Category Archive

I’ve been on the road most of the past week in  the US and UK and have watched with fascination as the Beijing Olympic Torch relay unfolds. Though the coverage across the various global media channels varied - I got info from everything from the BBC to USA Today to Le Monde - the story was fairly consistent. China’s attempt to burnish it’s reputation as a country and global leader through the Olympics is in shambles - at least so far. By any measure - save perhaps the assessment by the Chinese government officials - the relay has turned into a PR fiasco of historic proportions. After the carefully planned relay devolved into brawling and demonstrations - all captured by the global media TV cameras - Chinese officials tried to control the message by staging surreal non-events - such as the relay in India which banned any spectators and involved the runners going around an enclosed stadium dozens of times. They also added about 15,000 police for good measure. Subsequent stops were similar - heavy-handed security, private events and stitled celebrations with forced smiles all around. Beyond the politics of this development, what are the lessons here for communication professionals? Here are a few suggestions:

• In the digital era where global media -and citizen journalists - provide 24-day massive coverage of most events instantly, the stage-managed style of PR favored by countries like China is becoming more disingenuous and less effective. The only place where China can successfully control their message is in China, due to draconian censorship and state controlled media. China is learning that their propaganda productions don’t work so well in the real world. Welcome to the Web 2.0 world!
• There’s probably a lesson here how powerful the Internet has become as a news source and force for social movement and debate. Based on what I saw the Web served as an important platform in the planning, promotion, discussion and coverage of the torch demonstrations. Conversely, China seems able to control much of the internal national discussion through their tight censorship of the Web - though they are happy to loosen the reins when their citizens jump with nationalist frenzy with cries to boycott Carrefour stores.
• If anybody needed another reminder, companies that align their marketing with famous stars or countries with dubious track records do so at their own peril. Just yesterday Coca-Cola announced it was ”adjusting” its marketing plans for the remainder of the torch relay. Whether any of the countries can benefit from the Olympic Games themselves probably depends on whether China can turn the PR tides and stem the loud global criticism and avoid major boycotts. Either way, I suspect Lenovo will come out as the biggest loser. As a Chinese company, this is their global coming out party. Bad timing.
• Issues blend and overlap into a messy public relations morass where the public dictates the communication agenda, not corporations or governments. China clearly thought it could segment (or ignore) geo-political issues like Darfur, Tibet, tainted medicine and food and the environment and keep these distasteful issues from the Olympic Games. No such luck. Many saw the Games as precisely the right time to lump all these together into a loud proclamation for change by China. It will be interesting  to see whether China will try to defuse any of these issues (probably behind the scenes) or just continue to plow forward.
• Finally, I note that China’s main crisis-management strategy seems to be to paint demonstrators - and the Dalai Lama - as dangerous malcontents with a nefarious agenda. (Strange how Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe did the same thing this week, accusing critics of trying to re-colonialize his country.) In other words, when in trouble go on the attack. The track record of this tactic seems to be very bad, and I doubt it will work this time.

This is PR on a broad world stage. Let’s watch and see what happens. It’s shaping up to be an interesting summer.

The latest PR fiasco for Southwest was noteworthy for its timing. During roughly the same time period, I saw two widely divergent depictions of the airline. By coincidence more than otherwise, I witnessed several examples of SWA being positioned as a legend in the PR industry - savvy, successful and carrying a boatload of wisdom and kudos. One trade group was even positioning them as a savant in the area of social media (for what achivement it wasn’t clear.) A number of conference briefs on my desk featured SWA presentations on topics ranging from their unique, ”fun” culture to their mastery of media relation metrics. And this trend has been going on for years. It’s rare you attend a conference where SWA isn’t featured as a bright light in employee engagement, media relations, marketing or even lobbying.

