New media

Convincing the C-Suite to Engage in Social Media

A week from today, I will be the featured speaker on a national PRSA Teleseminar "Winning Over the Executive Suite: A practical guide to social media campaigns" on September 9 at 3:00 p.m. ET.

I will address how to convince the C-level suite to surrender some control and begin to engage social media. This teleseminar will provide concrete recommendations and case studies highlighting practical initiatives any company can implement to begin to engage social media and secure executive buy-in.

Participants will learn:

• Seven tips for securing buy-in from senior management. (Note: I actually give more)
• The five most common pitfalls companies make when first starting to engage social media.
• Suggestions and recommendations for effective, quantifiable ways to begin conversational public relations.
• Real world examples of the good, the bad and the ugly.

There is still time to register here. I have been told my presentation is a must listen event. Even if you can't make it to the call, PRSA is keeping it archived for two weeks.

I will also be speaking on September 11 at the PRSA Northeast District Conference on the topic of Social Media ethics. If you are near Buffalo, it is shaping up to be a great full-day conference, and I hope to see many people there.

Posted by Mark McClennan on September 2, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The power of (semi)personal connection - PBS does well

Like millions of Americans, my wife and I are watching the Democratic National Convention this week. We have settled on C-SPAN as our network of choice, for we want to hear the words and see all the speeches, and not be told by commentators what to think.

I always seem to end up at C-SPAN (it's where I watch State of the Union). But we always give the networks a try.

While I was washing dishes, my wife was listening to a speech by Lilly Ledbetter. She had settled on PBS - for her opinion was their commentators would be the most intelligent and the least intrusive. I suddenly heard her screaming at the TV (words I can not write here and calling PBS anchors a bunch of self-deluding X). This is not a common occurrence.

Basically, they were commenting on the speech as if wage inequality was something of the distant past that still does not occur today. They said  - You know, it really did happen. I remember my first newsroom job 30 years ago...

My wife was upset for she knows it is still an issue.

But now for the fun part. I made a semi innocuous post on Twitter "Watching the convention on C-Span. Let me make up my own mind and hear the speakers please. Wife almost strangled PBS commentators last night."

The next morning, PBS' DC office responded: pbsengage @mcClennan sorry for the delay in replying, but what was your wife unhappy about?   

I live in the social media world. But I was still floored that PBS took the time to respond. It has given me an even better impression of the network, and I am telling everyone I know about PBS' outstanding response.

There is a lesson here. Finding my post and responding cost them practically nothing (Free RSS search from Summize/Twitter) But the positive goodwill they received will last for quite a while.

If you aren't monitoring Twitter and other social media channels- you need to be. PBS is doing it and doing it right, and I am sure their budget is extremely tight. If they can do a good job, so can your company.

Posted by Mark McClennan on August 28, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Texting: What did the Obama Camp Really Get?

The news came down at 3am. Three million people signed up to be the first to find out Barak Obama's VP pick, they were going to get the news at the same time as ABC, NBC, The New York Times, the Associated Press and hundreds of other major news outlets. They were going to be "in the know" right when it happened.

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.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on August 25, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Bring out Your Dead!

MORTICIAN:  Bring out your dead!
      [clang]
      Bring out your dead!

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?

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on August 14, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Finding the Fractured Audience: Steps to take in the new media reality

Last night, I didn't turn on my TV, but I did watch a few episodes of Mad Men. I had conversations with a number of people, but only picked up my home phone a handful of times. This morning I found out the Jets have Brett Favre as their new quarterback, but I never turned on my computer, TV or picked

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.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on August 7, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Cuil Launch?

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.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on July 31, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Social Media Blunders Abound: Hasbro

This week saw two major PR blunders in the online world that are worth noting: Hasbro and Cuil. These are two very different companies and two very different business models, but both made some basic mistakes that could lead to long-term problems. I'll talk about Cuil in another post, but Hasbro is the bigger current problem.

Hasbro is a big name here in New England, especially in Rhode Island where they essentially own the state. One of the biggest attractions on the way to see the Pawtucket Red Sox is the large Hasbro facitlity featuring a statue of Mr. Potato Head.

A major staple of this brand are the board games, an area notorious for its copyright issues. Over the years I've spoken to many people with board game ideas who say they can't sell into Hasbro because games are so easily copied that the company won't even LOOK at outside ideas. So it's no surprise that Hasbro took a page from the RIAA handbook and called in the lawyers to shut down Scrabulous. For the uninitiated, Scrabulous is the Scrabble-like Facebook game that has become an addiction for many.

The problem? Scrabulous infringes on the Scrabble copyright. The other problem? It was written by two brothers in India. More problems? Mattel and Hasbro share copyright, so Hasbro only has it in North America. So what does Hasbro do? It shuts down Scrabulous in North America and releases its own game.

The key problem here is that Scrabulous has a rabid fan-base. Apparently Hasbro tried buying the game, but failed and then turned to lawyers. The results has been a backlash against Hasbro and Scrabble.

Of course, this could have been avoided. Instead of shutting down the game, Hasbro could have started to market its boardgame to the Scrabulous players. Some people have said that playing the online game renewed their interest in playing the board game. They could have used the online game to boost their tournaments and meetups. They could have tried harder to purchase the game or invite the developers to help them create an official version. They could have used the Scrabble brand and extended it to Boggle and Upwards, two other games. They could have developed a series of word and letter-based games on the Scrabble brand, all building on the viral success of a game they didn't create.

All of that would have been a better PR move than shutting down the game, which now has people trying to boycott the company and refusing to buy the board game. Worse, hackers apparently attacked the official version of the game, shutting that down.

