But they were asleep. Worse, they were scooped.

A few hours before the text message went out I happened to be awake and reading some online news. The AP broke the story that Joe Biden had the slot at about 1am, based on an anonymous source. Pretty typical reporting.

What's more, the 3am timing, even as planned, meant that the Obama camp had a very traditional advantage: they were on the morning news, in the morning papers and controlled the "news cycle." Which begs the question: why do it?

The obvious first answer is that it makes the candidate look tech-savvy, something that is pretty important when trying to woo young voters against a Republican candidate who admits that he doesn't go online.

But I think that misses the point. The biggest thing the Democrats got out of this was a list of cell phone numbers and email addresses.The exact number isn't known, but it's as many as 3 million, sorted by zip code. The company that handled the process isn't giving out many specifics.

Considering that those elusive younger voters often don't get landlines, choosing instead to stick with a cell phone, means that the Democrats have contact with people who don't turn up in public directories. These are people not polled when the calls go out, asking "who are you likely to vote for in November?"

It means that these phone numbers can be called with fund raising requests and, more importantly, get-out-the-vote requests.

In 2004 I spent election night in a Newton living room using my own cell phone to call people in battleground states reminding them to get out and vote. Of course, those were public numbers. Now the Democrats have their own list to use. One that will reach a very young crowd.

As a side note, our own Ross Levanto is attending the Democratic National Convention and will be both blogging and tweeting from the event. I don't think he's planning to send out any text messages.

CUSTOMER:  Here's one -- nine pence.
DEAD PERSON:  I'm not dead!
MORTICIAN:  What?
CUSTOMER:  Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
DEAD PERSON:  I'm not dead!
MORTICIAN:  Here -- he says he's not dead!
CUSTOMER:  Yes, he is.
DEAD PERSON:  I'm not!
MORTICIAN:  He isn't.
CUSTOMER:  Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
DEAD PERSON:  I'm getting better!
CUSTOMER:  No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.

Every time I hear the argument that PR is dead, which seems to happen all the time, I come back to one of the early scenes of Monty Phython and the Holy Grail.

We're not dead, and frankly, we're feeling better.

Admittedly, public relations needs to change if it wants to stay relevant. We know that and we're working very hard to do it. Our business is no longer about taking our clients message and sending pitches out to reporters. We are taking a much more active role in the conversations externally, but also in the internal conversations. When I work with my clients I don't just take what I'm told and move along, I advise and help them find their voice. As much as I'm a translator for the media I'm a guide for them, helping companies navigate a world that they don't know as well as they know their own industry. I also learn from them aspects of technology and their business that I could never learn on my own.

A lot of bloggers and reporters are saying that PR is dead because they want to find things on their own. That's great, and today's networked society makes finding information much easier than ever. But if bloggers think they discovered a technology on their own, they may be fooling themselves. Quite often people find those technologies because good PR people (and internal marketers) put out the information for them to find. It's not as overt as calling people on the phone and asking them to take a briefing, but it's just as much PR as anything else.

I represent a company called Investment Instruments, which has a great tool for renters called the Rentometer. We work very hard to keep the buzz high about the product, but often when I read a blog post about it, the blogger begins "I discovered this great tool ...." They discovered it because the PR is working.

It's also important to remember that Web 2.0 provides tools for communications, but it doesn't mean that everyone knows how to use those tools. I can buy all the lumber, hammers, nails and saws I want at Home Depot, but the only thing I manage to make with all that stuff is a mess. If I keep from cutting something off my body I consider myself pretty lucky. Making the tools available doesn't eliminate the need for a good carpenter. Frankly, it may increase the need for a good emergency room.

So, which would you prefer, the carpenter or the ER?

It makes me look for multiple meanings in otherwise mundane stuff that I read. Do I "get" what the writer's trying to say? Do I want to?

Into this larger context drops a postcard from our local Coldwell Banker realtor, sent to "postal patrons." There's a nice photo of a meadow on the front. [My town has an abundance of trees. Deer like the woods and ticks like the deer. It's a problem because much of the town seems to get Lyme disease each year.]