But this laudatory, almost obsequious stream of industry hype was in sharp contrast to what was actually happening in real life. Not content to demonstrate its reactionary, outrageous tendency to ban passengers showing a little skin (at least three times in the past year by my count), Southwest has now really stepped into the mud with reports that it ignored safety guidlines and flew planes it had not properly inspected (it was subsequently confirmed 6 of the planes had cracks in the fuselage.)

How did SWA’s incredible, leading-edge PR machine respond to these claims? At first, their website and blog (which to me is little more than a light-weight, heavily perfumed platform for their marketing machine) made no mention at all. Never happened. I suppose there was no room with all the employee profiles, leadership pep talks and self-congratulatory features. In the face of the media onslaught over the weekend, SWA belatedly and reluctantly came out with a mix of denials, clarifications and excuses - including blaming the FAA. As the weekend progressed they decided to parade CEO Gary Kelly, who said he would vigorously defend his company’s commitment to safety and that the $10 million fine levied against the airline “felt unfair.”

There are two lessons one can draw from this sorry episode. One is how not to respond to a media crisis…but I’ll leave that to another time. But the more interesting one, to my mind, is how the PR industry tends to operate in a dangerous vacuum. Southwest was never as smart or progressive as they were positioned by an industry only too happy to have a super star at the ready. Industry events and awards have always flirted with irrelevance and a sense of detachment from the business world, but now they risk losing their credibility altogether. Now we’ll have to see what they present at their next conference keynote: How to leverage social media in a crisis, perhaps?

This recent post by Steve Rubel is just the latest account of the blurring of traditional lines between advertising agencies, consulting firms, PR agencies, design shops and virtually any other organization involved in digital media and content. Steve’s post suggests we may have put the old media companies out to pasture too soon, since according to Booz Allen they are gradually beginning to offer some of the services and talents traditionally offered by ad agencies - such as media buying and even “idea generation”…what George Bush might call strategery. Witness another example in my own little world from the past week. Part of my new gig is rebuilding my company’s intranet, so I’m looking for everything from strategic counsel to design help and social media expertise (we’ll be including a blog and collaboration tools.) Where to go for help? Well, it could include one or all of the following: big PR agency, intranet design firm, local production house, social media boutique in a PR agency, local ad agency, event marketing agency, big HR consulting firm, small IT consulting firm, internal communications agency…and assorted freelancers and one-trick ponies. Everybody is encroaching into everybody’s else turf. Of course, not all of these attempts at diversification are credible or robust, but they definitely define a real trend. So… who will I get help from? I’m still not sure, but one thing I’ve learned is that people who have real chops in social media are few and far between, so in that case I’ll go to the team I used in a previous life that has actually built blogs and gone through the online wars. In this fast moving world, there is still no substitute for expertise and experience.

This short article in Fact Company provides a concise and cogent explanation of why marketing departments are still reluctant to engage in social media and embrace digital content. The reasons provided also ring true for other corporate departments - whether it’s corporate communications (which could and should leverage a whole arsenal of social media tools and digital content) and even HR (which could provide a boost to training programs through interactive, online technology.) Beyond fear and ignorance, there are many organizations and companies that have a stake in the old system…and are not ready to give up their piece of the spending pie. The lesson here: it will take time to counter the institutional inertia of CMOs and CEOs.

Picked up a post on Mashable that nicely captures choices for the key web trends for the past year. The only big one I would add - though it might seem like stating the obvious - is the increasingly dominant role of Google as an economic, cultural and technological force on the Web. For better or worse, what they decide to do (or buy) has major ripple effects on the vast internet ecosystem. Though some fear this power, I’ve yet to see any negative impact of Google’s domination in my daily interactions on the Web - quite the opposite, in fact - so I’m withholding  my judgement.

Looking beyond the core Web trends into related developments in PR, I guess the most prominent trend is simply that companies are slowly, sometimes reluctantly, adopting some of the tools and ethos of social media in their communication activities: corporate blogs, internal wikis, RSS-enabled intranet portals, islands on Second Life, crowd-sourcing sites, social press releases, Twitter networks…and so on. There’s also been a steady increase of activities that could be considered marketing - or sorry…relationship building as the CMOs would define it. 