What could have been a resurgent interest in an old-standby of a game has, instead, turned into a crisis situation by trying to protect copyright.

This story also shows the true power of social media. A pair of brothers in India managed to create a game that attracted users around the globe, something that the gaming powerhouses Hasbro and their online parnter Electronic Arts failed to do. In this world it's not about size, it's about ideas.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on July 30, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Twitter and Customer Support

When the Red Sox were in Japan to start the season, thousands of members of Red Sox nation turned on their TVs early in the morning to watch the broadcast from the Far East. Except for many DirectTV subscribers, there was a problem; for whatever reason, the satellite TV service could not deliver the signal.

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.

Posted by Ross Levanto on July 23, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

BlogHer '08: Networking, Brand Building and Cookies

I’ve been having Web 2.0/blogging conference fatigue of late. There are so many conferences where we discuss community, monetization and business models but in the end I don’t feel as though most panels go beyond the obvious to break new ground. In that regard I was both pleased and disappointed at BlogHer ‘08 held in San Francisco last week.

Many of the panels offered the same advice: build a community, monetize that community and keep them engaged. We talked about ad models, social media tools and tips on how to start blogging and stay blogging, but what I found most informative were the smaller break-out sessions where we dove deep into the nitty gritty of what makes bloggers and their audiences tick.

Lesson one: Bloggers blog mainly out of a passion for the topic for which they write. Of course! While obvious to part of my brain, that’s why I’ve been blogging for ten years, it’s not always the first thing we as PR professionals think about when we try to engage bloggers. Personal bloggers, whether they focus on parenting, high tech or gardening, do what they do because they want to. They don’t absolutely need to file a story a day like most journalists. PR and marketing need to understand this difference and approach personal bloggers with highly compelling and targeted information and visuals they can and want to use to tell a personalized version of the story.

Lesson two: A small blog is not an inconsequential blog. Large consumer brands packed small focus group rooms vying for the chance to talk about their products and new media strategies to bloggers with even modest audiences. The brands that get it understand that blogging is the new word of mouth way to reach loyal consumers. And the brands that do this best are willing to provide personal bloggers with press kits, news releases, photos & video as well as the opportunity to interview executives and others at the company that once only spoke to the “established” press.

And finally the cookies: while Sesame Street, one of many sponsors of BlogHer ‘08, isn’t a brand one associates with new media, they understand their audience and demonstrate a strategy that is open to social media. The Sesame Street room at the conference was constructed to resemble the show — both Grover and Abby Cadabby (and their puppeteers) greeted kids and adults, provided professional photo ops and encouraged random photo snapping and blogging and referred parents back to the site and podcast. What about the cookies? At 33 and without children I had no intention of visiting Sesame Street, but once I — and everyone else — saw others with cookies, we all made a beeline to the room and enjoyed the show: a perfect use of online and offline social networking.
 

Posted by Kristin Amico on July 22, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Anyone For Tennis 2.0?

It was all change at the All England Championships this year - the annual strawberries, cream and Pimms festival held in Wimbledon. Apparently there was also tennis to watch! For those not engaged in this waistline expansion exercise, being forced to follow the tournament from an office desk was a much more fulfilling experience this year, with both tournament organisers and host broadcaster the BBC offering new and interactive ways of keeping up with the action.

The official website provided not only live scores - as it has for several years - but also supported interaction with social networking sites such as Second Life and Facebook. In a neat PR exercise Second Lifers were able to use their avatar to look around an IBM sponsored virtual Wimbledon world. Meanwhile, the official Slamtracker tool offered up statistics, with wigetised versions available on other social networking sites.

Meanwhile, the Beeb offered live web coverage of the whole tournament, broadcasting up to five matches at a time using the BBC iPlayer application, which almost totally negated the need for evening TV highlights packages. Then there are innovative services such Zattoo, which re-broadcast live TV on the fly for Internet users throughout the whole tournament. They are not productivity tools!

Similar changes have taken place in news media over the past few years of course. Web-based news sites now routinely integrate text, video, reader comment, audio, and blog-style commentary into their coverage of the hour's top stories. Even traditional print titles such as the Telegraph, Guardian and Times in the UK have become multimedia publishers, cannibalising the next day's paper content with up-to-the minute news. The aforementioned BBC offers perhaps the most seamless service, in which heavy - if controversial - investment in the iPlayer technology has blurred the lines between the state-funded broadcaster's multiple online, TV and radio outlets.

The evolution of the media landscape has not come without changes for those on the frontline - add mobile to the list of media outlets and journalists have now become all-round news-gatherers, who provide a combination of services, rather than specialists in any one medium. The days of the old-school hack, stuck behind a typewriter investigating the latest scandal in the White House, are long gone. The here-and-now matters most; print, web and rolling TV compete for the same eye balls and shrinking advertising pot.

Mobile is at the forefront of even more exciting media technologies, which have developed at a rapid pace. During the confusion of the 2005 July 7 bombings in London, passengers with camera phones and an MMS connection were the first to tell the story of what had happened that morning. Later that year, mobile video from the Buncefield Oil Depot fire prompted the BBC to set up its citizen journalism team, which now filters through thousands of pictures and videos sent in by viewers every day. Then there were the first images of the death of baseball star Cory Lidle, who crashed his light aircraft into a New York apartment building, with local residents who were on the scene long before TV crews, able to sell their images to the media.

Today, images and video filter out of every major world event, such as Tibetan peace protesters in New York City, the Chinese Earthquake, or the Burmese Hurricane, for example. Moreover, almost anybody with a 3G connection can now become a live broadcaster, with services such as JuiceCaster and QIK promising to turn every one of us into rolling media. The citizen journalist was not only born but has truly flourished.

