratosphere. From finding ways to capture even more market share, to fending off enemies, to developing various types of strategies to deal with the other Web giants (i.e. Google and Facebook,) Twitter has clearly created a fast moving, incredibly strategic, ‘what’s next’ culture that is made to compete and won’t accept anything less than success. (Just review the notes from so many of the strategy meetings laid out in TechCrunch and you can see that.)

So, while the company might feel like it is standing in front of the world, naked right now, there are also thousands of followers who are that much more impressed with its business savoir faire and who now recognize what a special organization it is.

And then, there’s one last (but important) positive here. Not all bad publicity is actually bad publicity. Yes, Twitter feels foolish. But, through this major incident it also continues to remain top of mind for millions because of the all publicity and viral chatter that surrounds it. Everyone was talking about Twitter before. And, the masses certainly won’t stop now.

“15,000 youths came into the streets!"

That was the quote from a Moldovan blogger who, with a handful of friends, harnessed Twitter, Facebook, blogs and text messaging to create quite a powerful protest in this little known, obscure country yesterday.  

In actuality, 10,000 young protestors showed up at a solidarity rally to voice disapproval with the national elections which voted the Communist party into office again. Their anger arose because a serious question remains as to whether these elections were rigged to eliminate the other party from having any chance of being voted in.

It’s sad to see that this protest turned violent as the youths ransacked government offices and clashed with police. But, that’s not the part of this story I want to focus on. What’s truly amazing (instead) is how (when used correctly)  the latest, greatest social media tools can serve to inform, shape perceptions and act as a rallying cry to whip thousands of human beings into a frenzy in only a few short hours. Think about it. These young Moldovans weren’t just offering their support on the Internet. No, instead they were watching, listening and communicating in mass. Once they had built a large enough community (or mob in this case) through Twitter (and other social media tools), their newly formed organization had direction and a mission to take to the streets. A young civil rights leader in the early 60s once had the same effect. But, he needed to influence and create action through many stump speeches at churches and within communities. And, even with the impact that his publicity afforded him, Dr. King’s marches often took weeks and weeks to organize and prepare for. And, hundreds of organizers were needed to plan, direct and lead each initiative.

In this case, by creating their own searchable tag on twitter, a handful of protesters were also able communicate a host of newly popular topics (such as the questionable election process) through this social media tool to people around the world. This in turn has raised the level of concern and suspicion aimed at the governing Communist Party from the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and many other powerful international interests across the world. Here we see a great example of how a tool like Twitter truly has no geographic borders or limitations.

Young people have used social media tools to organize politically before. Through cell phones and text messages, they were able to energize protests in both Ukraine (2004) and Belarus (2006). And, of course, the Internet played a key role in helping our current president build support among many different voting groups just last year.

But, this latest movement truly feels like a landmark social media success moment in the grand scheme of the Internet’s relatively short history. It will be interesting to watch and see how other savvy people (probably most of them being from our younger generation) will leverage Twitter and whatever comes next to influence even more significant outcomes than what happened yesterday in the tiny country of Moldova.  

The Internet "loves" Cease-and-Desist letters

Here's another example of bad lawyerly advice. Clear Channel Communications tried to force a Web site in Connecticut to take down an audio recording, only to have the segment pop up on hundreds of other sites within just days.

The cease and desist strategy began after an interview by Tom Scott, a talk radio host at Clear Channel station, WELI-AM in New Haven, recorded a heated interview with Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd. It seems that Mr. Scott is a former Republican state senator. He accused Mr. Dodd of misconduct in getting a personal mortgage. Or course, Mr. Dodd fervently denied this allegation.

For reasons unknown, the interview was never broadcast and Mr. Scott quit the station soon thereafter (he claims censorship took place). And, as fate would have it, the recording turned up on a local Internet news site, The New Haven Independent, along with this article highlighting the immediate demand by Clear Channel to remove this WELI unapproved interview. You can see that the article makes Clear Channel look pretty silly... as if it had something to hide from the public.

Of course, anytime a whiff of legal intimidation, censorship, or corporate "cleanup" is enforced on the Internet, the masses become aroused and this often leads to a story going viral. And, that's just what happened here. Political Web sites, bloggers and other radio stations (including at least one Clear Channel station) downloaded the recording and played or posted it. According to the managing editor of the Independent, "It crashed our server... and is by far the heaviest traffic we've had."