I see most if not all of these trends are positive developments. The twin disciplines of PR and marketing (as well as advertising to a lesser extent) have already greatly benefited, I would suggest, from being blown inside-out with the liberating gusts of Web 2.0 ideas and tools. PR, in particular, was (is?) in need of a major overhaul; name another profession with such a dubious reputation, stifling inertia, propensity to flirt with the dark side of ethics and insular thinking. Let the winds of freedom blow…. 

I was glad to hear my friends at GCI had won the huge Dell agency review as part of the winning WPP team. I was glad on a personal level - since I’ve worked with these folks and believe they are peerless in terms of social/digital media chops - but also on a professional level. I think Dell’s bold move to have WPP build a dedicated, integrated agency team is a winning recipe. As outlined by GCI’s Paul Walker in his blog post, there are no agencies that can now bring to bear the wide range of expertise and experience related to digital media. In fact, few can claim good depth and breadth even if they include sister companies and partners. To really do the job right - leveraging all the social media tools and emerging applications to execute a coordinated strategy across retail, marketing, PR and advertising - you need a lot of brainpower and muscle. Dell has become a leader in this area by working hard to develop and implement an integrated digital program across marketing and communications, not just one-off projects. [Full disclosure, I was part of the team at Dell that developed and implemented the social network strategy.] WPP has the people and track record to deliver on this ambitious promise, at least on paper. It will be interesting to see how this account turns out. Either way, this may be the model of the future for agency relationships as companies strive to ride the bumpy digital highway to marketing nirvana.  

Noted blogger/podcaster Shel Holtz has a good post on the latest mess by a PR agency (and client) not being totally transparent about their relationship or agenda. This case involves Burson Marsteller creating an instant organization on behalf of Microsoft - ostensibly to lobby for online freedom and competition - but failing to acknowlege the obvious link. To make matters worse, the folks at BM also aggressively pitched their case to incredulous journalists. Another black eye for PR firms.

As Holtz writes, it’s amazing that companies still use these dubious (and outdated) tactics even though they go squarely against the “no BS” ethos of the Web - where candor and transparency are the price of entry - and the Web is littered with examples of agencies burned by similar scandals. But the lesson here goes beyond PR campaigns, and the miscue does not have to be an egregious cover-up. I’ve seen several examples recently, for example, where corporate campaigns aimed at employees were met with yawns and snickers. Despite plenty of planning and expense, these well crafted messages and materials were essentially dead on arrival. Why? Because they were seen as paint-by-numbers pabulum - neither relevant, forthright or personal. Most people - whether on the Web or in companies - are looking for authenticity and for value. They also want to be a part of deciding what kind of information they receive, and how they get it. Anything that seems artificial, generic or misleading will be challenged or ignored. The sooner PR practicioners learn this lesson the better.

The New York Times, among others, had an article marking the 25th anniversary of USA Today - the much derided but undeniably popular national newspaper. I found it fascinating that the Times lauded its rival for a list of innovations and achievements. I’ve long been a fan of USA Today - despite the heavy emphasis on frothy topics in its early days - because it offered me something other newspapers did not: legitimate national coverage, solid sports and entertainment news, user-friendly layouts and content, and easy access anywhere around the globe. Other than the Herald Tribune - which is too short and typically costs a bundle - USA Today is the only newspaper I could buy during my travels to get fresh news about my favorite hockey team (the Maple Leafs) or a snapshot of major business developments. Sure, the paper didn’t have the reporting chops or depth of other publications, but over the years I read many stories in USA today that were avoided or ignored by other outlets. As the Times notes, USA Today’s strategy seems to have been prescient - the paper now seems ideally suited for the digital age where easy-on-the-eyes visual content, easy access, bite-size chunks of information and use of viewer feedback are popular, if not expected. Their website carries on this tradition of innovation and focus on readers rather than pedigree. Sometimes all you need is a good, quick read. Happy birthday.