The pertinent question for the media is how to compete when, arguably, citizen journalism offers greater insight - not to mention access - into world events?

And for the communications professional - how not only to monitor this community, but influence it too? Some might say it's 15-0 to the citizen journalist, with the ball firmly in the industry's court.

Posted by Ed Barker on July 15, 2008 at 2:05 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Does "Face Time" Still Matter?

I was reading the latest from BusinessWeek Online and didn't have to get past the headline "Are There Too Many Women Doctors?" to get a bit irritated. 

It turns out that women work slightly fewer hours than men because they spend more time taking care of their kids. This disparity puts pressure on other doctors--generally male, oftentimes older--who are left to pick up the slack. The study also points out that women often go into underserved areas like primary care or pediatrics, which pay less than other medical specialties, in order to gain scheduling flexibility. Anyone who succeeds in scheduling an appointment with a primary care physician or pediatrician likely benefits from the decisions many women doctors make.

When you need to be seen by a doctor, you need to be seen by a doctor, but the article got me thinking afresh about the value of working in an office building surrounded by coworkers vs. the obvious trend toward electronic communications and remote work. Indeed, I've always wondered what it says about me that my best client relationships are often with the people who I rarely see.

At the same time, I benefit enormously from being able to walk down the hallway and ask 15 other VPs what they think about my PR conundrum of the day. It's hard to say no to collaboration when someone plops themself down in your office, but certainly my colleagues could make their excuses about being busy and I'd clear out.

This is nice, but what I always find interesting is that colleagues working in other cities, whom I've never met in person, are just as willing to help. A little stroll down the digital hallway is just as effective as seeing people face to face.

Of course there's business you can conduct only in person. But when you've got a group of people with common interests, do you have better relationships with those you can see? Is there clear value to being in the office simply to be in the office--to putting in that face time?

My hope, and I'm pretty optimistic that this is really happening, is that social media allows groups of people with similar interests not just to compare pet peeves on Facebook or to post photos of their vacations, but to remove most of the need for face time. It'll probably be of minimal use to the 50 percent of medical students today who are women, but for the rest of us who are looking to "be there" for both our families and our employers, the ability to interact in a way that's increasingly targeted and personal--yet is entirely electronic--sure holds a lot of promise.

Posted by Laura Kempke on June 25, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

What wine tasting teaches us about PR

Last week I had the pleasure of attending an event featuring Gary Vaynerchuck -- a smart businessman who is changing the wine industry and leveraging social media to do so. He has daily videos where he tastes and evaluates wine, and regularly interacts with fans through every social medium available ... check out his daily videos here.

He has built a strong following -- with people coming to see him from around New England. He managed to pack a room with 200 people and keep us entertained for 90 minutes (and it could have gone longer).

Out of the entire discussion last week, there are three thoughts that I wanted to share with everyone. Specifically, a few of his comments can be applied to social media and public relations in general. I do not think Gary will mind too much, since I am taking the seeds he planted in my mind and growing them into full blown, PR-specific thoughts for you all to taste and evaluate ....

1) The only way to improve your wine palate is to taste wine -- You can read the magazines, watch the movies, read books and visit vineyards; but in the end, what gives you a true appreciation for wine is actually tasting it. The same applies to PR and social media. Theory is essential. You need to have a grounding in the fundamentals ... but in the end you need to execute. You need to practice what you preach. If you aren't engaged -- why not? This leads me to my next point ....

2) The only way to appreciate wine is to stay out of a rut -- try new things. Most people find a few wines and stick to them. They have wine racks full of Yellowtail, Conundrum,  Cakebread Chardonnay and Parallel 44. (This gives you an inkling of my tastes). That's great, but it is limiting. Try a new wine frequently. The same applies to PR. It's why a good PR pros are constantly looking for the next new channel, a new approach to doing things. It's a mantra we preach here at Schwartz. 

3) Wine is a living thing -- unlike my beloved single malt Scotch, wine can change dramatically from year to year. A wine that was great one year may be horrible (or as Gary says "utter crap") the next year. This holds true for even the best, most proven and time tested wines. Ask any wine connoisseur about 2007 Bordeaux. Too often companies and PR people fall into that trap. It worked last time, we should do it again. As we all know from the financial services commercials -- past performance is not an indicator of future results. Always re-evaluate ... is this likely to work this time? Is there something better I should try? I know my teams ask me that constantly, and as PR pros, we need to be aware of this at all times.

Sláinte Mhath!

Posted by Mark McClennan on June 23, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Love in the Time of Credit Control

It’s the age old conundrum – should the man pay for dinner, or are you prepared to go Dutch? That was the dilema recently posed by a questionnaire to a female friend who is seeking romance on one of the world’s most successful matchmaking websites. The etiquette of who picks up the tab has long been discussed between the sexes, with the traditional role of the man as bill-payer challenged by the feminist movement of the 1970s and onwards. But in these uncertain times, with the Credit Crunch starting to bite, fuel costs astronomical and growth slowing to a trickle – are you more likely to date somebody who’s good with money, asks the aforementioned survey?

Yet it is not only the perpetual motion of young lovers’ courtship that may be hit by an economic downturn; the impact will surely be felt in the media and communications worlds too. On the face of it the media industry faces a period of sustained hardship. Take, for example, the recent round of layoffs at some of the leading newspapers in the United States, including the 1400 fired in a 10% staff reduction across the McClatchy newspaper group, or the much-discussed elimination of 100 newsroom positions at the New York Times. Couple that  with undisclosed lays offs at B2B publishers such as Ziff Davis Enterprises and, in total, some estimates put US media job losses at more than 4,000 in 2008 alone.