So, what's the moral of this story for corporations? Be smart about how you try to control your own content/intellectual property on the Internet (especially when it surrounds a potentially controversial issue.) Yes, it's important to be the master of your own domain. But, once the information has been released, the reality is that you really aren't in control anymore. Legally, you have every right to crack down on violators. But, the severely negative public relations impact from your actions might cost you a hell of a lot more in the end.

A call to action…

PR Week’s first blogging competition to celebrate its 10th anniversary is a cute promotional idea. But unknowingly, the publication’s editors may have actually initiated the first step to aligning 32 of the most highly visible communications professionals in the blogosphere. One voice alone in the wilderness of the Internet can only be heard so much, but 32 of us communicating back and forth can actually create a community. And, that’s a powerful concept to unleash.

Think about that. Instead of just pushing out the word about each of our individual blogs, through this contest, we can come together to provide real thought leadership, knowledge and a very loud dialogue that can be heard “for miles.” Imagine if our community actually played a role in influencing others to change.

So, on that note, I’d like to suggest a call to action. The call is to bring my 31 worthy competitors together to discuss and debate any number of critical issues throughout this five-week blogging competition. And, if that works out, well… then we might just have a sustainable community.  In any event, it would give us a chance to use this contest to talk about some of the most pressing issues both in our field and in our lives.

Issue number one (and topic of the day): Let’s look at the veiled and miscalculated strategy that the Chinese government is showcasing to the world surrounding its supposedly open Olympics policy, as an example of the importance of ethical behavior in a more transparent digital world. In my opinion, the government of this country is operating like a schizophrenic patient who is off his/her meds. It is abundantly clear that the government really doesn’t want to tear down the “Great Firewall of China.”

Yet, it continues to make superficial attempts (even today) to communicate that it will tell state police to stop interfering with reporters and allow for formerly restricted Internet sites to be opened.

The bitter irony is that, just a few hours after that news broke, we’ve learned that Chinese paramilitary police beat two Japanese journalists Tuesday night for absolutely no justified reason.

What we have here is a very conflicted adolescent (in China) who has only started learning how important it is to create a sustainable positive reputation among his/her peers (and on the world stage) as he/she continues to open up an economic and cultural system that never had anyone watching before. These inconsistent actions are causing many bumps, bruises and some serious broken bones along the way, though. The result is building toward the type of negative reputation that hasn’t been felt since Tiananmen Square.

I was in China when the last big earthquake took place two months ago. It was amazing to see how quickly the government responded to the crisis. And, like many media savvy politicians, its Premier took the bull by the horn (Or, in this case, he took the bull horn.), as he was seen endlessly on television news walking among the rubble of the earthquake showing victims just how much he cares. Maybe he did. But, the point is that it certainly seemed like this government understood and appreciated the need to show the world how China has changed for the better. More to the point in that particular crisis, it looked liked China had begun to master the art of public relations. My view of the government was beginning to evolve, before seeing the debacle surrounding how they government is handling the Olympics.

This example of inconsistency and veiled transparency from the Chinese government is an apt example to demonstrate what can go wrong for governments, businesses or even individuals when they assume they can keep less ethical behavior under wraps today.  The Internet (in all of its glory) has brought an entirely new and tougher standard of ethics to the world of reputation that we live in. Insincerity, deceit and/or inconsistencies in actions are ferreted out quickly, all inflicting serious harm to the offender’s credibility and longer term reputation.

To me, the increased importance of ethics in public communication is one of the biggest shifts in the world we live and work in today.  I think our industry could greatly benefit from a dialogue among my 31 blogging colleagues, a list that is comprised of: John Bell, Rohit Bhargava, Bite Communications, Renee Blodgett, Cone, Todd Defren, Kevin Dugan and Richard Laermer, Tim Dyson, Richard Edelman, Phil Gomes, Peter Himler, Neville Hobson, Shel Holtz , Kami Huyse, Insidedge, Rodger Johnson, Drew Kerr, Daniel Lally, Andy Lark, Livingston Communications, Lois Paul & Partners, Tom Murphy, My Creative Team, Katie Paine, Jeremy Pepper, Mark Rose, Steve Rubel, Sage Circle, Frank X. Shaw, Brian Solis, and Voce Communications.   

More than that, I hope others beyond that list join into this conversation, whether about China and the Olympics in particular or the business necessity of more ethical behavior in a digital age.