The decision by the New York Times to stop it’s subscription service for access to its columnists and archives may one of the final nails in the coffin of paid media online. The outcome was inevitable. At least that’s the view of Jeff Jarvis and other pundits. Take a look at the news as reported in the Times itself.

 With the Times tearing down the walls the last remaining outposts of fee-based subscription are two media legends - the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. Jarvis posits that these two recalcitrant giants will ultimately join the crowd and accept the reality that charging for content online is anathema to the internet, and creates more harm than good for companies seeking to attract viewers and foster relationships rather than transactions. Furthermore, the economic model for subscription has  proven to be deeply flawed and unsustainable. To its credit, the Times acknowledged the driving force in its decision was that occasional viewers visiting the website for information were unlikely to pay for the service - or to return to the site. In the Web environment - where access to sites is virtually universal and content, applications and software are often free - there is little demand (or patience) for restricted sites. The Times was shutting out potentially thousands - if not millions - of viewers finding the Times site via search engines or aggregators. (According to Neilsen the Times gets about 13 million unique visitors a month - putting it among the most visited media sites in the world.)

This is good news for online viewers and ultimately good news for the Times. Now they can focus their efforts on expanding their user base by sharing relevant content, providing a distinctive editorial perspective, fostering conversation and driving revenue through advertising, rather than subscriptions. Welcome to Web 2.0. Is the Journal watching this?

I’ve been watching with interest the vibrant discussion about Google’s new comment feature, which will let people or organizations featured in GoogleNews articles provide their own secondary comments - which will be published alongside the article. Jeff Jarvis has blogged a number of times on this topic - including a recent post detailing a back-and-forth polemic between the LA Times editorial staff critical of the feature and prominent bloggers who think it’s a step in the right direction.  If I can summarize the battle lines…those in the “con” camp are concerned that the tool will encourage too much unfiltered, unedited content with an inherent bias, while those in the “pro” camp believe allowing additional comments from interested parties will provide a more balanced, accurate and richer perspective. The folks at Google seem content to stay above the fray - go here to see their original post about the experimental feature.

From my perspective, it’s too early to tell how all this will wash out. But I do agree with Jarvis that this episode shows some newspapers continue to have a tin ear - and thin skin - when it comes to new ideas and applications that don’t originate within the hallowed fourth estate. At best, they seem arrogant and defensive. The GoogleNews tool may not be perfect and could be more trouble than it’s worth, but it’s an original idea that is worth looking at. If nothing else, it raises the level of dialogue in what was traditionally a static, one-way medium. Ultimately, it will up to readers to sift through the content and decide what is most relevant and credible.  

In most if not all of the conversations I’ve had or heard about digital media lately, a topic that invariably comes up is who “owns” it in organizations. Or more pointedly, who manages and coordinates the digital programs, who creates the content, who manages the blogs…and who should drive the digital strategy. This prosaic topic may appear trivial, but as any consultant worth his/her salt will tell you process and organization is critical to turning an idea into reality. From what I’ve seen and read, digital media efforts are led by a wide range of usual suspects in major companies - marketing, advertising, corporate communications, IT and sometimes even branding. And this is no surprise, since the elements of Web 2.0 technology cut across all of these departments - relevant to all, but owned by none. The problem with this lack of obvious ownership is that it seriously inhibits coordination and focus - and ultimately effectiveness.

No matter where the digital apostles work in a company or who is the most learned expert or where the blog moderators reside, it’s critical that companies begin to create new structures and processes to help make sense of the Web and drive coherent, integrated programs. It’s also essential to find and leverage the wide range of skills and expertise that are required to design and execute a strong Web 2.0 strategy - including serious technology chops, editorial talent, video production, project management, advertising experience, research, marketing, website design, etc. The list is long. Getting organized can be as easy as forming cross-functional teams that incorporate members from all relevant teams. And it likely means creating  some new senior roles so leaders can direct and track the efforts. Without this grunt work, companies may be relegated to one-off efforts that are often disparate and even contradictory. None of this means organizations need to create a new bureaucracy or be paralyzed by analysis - since glacial consensus-seeking and rigid regulation is anathema to Web 2.0 tactics. Think of it more as providing a basic sense of direction and order…Web-style.  