The realtors write, "Through the years, we have become aware of the tick population which has led to the discovery of a tool which removes them. This handy gizmo is called 'Ticked-off.' If you would like one, call either of us. The supply is limited, so call soon for your free tick remover. Happy Summer!"

First I rolled my eyes (bad habit), and then I thought ... well, we do have a tick problem. Then I thought a second longer and figured that this is actually a brilliant attempt to turn people off to the town and list their houses with this realtor. Now I don't really care what motivated this post card campaign, but am mystified by my own inability to take at face value what I read and to stop questioning the agenda of the writers.

For this, I don't thank graduate education, living in a "liberal" state or any of the traditional guilty parties. For this, I thank too much time spent with blogs.

up the morning paper.

In today's media environment, information transcends the channel in that no two people get their information in quite the same way. It used to be that a PR plan had some definite rules: you reach out to the publications that reach your target audience and the right people receive your message. Need to reach enterprise IT buyers? eWeek is a great venue for that. Going after a more business-level audience? InformationWeek is your target. Consumers? The New York Times and USA Today come to mind.

Our main issue today is that no one truly knows how people get information. The problem runs

deep--even NBC doesn't know and is using the Olympics just to figure it out. That's more than $1 billion spent so they can better understand where the shrinking TV audiences have gone.

I watched Mad Men by streaming the video from an online source, which created a delicious irony of watching a show about advertising without seeing any ads. I talked with a few people by my home phone, but many more through IM, Twitter, Facebook and on my cell phone.

As for the Jets, I heard about the Favre trade by reading my BlackBerry and seeing the email from the Jets, followed quickly by an email offering to sell me a Brett Favre jersey. I'll probably end up getting one for my 9-year-old, who is a long-time Favre fan and can now combine the best of both worlds.

Even as I got my Favre news from one source, my wife heard it on the local TV news, which she usually watches for the weather. So two people, one house, one piece of news, two sources.

What is a company to do in this environment?

1. Think about influencers: Rather than thinking in terms of "reporters" and "bloggers," think in terms of influencers. Reporters at the New York Times are influencers, as are Michael Arrington and Robert Scoble. The fact that they attack the media world from different vantage points is irrelevant.
2. Focus on your true audience: Examine the people who will bring you revenue and learn what communities they participate in. Many of my clients have found that small mentions on targeted sites like Fierce Wireless or Curbed.com often drive more traffic and users than similar mentions in InformationWeek or in the New York Sun. On paper the publications come out looking like they have more readers, but the other sites have the right readers.
3. Don't Dismiss the Small Stuff: CEOs sometimes get told by their VCs that doing interviews with smaller publications is a waste of time. It's not--it all helps feed the larger media beast. There is a balance here, however, and it's up to a good PR firm to help find that balance. You can't chase everything, but today you have to chase quite a bit just to make a good impression.
4. Experiment: This is an exciting time for marketers because it opens us up to all sorts of new things. Create a podcast or a video, just to see what's possible. Try new things. Some will work, some won't, but in this market you don't know until you try.

By any traditional measurement Cuil.com saw an amazing PR launch. Positive articles appeared everywhere, traffic came rolling in, people were talking on the boards. Several people IM'd me to try it out, stopping me in the hallway to ask my opinion, etc.

The problems started with what came next. Those same people who said "did you try it out?" usually finished the converastion with "I wasn't impressed." The online discussions have been brutal, attacking Cuil at every step, from the search results to the fact that the server crashed due to the traffic. Even the name itself is under attack.

If you're going to try to topple the king of search, which most of the Cuil.com articles suggested is the goal, you need to come with more than just a big library. But that's the search technology and frankly, I'm a not an expert in that area. I do know, however, that challenging Google means getting people to change their habits, and that doesn't happen with a one day boost. You need chatter, interest and a long-term strategy.

