Two More Reasons Companies Need to Pay Attention to Social Media

If companies needed any more reasons to get off the sidelines and start thinking about social media…

Reason #1: Staying Ahead of New FTC Regulations

The recently announced FTC guidelines on testimonials in advertising provide the first specific guidance from government on endorsements and disclosure in social media. Bob Pearson from the WeissComm Group suggests companies will be held more accountable for the behavior of their employees, so they should familiarize themselves with the regulations and ensure they take steps to limit their liability. In effect, companies will no longer be able to skirt (or flaunt) informal Web etiquette and will be held responsible for their online communication activities. Bob suggests all companies – big or small – follow this short checklist:

1. Require truthfulness and disclosure in all social media outreach

2. Monitor the conversation and correct misstatements

3. Create social media policies (with clear transparency and disclosure rules) and training programs

[Full disclosure: Bob is a friend and my former boss at Dell.]

Reason #2: Getting Ready for Real-Time Search

In recent weeks, there’s been plenty of online discussion about the emergence (and importance) of real-time search, which captures live updates on networks like Twitter and Facebook. A recent New York Times article posits that announcements by Google and Microsoft that their search platforms will include Twitter is just the latest evidence of this trend. (FYI: Facebook public updates will soon be available on Microsoft’s Bing.) Though the NYT article focuses on the potential revenue implications of real-time search, companies would do well to also study the PR impact of this trend on their own search results.  BusinessWeek recently posted a good summary on this topic.

What I thought was the most insightful take on this issue came from Charlene Li at Altimeter, who in her post on the topic writes: This trend towards micro media requires companies to pay attention to the real-time and social web for marketing, support, and competitive strategies. Here’s why. First, Google and Bing will filter search results based partly on timing and authority (as well as location.) Li argues this means consumers will more easily be able to influence search results through Twitter content, links and re-tweets. Conversely, companies will no longer be able to rely on their traditional page ranking, fueled by their SEO strategies. So even for companies not active on Twitter, their customers (or critics) can more easily influence search results related to the company in question. Li suggests a recipe to address this shift in search strategy:

• Develop a nimble, comprehensive listening strategy that includes social networks and incorporates internal processes, roles as well as robust analytical tools
• Change the marketing mindset that says generating more positive (self-serving) content will tilt the search balance, since the search filters will leave out irrelevant messages with no authority or following
• Marketers must focus on building relationships with people who have influence and authority on networks like Twitter – which means fostering relevant discussions with consumers and followers/friends

Even for companies with a defensive mindset who hesitate to jump into social media, these and other developments suggest their time as spectators is coming to an end.

Obama Feeds the Media Beast

A recent article in New York magazine makes some fascinating arguments about President Obama as the multi-platform, ubiquitous communicator-in-chief. The article suggests Obama and his team are deliberately – and effectively – managing this sustained communication output to brand the president, influence public opinion and direct policy discussions. Obama is described as the ultimate “content provider.” Though there are critics to this saturation strategy, it appears that the public still likes hearing from the President and assigns him considerable equity as a leader. One key implication of this strategy, the author suggests, is that messaging becomes a dynamic, demanding 24-hour contact sport.

Of course, what’s not mentioned in  the article is that many other politicians – or even pundits – are also making every effort to leverage the vast and protean media landscape. It’s just that they are not as consistently effective, and lack the global platform and profile of the President. Furthermore, it’s increasingly difficult to stand out among the profusion of media noise, as numerous companies and bloggers can testify. Despite the apparently insatiable demand for information, there is a saturation point for most users. The challenge for content providers – and their communication partners – will be to avoid just adding their own  fire hose to the mix and figuring out where and when it makes most sense to communicate.

Unions Jumping on New Media Bandwagon

An article in the Los Angeles Times last week provided a good summary of union campaign tactics being used against Starbucks – apparently now a close second to WalMart as the favorite target of union organizers. The gist of the article is that unions are increasingly leveraging “new media” tactics to spread the word and gain traction for their organizing campaigns – with the central premise that the inherent communication benefits of social media (low cost, huge reach, networking and multi-media capability) is providing a boost to these programs. Examples of new media tactics in the Starbuck’s program include worker videos posted on a website, a guerrilla “hijacking” of a Twitter program and an on-line petition.

Despite the focus on social media, I don’t think these campaigns will be any more successful than previous ones just because of the Web 2.0 tactics. For one thing, authenticity and credibility are paramount in social media programs, and these efforts are clearly biased and polarized. Even the union organizers behind the campaign agree the ultimate intent is to promote the potential EFCA legislation, and attack critics like Starbucks. Even though these networking/viral efforts may theoretically “spread the word” – to use the language of the union organizers – I doubt they will engage many beyond the core supporters or interested pundits. For one thing, Starbucks is no rookie when it comes to social media and PR and has aggressively responded on the Web and on proprietary sites as well as traditional media. So this continues to be a “he said, she said” battle, with each side trying to promote it’s position and leverage the networking ability of social media. Yes, there are Starbuck’s employees featured in the campaign who are critical of management and pushing for union representation, but that’s not new and doesn’t seem to represent a widespread trend.