Just read a smart blog by the folks at GolinHarris on a study they conducted in the U.S. to determine how people accessed information and which news sources people trusted more than others. First of all, kudos to these guys for looking at this issue with an open perspective - too often agencies and media companies seem more intent on protecting the status quo than finding real answers. I’m still absoring the detailed analysis, but highlights of the study are as follows:

• There is no substitute for personal experience - direct interaction is the most trusted information source across every demographic group
• Word-of-mouth is the second most important and trusted source, allowing users to “borrow” the direct experience of others
• Online media (CNET, WebMD) are more trusted by a majority of respondents than traditional news sources
• Radio is the most trusted mainstream media source
• Trust in social media channels is showing big gains, and these channels are perceived as important future sources
• Proactive news junkies - or individual influencers - are very active and important sources of information

If nothing else, this research confirms that new Web 2.0 tools have changed the face of news gathering and dissemination forever. [Full disclosure - I worked at GolinHarris for five years and have been known to share a beer with my old friends there. None of them, however, had anything to do with this study.]

I just returned from a one week trip to various locales in Ontario to visit family and let the kids meet some of their cousins. Nothing dramatic to report really. There is still plenty of good things I love about Canada - the decorum of politics, the cosmopolitan restaurants, the peerless museums and the prominence of hockey - and some things that I don’t like as much - such as the European-influenced propensity to smoke furiously, the frustrating strikes by quasi-governmental workers and the glaring lack of choice across a range of services (no HBO!?!) I didn’t have time to meet with former colleagues in the communications field, so no great observations on the reaction to the Web 2.0 revolution. I can report, however, that the major newspapers and national broadcast news programs are still exceptional and refreshingly free of bombast and bias. Nice to see there is a world beyond Bill O’Reilly and Katie Couric.

Just saw this interesting document from the Washington Post which defines their principles for dealing with journalism on the Web. The good news is that the leaders of this legendary newspaper have clearly thought about this issue and seem willing to evolve to fit the changing demographics and habits of their readers. Jeff Jarvis thinks their list falls one short, but I see it as a sign of progress. The editors of the Post clearly believe their online sibling is critical and complementary to the newspaper, and brings a host of benefits to the process of news gathering and distribution. The document explicitly acknowledges the tension between the online and print sides of the house, which adds to its credibility and relevance of the post. A final note: the principles confirm the values and standards of the Post reach across to the online version. Seems obvious, but in the brave new Web 2.0 world some are too eager to ignore or jettison critical traditions in the name of progress.

Much has been written about the incredible talent (or dastardly skill depending on your viewpoint) Apple has to fuel momentum and coverage for its product launches. The latest news tsunami for the iPhone is a case in point. But beyond the tactical lessons, I’ve read/heard some interesting comments about the iPhone launch as a watershed in how media outlets are covering events, and how the news itself is being generated and distributed. A post by Steve Rubel details how USA Today reached out to interested viewers/readers via survey questions and by asking them to forward photos and videos from relevant iPhone events. Rubel suggests this forward-thinking approach - which acknowleges the increasingly important role of “citizen journalists” - puts USA Today squarely in the lead of big media companies struggling with Web 2.0 developments. Their collaborative, win-win-win approach makes a great deal of sense to me. If you can’t beat them…. Popular blogger Jeff Jarvis, for his part, posted about the dramatic emergence of live video footage available on the net capturing the frenzy surrounding the sale of the iPhone last week. The prevalence of user-generated footage wasn’t the big story - that has steadily become more frequent and prominent as an unofficial source of news - but the fact that the videos were available in real-time on the internet was big news (no pun intended.) Being able to view events online as they occur - as filmed by ordinary folks or amateur journalists alike - takes the formal news outlets completely out of the picture.  There is plenty of debate on the pros and cons of these developments, but what is undeniable is that these anecdotes are further evidence, if we needed any, that news coverage has changed forever. Enlightened media companies (and PR agencies who work with media companies) will embrace this reality and adapt to remain relevant, rather than fight the tide.