There are some more subtle market changes at play of course, other than the global economic downturn. In the McClatchy case, while print advertising revenue had fallen by 15% over the past year, online sales – a smaller segment of group revenue – had grown by just 13%. Indeed, this is a trend that has been prevalent across a number of international publishing groups with journalists increasingly producing copy for online titles, while print magazines become thinner by the month as content continues to chase the advertising dollar.

Changes too have been taking place in major UK media outlets, with journalists at The Independent fighting cost-cutting moves to introduce seven-day working across their daily and Sunday titles. Meanwhile, News International’s subsidiary BSkyB is contemplating job-cuts at its loss-making magazine department. It is telling that most UK print trade titles are now staffed by a vastly reduced editorial team, while national newspapers have increased flexibility by turning to freelance writers.

With consumer spending unlikely to remain as robust in the coming year – and advertising dollars inevitably falling as a result – the question remains, which media titles will best survive? If job cuts are unavoidable in the print world, could streamlined, fast moving online titles benefit from a lower cost base? Moreover, there is an argument to say the seemingly inextricable rise of the blogger – with zero cost self-publishing now an established norm – could become even more prevalent in the recession. There is, after all, no suggestion that the downturn has hit consumers’ insatiable appetite for content.

Perhaps even more important to the emerging tech PR community are the movements in the Venture Capitalist community, with some analyst firms suggesting that US VC spending is slowing. There has even been speculation in some quarters that the world’s local bank is denying social media and mobile tech start-ups a bank account as they are seen as high risk in the present climate. And while fewer companies may find backing in the coming year, there is little evidence – yet – that the mass 2001 dotcom cull is to be repeated.

Venture Capitalism is, of course, not unlike that dating game. Financiers and entrepreneurs circle each other with increasingly amorous glances until one makes a move. The question is, in troubled times, who’ll really be footing the bill?

Posted by Ed Barker on June 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Does Boston "Get it"?

Remember the 80s? I do. Yes, I wore a jacket with the sleeves rolled up and Topsider shoes with no socks. I even had a poster of Max Headroom on my wall (I also had the Coke give-away Max Headroom watch and matching wall clock).

It all seemed so cool then. In fact, there were those people who looked down on you if you didn’t have the latest clothes or listened to the coolest tunes. Now it just seems as silly and frivolous as music with lots of synthesizers (take that Gary Numan!).

That’s the kind of frivolity that I sometimes feel pervades Silicon Valley. They’re always chasing the next trend, looking for the next big thing, riding the wave and thumbing their nose at anyone who doesn’t “get it.”

I keep hearing that the Valley understands Web 2.0 while Boston VCs don’t “get it” and are missing out on some great opportunities. Everyone knows Facebook was founded in a Harvard dorm but ended up in the Valley. I keep hearing a number of companies getting pressure from their VCs to move from Boston to the Valley in order to truly make it.

Yes, Web 2.0 is all the rage now and yes, I do think that a lot of elements from Web 2.0 will change the world. After all, my business cards say “New Media Strategist” on them and I’ve been singing the praises of “user-generated content” and “social networking” for years. But that doesn’t mean that Facebook is the be-all and end-all of the social networking world. In this environment another company can come up and eat its users as fast as it overtook MySpace and as fast as MySpace overtook Friendster.

Honestly, I’m not all that convinced that the value of Web 2.0 lies in the consumer world. Yes, there are a lot of great things you can do as a consumer, but as a company, can you really make money by giving just about everything away for free?

Here in New England, where we tend to favor navy and black, polo shirts and sweaters that can come out of the closet year after year without fear of going out of style, the VCs tend to focus on more stable, if less sexy investments. No, securing a database isn’t sexy, but it is necessary, especially in the enterprise. And you know what? Companies are actually willing to pay money, real money, to have their database secured. Wow, imagine that, a revenue model! Yes, real opportunity is in the enterprise.

The main problem with Web 2.0 is that it takes full advantage of the desktop and Web browsers. Why is that a problem? Because usage is shifting to cell phones and mobile devices. Yes, the iPhone has made it possible to have a small computer in your pocket, but most Web 2.0 companies still look at the desktop as a final destination. In Boston a lot of companies are looking well beyond the desktop. Take Schwartz client Vaultus, which specializes in making enterprise applications work on mobile devices. Or even look at LocaModa, which focuses on display technologies that bring the Web off the desktop.

These companies are well ahead of the curve and focus on the not-so-sexy world of back end technology. No, they’re not on the cover of BusinessWeek yet, but they’ll be written about on the inside pages where it really counts. They’re the companies that are actually leading the way.

I’m sure you’ll hear about similar companies in a few years, when the Valley starts to think they’re sexy and drops millions of dollars into them. Of course, that’s when hearing the name “Facebook” may elicit the same snickers as “Max Headroom.”

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on June 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

A Different Dialect

The view from the Motherland across the clear blue water of the Atlantic Ocean is so often a contrast of differing approaches; two countries divided by a common language, to paraphrase an eminent Irish playwright. So it plays out in both politics and communications. In the past few days Barack Obama has declared himself the winner in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, with his rival Hillary Clinton formally endorsing him over the past weekend. The Illinois Senator’s slick yet professorial – and at times fervently hyperbolic – style has wooed large swathes of an American electorate seemingly hungry for change. Such has been Obama’s impact that if polls are to be trusted, then the sanguine politico could well become the first black President of the United States.

Home, and just a stones throw from Schwartz’ London offices, the tormented leader of the Labour party, Gordon Brown, seems to stumble from one self-made communications crisis to another.