When a client comes to us with a consumer launch I usually suggest a relatively long closed beta, something that is at least a few months. Then listen to the feedback they're getting on the blogs and in the discussion board, respond to any issues that come up and be prepared to do the coding necessary to make any fixes.

In many cases this idea gets rejected, not because it's wrong, but because other business factors (such as investors, competition, etc.) force the company to put out the product immediately and not wait for the closed beta. Essentially they've come to us too late, not hiring the PR firm until they needed the coverage.

The closed beta does two things: it helps build viral buzz and it allows the site to get a pretty good test group so it can work out the kinks. The fact that most people chatting about Cuil.com complain that the results just aren't good or accurate is something that could have been fixed during the closed beta. If the bloggers and reporters were briefed, but not put under embargo, then they could have written about it, built the buzz and then general users would have had to wait until launch day to access.

A great example of this is Evernote, which is run by a former client Phil Libin and the marketing is

handled by Andrew Sinkov, one of the best young marketing pros I've ever worked with. I'll write more about them another time. Both came out of Cambridge-based CoreStreet.

Cuil.com has a lot of work to do in order to take on Google. I'm sure they prepared for the long haul, but now they also have a deep hole and will have to climb out.

Fans hit the Internet hard with their complaints, sharing stories and quickly learning that Comcast cable customers were also having trouble receiving the broadcast.

Last night, ABC's World News Tonight aired a segment on how Comcast has quickly realized that the Internet can be a great way to listen to its users; in fact, Comcast employees are on Twitter specifically for the task.

The process is a great example of a consumer company understanding the value of social media. The user profiled in the ABC News piece saw Twitter as a way to vent frustration. This type of "flashpoint" customer service issue is ideal for a service like Twitter.

Comcast, in general, has done a great job of harnessing the Internet to provide better customer support--in ways that make best use of available methods while most certainly reducing Comcast's support costs. For example, Comcast's online presence let's users initiate real-time chats with customer support. Many issues with cable boxes can be fixed simply by restarting the box, and the real-time chat format is great for teaching users how to perform that remedy. (A user might be reluctant to follow an online set of troubleshoot directions if one instruction is "disconnect power to the cable box.")

The real-time chat feature via Comcast's site has been available for some time. More recently, Comcast has realized that Twitter's use as a frustration vent is a newer phenomenon. Users that resort to Twitter to complain about Comcast, it follows logically, may have lost their Internet connection and are using a mobile device to update their Twitter post (the exact example in the ABC News piece).

Comcast's use of Twitter has been well covered in the blogosphere. Of note, well-known blogger Michael Arrington has had very public issues with Comcast, and the cable company dealt with them.

Beyond what has been covered by many other blogs, Comcast's ongoing success hints at some important lessons for B2B companies and their use of social media for customer relations. Since many of Schwartz's work is done in the B2B arena, these lessons are of interest to me. Here is what I have learned:

1) The world *is* listening. Comcast is, and prospective customers are as well. If you are a B2B company, you should add Twitter-watching to your customer support operations, and you should tell your customers that. The added benefit of conversing with your customers via Twitter is that your customer’s colleagues on Twitter--many of whom are likely prospects--will see it.

2) Twitter is the ideal venting medium. As a Twitter user myself, I take satisfaction in using Twitter to simply express frustration. This is both good and bad for B2B companies. It's good because it's a quick way to cool down hot tempers, but it's bad because it means the customer has likely already tried other means to either correct the issue or navigate the vendor's customer support. As some bloggers have stated, Twitter is the last line of defense. It should not be a substitute for other, more proactive, means of keeping customers in the loop.

3) Don't use Twitter unless you are ready to use Twitter. Social media creates new ways to communicate with customers, prospects, and everyone else. Relative to a company's overall communication infrastructure, it may not necessarily introduce new efficiencies. Companies must be prepared to invest when they use Twitter (bear in mind, for example, that Twitter is on 24/7). With the power and viral nature of the Internet, a tweet falling on deaf ears could turn into a PR crisis.