Of all the hype and coverage surrounding the iPhone - which I confess seems like an amazing device that I will likely try to purchase when the costs come down - the most interesting story is perhaps the marketing and PR model driven by Apple to make this story so prominent. A number of posts like this one have praised the iPhone launch as the model of a perfect product introduction. One could certainly make a strong case for that, but the true lessons may be in the tactics that Apple uses - time and again - to whip up the frenzy among journalists and fans alike. First, notice the blend of traditional - ultra-cool advertising across the usual channels - with the emphasis on Web tools like blogs and Apple “friends”. Replays of Steve Jobs initial announcement at the Mac conference were widely available on the Web for all to see, and much of the analysis and speculation about the iPhone in recent months has been in blogs and high-traffic web sites. Just recently, Apple distributed a very slick video on how to use the iPhone. I watched it, and I know many of my co-workers and friends did, even though none of us has an iPhone or plans to buy one during the initial sale. Why? Because the video is vintage Apple - smart, cool, well produced and (like their products) very intuitive. We also watched it because it came highly recommended from friends and strangers alike - in my case, via a Twitter update. Another notable tactic is the absolute control Apple seems to have over the process. Major announcements are made at select conferences - including those “owned” by Mac. Leaks and updates are released at the whim of the company. Improvements are announced to generate or sustain maximum media coverage. Certainly, the product at the heart of all this seems to be a legitimate game-changer, and the massive Apple fan base online helps to put wind beneath all these marketing activities. But the ultimate lesson here is there is plenty of leeway for new marketing models in this Web 2.0 environment. Apple has developed its own distinctive approach, and it obviously seems to be working.

A couple of recent documentaries raised some critical questions about the importance - and willingness or capability - of the media’s role as the impartial fourth estate.

A few weeks ago, PBS’s Frontline presented a cogent report on how the mainstream American media essentially gave the Bush administration a free pass during the lead-up to the Iraq war. Facing strong pressure by Congress and seemingly unstoppable momentum towards war - fueled deftly by the Bush team - few if any prominent journalists questioned the conventional wisdom or conducted the muckracking that is required for solid, impartial journalism. Those that did were shunned and/or relegated to the back pages. This despite the fact that there were large holes in much of the evidence - if anybody bothered to look. In hindsight, of course, we’ve learned that the arguments for war turned out to be largely paper tigers. Call that one a big whiff for the mainstream media (who join the CIA, the Bush team and the Pentagon on the “Great Blunders of History” club.)

More recently, we saw a similar dynamic in the polemic around global warming. In this case, the Bush team - and several popular journalists and members of Congress - are fighting, in the face of overwhelming evidence and intense criticism, the idea that global warming is a crisis that demands immediate attention. Notwithstanding your views on the issue - or the dubious tactics of the “just say no” Bush team, which are reminisent of the tobacco industry denials of the past two decades - what is striking is the virulent criticism of anybody who would dare to contradict the popular views on global warming.

Whatever the issue, it’s critical that major news outlets question and investigate, that they reach beyond the usual Belt Way pundits, that they take a stand even when their perspective is not popular with large segments of the population (or the Bush adminstration!) Even with the advent of citizen journalists, 24-hour global news coverage and the massive accessibility of information online, journalists need to serve as an impartial source of news that can stand the shifting winds of popular opinion. This is particularly true of bellweather outlets like the New York Times and CNN. Is this realistic in an age where media companies are cutting to the bone and coverage is becoming more partisan by the minute? I may be an idealist, but I believe it is.