Immigration, unpopular tax changes, crime, economic slowdown – pick any one of a dozen issues and Brown has seemingly struggled to control media criticism. The Fife MP may only have been Prime Minister for a little under a year but his demeanour couldn’t be of greater contrast to Obama’s. In a time of financial and political turbulence, the American people – at least those of Democratic persuasion - have turned to a man who voices the promise of hope. Britain, so much of the media would have us believe, is to be led into the same mêlée by a beleaguered and increasingly idea -shorn general.

American elections have always differed in style and tone to those in Britain. The seemingly constant public campaigning and media saturation in the US, contrasts so markedly with the ‘in the shadows’ briefings of the Westminster Village. Indeed, Obama’s campaign team has made judicious use of the internet – turning to social networking sites to raise campaign funds, increase voter registration and project not only a consistent message but an image of an engaged and youthful leader. By contrast, Brown’s recent foray into self-broadcast on the Downing Street YouTube channel was as uncomfortable to watch as it undoubtedly was for the man to film. The media’s rather predictable reaction was to mock Brown as the fish out of water he was.

The contrasting styles between these two much talked about politicians are potentially as much about cultural differences as generational and personality traits. The US culture of immediacy has, after all, given birth to Facebook, YouTube and the rest of the web 2.0 media revolutionaries. Even media friendly Tony Blair was a novice when it came to use of the internet. And just as communication style impacts media and public perception of our politicians, then cultural factors influence the style of communication between the PR community and the press too. This has been the subject of much debate between Schwartz’ US and European offices in recent weeks.

In many ways globalisation has brought our two countries closer together: American TV, music, commerce, brands – and particularly politics – have impacted greatly on the British way of life. The primaries, for example, were covered daily by the nation’s leading newspapers and rolling news stations. Even so, the three thousand miles of water that separate our offices sometimes makes it easy to forget that the US is a young country, with an aggressive, entrepreneurial economy, where short term goals come to the fore.

The pace of life here in London is fast, but the ethic of business – and therefore the media agenda – often differs from our friends across the pond. The UK media, for example, is focused on issues and trends, personalities and opinion, rather than products and services. It’s a fact that calls for international campaign management, for international PR campaigns - proving the old adage that one should always think local, even when acting global. It’s a path that many a President has trodden before.

Posted by Ed Barker on June 11, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

When New Meets Old: Symbiosis and Contention

This weekend, both the New York Times Magazine and the Boston Globe Magazine offer glimpses into the way new and old media continue a symbiotic, if sometimes contentious, relationship. They are also prime examples of why a solid public relations program must balance both sides.

Over at the Times, blogger Emily Gould writes a long and very personal cover story outlining her trials and tribulations in the public spotlight, thanks in large part to her personal and outspoken blog posts on Gawker.com. This piece is the definition of irony, offering up mea culpa after mea culpa and self-defining as an “over sharer” even as she over shares some more.

But the irony goes beyond the text itself into the subtext. Take, for example, the fact that it is written for the New York Times Magazine, an old-school publication to the Nth degree. Then there is her simple one-line bio at the end that states flatly “Emily Gould is a writer in Brooklyn. This is her first article for the magazine.”

Oh, right, she’s just another writer with no real following.

Gould didn’t take her own growing celebrity seriously until a disastrous appearance on another old-media stalwart: Larry King Live, which on that day was guest-hosted by Jimmy Kimmel. The clip gained even more prominence when it was distributed on the new-media powerhouse YouTube.

To convince her therapist that she was, in fact, a celebrity, Gould brought in a New York magazine article on Gawker and read allowed from it. Even a breakup happened on old media, with her boyfriend writing a long article for the New York Post Sunday Magazine, the nation’s 13th oldest newspaper and one founded by Alexander Hamilton.

Also telling is the comment from Magazine Editor Gerry Marzorati, who told Media Bistro that in the first six hours on the Web (where the story was published before being seen in the printed magazine) the article nabbed more than 600 comments. The fact that this is a cited as a sign of success points out that things they are a-changin’ at the venerable publication. I still wonder how many of the Times' readers will sift through all the Web reaction and how it will get filtered back into the main discussion. 

Still, the back-and-forth nature of the discussion shows how stories that develop online move into the mainstream media, and those stories in the mainstream media blend back into the online world. To do PR properly you must be firmly planted in both of those worlds.

Then there is Seth Mnookin, who wrote a cover story for the Boston Globe Magazine that attempts to dissect the seemingly-exorbitant $200 million Newton North High School. As this is my home town and I blog on the issues regularly, this is very close to my heart. I’ve written my thoughts on the subject, but more importantly are those of the rest of the residents, including some of the people interviewed for the piece.

If you look over on the Newton TAB blog, you can see people taking shots at Mnookin. It gives a much clearer view of the piece, or at least adds facts that allow the reader to have a better understanding of the debate that exists within the city.

But, my guess is that few readers will ever see those comments. Sure, they’re there as additional facts for someone doing research on the subject, but as far as the winning the hearts and minds of the broader populous, those comments aren’t going to help.

This is the fundamental flaw with the “self correcting” theory of Web 2.0. The idea is that the crowds will correct inaccurate presentations of "the facts," which is oftentimes true. The problem is that most of those corrections happen in forums that are frequented only by the most ardent. So unless the Globe goes back and writes another cover story, the battle is already lost. The issue is not correcting the stories for everyone, but correcting it for the right audience.

So the question is, which audience is more important? If the goal is to win the hearts and minds of the whole of Massachusetts, then Newton will have to influence the coverage in the mainstream media, something it's already doing by having an active forum. If the goal is to influence the local audience, then the forum is the perfect place because it speaks directly to that audience.