A prestigious lot to be included in...

To celebrate its 10th Anniversary, PR Week (our industry's main trade publication) has created a unique Final Four-like competition among bloggers in the industry. Specifically, its editorial staff selected 16 blogs they admire the most. I'm honored to say that Measuring Up is included in this prestigious group. Next, these 16 bloggers were asked to hand pick 16 more blogs that stand out among the rest. With that, 32 blogs have agreed to participate in a tournament that will pit one against another until the last survivor is named by PRWeek as the most favorite public relations/communications blog.

How does it work?

The contest is entirely based on votes (yup, popularity) from you (uh... that’s the public at large). The blog that receives the most votes versus its competitor over a two day period moves on. The losing blog hits the golf course for a three month vacation... that's it.

On a more serious note, the real fun behind this competition is being able to read and learn from many of these outstanding bloggers. Whether you're interested (or not) in participating in the voting, I encourage all of you to link to many of these other blogs. You'll get a wealth of intelligence on the latest public relations/marketing techniques, social media strategies, PR implications on the business world and newest technologies to foster better communications.

Two blogs that I often read and are particularly insightful in the areas of social media and public relations impact on business are 'Micro Persuasion' and 'The Flack.'

For those who care, Measuring Up officially enters the competition on Wednesday of this week and runs through Friday. Click here for more information or to cast a vote.

Ignorance is not bliss

Dunkin’ Donuts succumbed to ignorant, right wing media and blogosphere pressure yesterday. And, it is really sad.

To think that Rachael Ray, the perky, happy-go-lucky food and fun talk show host is a terrorist sympathizer is just utterly ridiculous. More importantly, her sponsor understood full well that the scarf she was wearing in the (now infamous) ad was simply chosen by her fashion stylist because it went well with her outfit. It had no relevance to a keffiyeh, the traditional headdress worn by many Arab men.

Oh, and by the way, even if it did, who cares? How can one honestly make a connection to any person wearing a keffiyeh with terrorism? That’s like saying if I wear the same tie, or suit as Iranian president Ahmadinejad, then I must be both an Iranian sympathizer and anti-American. Rubbish.

Dunkin’ Donuts looks awfully silly right now as well. Believe me; I know all too well how the media/blogosphere can influence, often forcing organizations to make ill conceived decisions. But, this is one crisis that the donut king should have stood tall on, regardless of how hard Fox News Commentator Michelle Malkin was pushing. Yes, I know that Dunkin’ Donuts main audience across our country is middle-America. And, the last thing it wanted to do was to alienate this critically important customer base.

But, instead, the decision makers at the top could have viewed this crisis as an opportunity to do what’s right versus cowering in the corner. If it was communicated to all what Rachel Ray truly stands for (especially to those who don’t know her), and how her scarf is simply about style, and nothing else, the chain could have successfully fought through this. And, it would have achieved a greater good… to show those zealots who are only interested in promoting fear and hate that it ain’t happening when it’s time to make the donuts.

Web 2.0 will force lawyers and marketers to be friends

Yesterday, I took part in a panel discussion in front of 200+ intellectual property lawyers on the topic of how Web 2.0 has impacted global branding. I was the only marketing professional at the event.

My part of the discussion focused on the philosophical divide that exists (between our two professions) regarding how corporations should view their intellectual property rights on the Web.  In the most extreme sense, lawyers believe it is their job to control all IP, at almost any cost. Marketers (on the other hand), are focused on brand building and, thus, are more interested in allowing their consumers/customers to liberally utilize some IP assets (brand logo, copyrighted content, etc.) to “spread the gospel” throughout the Internet.

This is clearly a sensitive and highly visible topic that lawyers don’t take easily. So, I expected a lot of pushback (especially in light of my minority status) when I cited example after example of how companies generated lots of negative publicity, alienated thousands and thousands of customers and hurt their companies brand as they took a prohibitive approach to the very essence behind this new Web 2.0.  WB Network, FedEx, Crocs and Dell are just a few of the dozens I named. In each instance, fans of their products had created their own web sites and/or supportive viral campaigns which proudly exclaimed to the world how great their offerings are. In each case, cease and desist letters were sent to these fans from the companies they were supporting. Was each site/activity violating intellectual property rights? You bet. Did each lawyer do far greater harm to the company he/she serves through this tactic? Absolutely.