This campaign sounds to me like similarly clumsy attempts by some PR and advertising firms to generate “buzz” by releasing “viral videos” on YouTube. I have no reason to believe it will spark any more public support or tangible policy change than previous efforts in traditional PR. Campaigns like this only generate genuine interest and momentum when they are legitimate grass-roots efforts that touch a nerve with a large community of consumers – like the infamous “Comcast must Die” website, which recently shutdown in the wake of apologies and concessions from Comcast. Otherwise, they are little more than manufactured “astroturf” campaigns destined to generate limited attention and change.

Obama Learns Importance of Context in Messaging

It’s been interesting to witness the commentary on President Obama’s communication efforts the past few months. Despite many kudos on the pace and breadth of activity of the Obama administration, one prominent thread has been the frustrating dearth of context to the blizzard of announcements and initiatives. Check out this article from back in March. In recent weeks, Obama has been getting credit for providing more direction and  framework to his platform. An Obama speech in April as he approached the end of his first 100 days in office - see two examples of coverage here and here- seemed to finally satisfy the public (and media’s) need to understand how all the initiatives tied together. The basic building blocks were there: a checklist of the major initiatives; a five-step plan highlighting the salient platform objectives; a preview of future activities; a summary of how success will be measured. In short, he laid out a cogent plan that allows him to position his policies and programs in the context of a larger goal.

In recent months I’ve witnessed a parallel to this situation in my little corner of the corporate world. Communicators seem eager to promote specific events or programs, but often miss the critical step of positioning these announcements in a larger context that would help recipients - whether it be employees or customers – to make sense of the information. In many matrixed, global organizations the challenge for communicators is working across functions and regions and developing broad programs or messages that cut across individual businesses. Easier said than done in increasingly lean organizations and the pressure to talk first and ask questions later. This propensity to punch out serial announcements – often with dubious news value – is only increasing with the popularity of social media tools like Twitter and blogs, which encourage short, frequent jolts of information. Furthermore, it’s clear that news outlets - slave to their 24-hour news cycles and propensity to favor drama and hype over substance – will rarely fill in the blanks or dig deeper than the headline.

The lesson here for communicators is to remember our critical role as strategic counsellors and planners. If we don’t help organize the noise, who will?

PR Still Out of Sync with Social Media

A recent post by prominent blogger Robert Scoble – who among other things is a columnist at Fast Company – serves as (yet another) plea to the PR industry to stop “bad pitches.” Scoble complains  in his post that his efforts to push back on unwanted and/or misdirected pitches sparked a backlash of criticism from PR pundits and staffers alike. His point – instead of listening and learning too many PR staffers vilify the critics and stubbornly go on their merry way like it’s 1999.

Unfortunately, I’ve seem plenty of evidence first hand that supports Scoble’s unflattering assessment. Recently I witnessed so-called social media experts at one firm suggest they intended to pitch to a variety of influential bloggers… just because they were influential. No matter that they had no real news, that the pitch (as it was) had no topical connection at all to these bloggers or that the company had established no relationship whatsoever with these bloggers. One can imagine the reaction this would have generated with the recipients. Some agencies seem unable even to reassess the relevance and value of their services, still promoting bulk coverage in traditional media as the ultimate measure of communication success. I’m not honestly sure why the industry continues to demonstrate this blind spot around social media and continue to push blunt,  mass pitching. Perhaps it’s due to the fact much of the dirty work in agencies is still done by the most inexperienced (and inexpensive) staff. Maybe it’s the pressure to product results – no matter what they are. Whatever the cause, until agencies overhaul their tactics and respond to the complaints they will continue to turn influential pundits like Scoble into critics rather than advocates. Worse, they will push existing and potential employees out of the PR business.

The New Power Structure in News Media

If we ever needed more evidence of the dramatic shift in clout and relevance in journalism in North America witness the public excoriation of CNBC’s Mad Money host Jim Cramer by Jon Stewart last month. After being taken to task for hyping financial companies that soon imploded as part of the economic meltdown, Cramer embarked on a strange, ill-advised PR effort that threw napalm on the initial feud and ultimately left Cramer as the bruised, admonished loser.

A column in the USA Today by Robert Bianco suggests there are three lessons one can take from this media tussle:

1. Choose your friends wisely: Cramer sought support from blustery, ultra-conservative pundits like Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough and dubious public figures like Martha Stewart;

2. Know your enemy: Cramer initially dismissed Stewart as a comedian of little depth or consequence;

3. Know when to shut up: Cramer’s initial denials and attacks on Stewart were disingenuous, ill-advised and totally backfired.

To his credit, Cramer eventually saw the light and admitted he erred in a humiliating dressing-down by Jon Stewart himself. This was a worse beating than the one suffered by Ross Perot in the infamous debate with Al Gore on Larry King years ago. But by admitting his mistake and promising to do better Cramer at least staunched the bleeding and opened the door to public redemption. Though his credibility (whatever it was) has been severely damaged, he has shown he can learn from his mistakes…if belatedly.