As Brian Solis noted in his much discussed entry on TechCrunch, a key "secret" is to identify the key audience, only then can you actually speak with that audience. So while these two examples are great macro discussions, the question for both Emily and for the City of Newton is: what audience really matters?

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on May 28, 2008 at 5:40 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tech Print Journalists Take Up Multimedia

On Tuesday night I attended a wonderfully informative PRSA Boston / Social Media Club event on the future on journalism in a social media world.

I'd gladly have sat for an hour to hear any one of the panelists (listed here) speak about his own thoughts and experiences. Moderator Paul Gillin, author of The New Influencers and upcoming Secrets of Social Media Marketing, brought the big questions and kept the discussion moving right along.

Too much great, usable information to summarize, but one thing I took out of it is the need to help reporters make their stories more visual.

[I should note that my clients are technical--biotech, nanotech and business-to-business computer technology. There's no obvious visual element to most of these stories beyond the obligatory headshot of the company spokesperson (suit or golf shirt?). Sometimes we mix it up with a network diagram or image of a 96-well plate. Our teams that represent consumer technology and medical companies have long understood the need for beautifully conceived and produced visuals.]

Tech journalists who used to just write are now carrying around cameras and other equipment in order to capture more elements of the story at hand or to be able to present it to a wider audience. It's increasingly common that reporters will talk with a client and then videotape an interview or record a podcast. (Some examples are here, here, here and here. Disclaimer: they're Schwartz clients SpikeSource, Appcelerator, Sentrigo and SugarCRM.)

Nice for a start. The next step is to contribute more to the slide shows that media are starting to rely on because each slide requires a click--advertiser heaven.

Our job has always been to make technical stories accessible. Now, as the media looks to layer a multimedia dimension onto reporting, look for entrepreneurial tech companies to differentiate themselves to reporters by providing new types of ideas and content. Most aren't doing it today--clearly an opportunity for those willing to try something new.

Posted by Laura Kempke on May 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Boston vs. the Valley: Does Geography Matter?

I chose to live in Boston, the city didn’t choose me. That is, I wasn’t born here, I have no family ties here, but instead my wife and I moved here out of love for the location, though not for the weather. 

So I can’t figure out why so many people want to declare this place dead, at least in the technology sense. The latest is Sarah Lacy, journalist of many titles and the woman who drew the ire of “tweeters” at South by Southwest.

The interesting part of this debate is why geography matters at all. Don’t most Web 2.0 companies exist on the premise that geography doesn’t matter? That you can continue to stay in touch with someone on the other side of the world as easily as you can with someone down the street? Sarah's point is that starting a business is difficult and it's better to be surrounded by peolple going through the same experience. If it's easier to start something in the Valley, why not do it?

The Boston Globe's Scott Kirsner has been tackling this question for quite a while, including his very interesting article examining why Facebook went west when it should, by all rights, be a Cambridge-based company. 

Facebook went west because East Coast VCs wanted to see an income model and at the time Mark Zuckerberg couldn’t show them one. West Coast VCs were willing to take the chance based only on the energy and the possibilities. 

A former client of mine who moved to the Valley in order to take over a consumer-oriented company once commented that Boston is great for the intellectual companies, those that will sell to the government or other enterprises. The brainpower at MIT, Harvard, BU, Brandeis (had to throw my alma mater in that list) and other Boston-area schools makes this a hotbed of intellectual talent. 

However, The Hub lacks the energy of the Valley and for those consumer-focused brands that feed on that energy, the Valley is the only place to be. 

Who is right? Today it looks like those in the Valley are brilliant. But when I was a kid Wang, Digital Equipment Corp. and Polaroid were at the top of the heap. Today the Wang Towers house a number of small companies, DEC’s offices belong to HP and Polaroid’s Waltham headquarters is about to become condos. 

Two years ago everyone talked about Friendster. A year ago it was all about Second Life. Today they’re the butt of jokes. Even Peter Shankman joked the other day that MySpace is being dropped "faster than third-period French."

I don’t believe Boston is dead, I believe it’s just in the shadows for a while. These things run in cycles and right now consumer-facing technologies are hot, so the money flows there. Then again, it also takes a lot more money to get a consumer brand off the grounds. Eventually VCs will swing back toward the more conservative investments and Boston will thrive again. 

Perhaps the tech economy will truly become global and the geography won’t matter much, but the fact is, innovation will continue.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on April 29, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Say it loud, say it proud!

At Schwartz we counsel our clients that they need to be actively engaged in social media. We also counsel them that transparency is crucial. You can have a point of view, but there is no need to hide where it is coming from. Transparency helps build brand credibility and trust.

Thanks to Twitter, I was made aware of a recent AdAge article that shows transparency isn't just a good idea, in the U.K., it will soon become the law. According to AdAge, "starting May 26, when it will become a criminal offense for brands to seed positive messages online without making the origin of the message clear.

This doesn't just impact U.K. companies, it would impact any company doing viral marketing or online public relations in the country.

There is no long term benefit for a business to hide who they are. There is long term benefit to engaging in conversations, listening to your customers and the market, and being an active participant.

Both the PRSA and Word of Mouth Marketing Association already have ethics guidelines that prohibit this type of activity. This is just another reason to slap down that whisper we occasionally hear from others.

Posted by Mark McClennan on April 28, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

The Utopian Future, or Going Back to It

Peter Shankman gave a wonderful talk at Schwartz this week and he had a lot of interesting things to say about networking, technology and communications, but two pieces caught my attention.

First was an initial concept that everything we predict and know is bulls***. That is, social networking just comprises tools that allow us to do what we should already be doing: meeting, talking and connecting with people. He’s right, of course. But part of that is the concept that prediction is almost impossible. He pointed to Back to the Future Part II as an example, in which everyone in the future (which is closer to today) had a fax machine in every room. Today faxes are passé and inefficient, but in 1985 they were new, exciting and efficient ways to communicate, so it was good comedy to have a future with one even in the bathroom. 

Of course, that same movie featured flying cars. So take it for what it is. 

His second concept was a future in which everything in our house has an IP address and connects to everything else. Hit the snooze button on the alarm clock and it triggers information that starts a chain reaction. Your coffee maker starts, your news downloads, your kids are awoken by gentle singing of angels…. 

Frankly, this sounds a lot like the digital version of Doc Brown’s Rube Goldberg-like machine at the beginning of the original Back to the Future that fed the dog and made eggs, but I digress. 

He goes on, of course, to the point that getting a plane ticket triggers a Twitter (or twitter-like) note to your friends that you’re about to head to another city, then when you arrive your phone registers your location and tells you about local restaurants you may like as well as people who you may want to meet and where they’re dining. 

This utopian ideal sounds great, except I’ve heard it before and we’re supposed to be there by now. I remember hearing about connected refrigerators that read the RFID chips on the food you purchase to tell you when you need more milk or even allow you to run recipes based on what you already have. 

You can buy a fridge that is connected, of course, but it’ll cost you a lot more than a very nice not-so-connected fridge just so you can have a built in TV. And besides, the technology isn’t there to tell you that the foil-wrapped leftover chicken has started to grow something usually reserved for the college chemistry lab. 

But my real problem with this concept is the digital divide. Having an IP address on every electronic item in your house means you have a house-wide network, probably a wireless network. Connecting with people through electronic devices means these people also have electronic devices and are as connected as you. So basically it restricts you to people of similar socio-economic backgrounds. The digital divide is real, municipal wifi networks have failed to take off, so this kind of technology is not available to everyone. We are isolated enough in how we live our lives, I’m not sure that connecting only with people who have similar technological access is the best way to go. 

If we’re going to focus our development efforts anywhere it should be on making sure that those with little or no connectivity get it. Verizon has been great about bringing FIOS to my affluent suburb, but what about less affluent areas? How long will it take for them to get their piece of fiber? Then how long will it take for those people to get on Facebook, Twitter and other communications concepts that may not even exist yet? 

It’s great if I can meet and network with people who can move my business forward, but it’s also great to learn from people who have a very different view on life.  

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on April 25, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Teeing Off -- PR and Golf

The Masters just ended and my passion for golf is reignited. Unfortunately, like most people, my ability to write about and talk about golf far exceeds my skill at the game.

Therefore, I decided to share words of PR wisdom as golf analogies. But I need your help. Golf may be one of the two most overused analogies in business, only after military themes and slightly beating out baseball and The Godfather .… So share your own PR/golf lessons in the comments section and I will add the best here.

Following are five to get you started:

Don’t be seduced by the driver—The driver is a great club. When you hit it well, there is nothing like watching the ball fly and hearing the “oohs” and “aahs” from appreciative fans (or members of your foursome). But for most people muscling the driver rarely results in a 300+ yard straight drive off the tee. Sure you will hit that perfect drive once in 20 rounds, but you are much more likely to whiff, hit it in the woods or end up in the sand--raising your score and leading to frustration.

The same goes for media relations. Being on the Today Show, the Wall Street Journal or in Parade is outstanding and usually a reason to celebrate. But too often your outreach there won’t connect, or you will neglect other important elements, and put yourself at a handicap. You should go after these outlets, but if all you do is swing the driver … you will be in trouble. This leads to the next point.

Drive for show, putt for dough—All the creative ideas, the flashy presentations and the red Nike shirts don’t amount to anything if you haven’t mastered the short game. Execute flawlessly. Pay attention to detail.
 
Why does Tiger Woods hit 1,000 practice balls?—Focus on fundamentals brings success. A PR campaign needs to be built on solid fundamentals--the trades to bring the key messages to prospects and customers is the solid drive off the tee; lay it up onto the green with user testimonials and analysts, and *then* you are in position to go for the deceptively simple putt with the business media (which is never as easy as it looks), to get the birdie. It’s the little things that add up to success.

Pay attention to the course and your environment—In golf, it's good to have a general plan of how you will play the course. But conditions change, your competitors change, even your swing can change in mid-round. You may have planned to hit a hard driver on the 15th hole, but by the time you get there it's raining and windy ... change of club and plan.
 
Successful golfers plan, but they also adjust and trust their instincts to adapt to the changing circumstances. Successful PR people need to do the same thing to achieve success in the face of changing conditions.

You WILL hit the bunkers—Every golfer hits the sand traps. Hitting them is not the end of the world. The same goes for a PR program. You will hit the rough, the bunkers and even the water. Think about what you will do in those situations and you can recover from it. Have disaster plans in place.

Posted by Mark McClennan on April 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

CNN.com Gross Out

We're all well aware that traditional media have been under strain for years, first due to the web and now as a result of competition from "new media."

Some are handling the challenge as gracefully as they probably can, given the situation, and some are not. CNN.com (U.S. Alexa ranking: 19) splashes down into the latter category.

CNN has always, in my mind, been a mix of fluff and serious reporting. You might disagree, but I think that what CNN does well (e.g., some international reporting), it does better than just about anyone.

So that makes all the more stark the contrast with CNN.com. Mixed in with "American cancels 900 flights" and "China says 35 arrested in Olympics bomb plot," we have "Wedding bed found in polygamist temple" (voyeuristic--is this the most important element of the story out of west Texas?), "I'm a sociopath, hiker's killer tells police," "Witness: beheading victim asked for help," "Woman makes gruesome find after mom dies" and "Principal nabbed with teens, porn, pot."