There are two fundamental lessons from this episode, beyond the ones offered above. One, do not assume who has inherent credibility or clout based on their job or self-assigned credentials. Despite his defined role as a comedian, Stewart easily out-punched Cramer and his cohorts and showed himself (once again) to be a smart, credible and very influential commentator on issues of national importance. Two, know when to go quietly and avoid the spotlight. As noted by the USA Today, all publicity is not good publicity.

Using PR to Turn the Tide Against “Junkets”

It’s been interesting to see the PR counter-offensive by the U.S. travel industry against the tide of criticism against so-called business junkets. A couple of weeks ago I saw full-page ads in several major papers suggesting that cancelled meetings translate into millions of lost jobs. The “Meetings mean Business” campaign includes a major PR and advertising push, a new Code of Conduct for companies using taxpayer dollars, personal video vignettes, advocacy outreach, a robust website, etc. The campaign appears to be working, at least in terms of political leaders like Barney Frank and even President Obama urging caution in branding travel as ill-advised spending. This may help differentiate the egregious retreats by AIG and other TARP recipients from the legitimate trips by thousands of organizations investing in their staff.

Sometimes Facts are Not Enough

I noted with interest a recent blog by Shel Holtz on the criticism aimed at AIG for conducting expensive meetings after being essentially rescued by the Feds. I agree with Shel that AIG could have done a better job explaining the rationale and benefits of this meeting, and I guess I buy the argument that companies still need to do all they can to recognize and incent their best performers. But in this case I think the better approach would have been to anticipate the PR disaster and either cancel or amend the meetings. In other words, the PR team should provide counsel that changes the original decision or policy rather than just provide a more cogent explanation of why the meeting was justified or take steps to clean up the mess. One of the most important roles of PR pros is to act like canaries in a coalmine…to plan ahead and drive decisions to keep the company or brand out of trouble.

Given the economic angst and the baggage around the actions of the Fed – why are they helping only large financial companies? – the outrage and PR fiasco surrounding AIG is not surprising. And like in many other situations, the so-called facts simply did not reach or resonate with most observers. The headlines were already imprinted.

Of course, since this initial scandal AIG has had its hands slapped again for conducting other pricy events. See this summary blog. Only belatedly did the company cancel all remaining “non essential” meetings, but the damage has been done.

PR Barking Up the Wrong Tree

Influential blogger Jeff Jarvis continues to make provocative arguments on why and how journalism is evolving in the face of social media and technological advances. In this recent article, Jarvis posits that the foundation, or best source, for relevant news coverage is no longer the article, but rather the topic itself. In his argument Jarvis suggests that articles are inherently incomplete, isolated, repetitive and temporary and cannot adequately present information.

Just think about it…how many times have you been fully satisfied in a search by finding one article on a specific story or topic? Typically my searches cover a wide range of sources (via specific searches and/or aggregators) and a fair amount of digging to get a complete picture. If I’m lazy, I’ll settle on the more comprehensive and authoritative sources (e.g. WSJ or CNN.com.) But even these sources are insular. As Jarvis suggests, news items need to be dynamic and linked to other sources to be truly relevant and complete. Increasingly, I’ll go to Wikipedia or be lucky enough to find a good social media release, which will provide me with a good sample of material…and a number of links to dig for more. 

The interesting twist on this argument is what it means for those trying to influence the media process - namely PR professionals. As I’ve said before on this blog, I find far too many practitioners are woefully ignorant of social media trends and continue to pitch like back in the 90’s…or even 80’s. As Jarvis suggests, this modus operandi is in danger of becoming even more irrelevant, and ineffective. The smart agencies and companies have recognized the evolving needs and preferences of users and are making it easier for news-hungry consumers to get a rich and balanced perspective. (Check out this social media release by Cisco as one example.) It will be interesting to revisit this issue in a few months to see if and how things have changed.

Taking PR Lessons Too Far

This post on the PR site “Seat at the Table” profiles a recent TV dust-up that showcases how shallow and inadequate the vaunted political PR machinery can be at times. This case involves a very persistent Campbell Brown, the CNN anchor/reporter, and McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds. I happened to watch this clip on CNN.com myself a couple of times and almost enjoyed watching Bounds squirm. The problem – and key lesson for PR professionals – is the peril of sticking to the script at almost any cost. Many of us have trained our executives or clients to “redirect” to stick to their messages and use various methods to control the conversation. But as stated in this blog, that should not be done at the cost of logic or credibility. You still have to answer the question…or at least something close to the question. Tucker Bounds shows what happens when the canned answer is not relevant or responsive and the reporter is persistent…simply repeating the same oblique answer is not, pardon the pun, the answer.

This episode probably says more about the unfortunate perversion of PR tactics during political campaigns than the state of journalism; the blog rightly praises Brown for being one of the few reporters not afraid to press for a clear answer. Either way, it’s a good reminder that the foundation of all good PR is honesty, not propaganda. All the tricks in the world won’t help if the answer, or message, is bunk.