Seriously?

It's depressing to see CNN.com take events that deserve careful treatment and clearly pander to site visitors' desire to read about and view the sordid, the morbid and the just plain gross.

NYTimes.com (U.S. Alexa ranking: 33) manages to pull in huge traffic without upping its eeew factor, but they're the only general news site giving CNN.com a run for their money.

Perhaps when CNN.com readers have their fill of sludge, they're heading to NYTimes.com for a more serious take on events. One can only hope!

Posted by Laura Kempke on at 9:15 AM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton, Obama and Social Media: What We Can Learn

Considering how the media have lavished attention on the 2008 Presidential race, it's surprising that it does not show up more on this blog. For me, the reason for not writing on the topic is my personal interest in the race; I have made an effort *not* to write about the campaign here since I am so interested in the contest outside of the office.

But Fast Company, a publication I respect and read to provide guidance to my growing clients, crossed the chasm between tech and politics in this month's issue, and it has pushed me to write about the connection now. Fast Company is not the first to discover how tech can help politics. Many other blogs report on this topic regularly, including how political social media campaigns are eliminating the need for the politicos to advertise online.

A reporter and friend of mine at the Denver Post, Kimberly Johnson, wrote about Facebook and campaign fundraising last month. Interestingly enough, Kim called me and asked for my insight on the topic after notcing a Facebook post I made referencing a previous entry on this blog (a mini-example of the power of Facebook marketing).

A quick summary of my thoughts on the topic: Both Democratic Presidential rivals are using new media to reach important demographics; as it turns out, the audience influeced by social media is a more likely Obama voter, and for that reason, Obama's online efforts have been more extensive. In each case, proper use of social media tactics depends on the strategic target for the overall campaign brand.

The article in the April 2008 Fast Company discussed the Obama brand. I had not heard that the whiz behind Obama's online efforts was none other than Facebook founder Chris Hughes. What he has done to define and extend the Obama brand is a lesson to any company:

-- Giving the power to the supporters. Through a portion of the Obama campaign website, supporters can launch their own Obama blogs. They can also use their Obama websites to organize fundraisers. The key here is the Obama site powers the transactions, and automates receiving necessary contribution information to comply with federal laws. A supporter could set up a mini site and run a fundraiser with zero involvement from the campaign staff.

-- Bringing information directly to other online communities. The article talks about how a post on a Community Connect niche demographic website drove a lot of traffic to the Obama web presence. The Obama team noticed this and responding by reaching out to Communicy Connect and ultimately setting up a presence through the Community Connect online community.

-- Understanding that social marketing is about giving up some control. A lesson to all marketers: The days of having 100-percent control over your message are long gone. While this reality is not new, Obama is the first candidate to embrace this. His team understands that bringing constituents into the process is part of Obama's brand itself---that he is about letting people invest in the campaign in any way they can. Social media is a great platform to let voters exercise this, and at the same time accentuate the campaign's brand and image.

The now-infamous "Yes We Can" video, starring a singer from the Black Eyed Peas and several of his friends, is a perfect example noted in the Fast Company article. The video is extemporaneous and viral, and some have called it the best marketing vehicle for Obama to date, which is ironic given it was made free from Obama campaign involvement or investment.

An online video created by Clinton's campaign is in many ways the exact opposite. "Hillary's Leaving the Band" is a scripted story with hired actors and is described in Fast Company as being too slick to be accepted by the online demographic.

Obama's use of social media reflects his need to connect to one of his crucial demographics-- young and tech savvy voters-- so called "millennials" who want content brought to them in a method of their choosing. One cannot fault Hillary for not catering to this demographic. It's not really her target. For her voters, the scripted, slick actors work just fine.

While Obama is more flashy, new and connected, in reality his brand is just catering to the voters he must influence, while Hillary's brand is far different. In either case, the teams behind the brands are using social media wisely. How the overall brands will impact voters is a separate discussion.
 

Posted by Ross Levanto on April 1, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Facebook or Phacebook?

Word today from TechCrunch's Duncan Riley that a successful phishing scam targeting Facebook users is on the loose. Unfortunately, this type of thing is only going to increase in prevalence as more and more people aggregate and connect using social networks, Twitter and other new media vehicles. Not to mention that many folks make their profile information public on the networks, meaning a phish doesn't have to get that much data to know more about you than they should.

This also raises the question about the blurring line between social applications for personal and professional use. I Twitter, I Facebook and I Link In, all for both profesional and personal reasons. Does this mean that these are all legitimate applications for professional use and should not be monitored by security and IT? Or does it mean that companies should restrict access using web filtering technology and other security/resource management measures to ensure no lines are crossed?

I for one think that the business value outweighs the risk in most instances---especially in a relationship-driven profession like PR--but not all companies will agree with that. They will be concerned that the sheer volume of new social applications and the integration and mash up of them, will eventually result in a major privacy or security breach that internal IT cannot manage.

It also raises the question of with whom does the responsibility lie? Should Facebook, Twitter and others provide some baseline security measures to fight phishing or should it be the corporation's repsonsibility to police their people and a consumer's to protect themselves? Is Facebook a public pond (swim at your own risk)? Where is the legal liability?

Thankfully, I feel as though we are still in the early adopter phase of Twitter, Facebook and other Web 2.0 sites and resources, so many of the users have some level of technical/security savvy. Maybe the near-term return on phishes for identity thieves, deviants and hackers will be so low, that they will continue focusing on traditional email phishing and botnets. In any event, this is great fodder for next week's RSA conference where experts like ScanSafe, 8e6, Breach Security, Qualys, CORE Security, Cloudmark and others will gather to tackle