You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Metrics’ category.
I’ve been in the communication business a long time; now well into my second decade. Though I’ve witnessed many changes as the profession has evolved – most of them positive – there are also several industry characteristics that seem to stubbornly resist progress, almost like anachronisms. These aren’t so positive. Granted, this is just an unscientific tally from my personal perspective, but here is a list of communication quirks, or habits, that I’m surprised to still be seeing in the workplace:
- I’m amazed at the prominence of much-maligned PowerPoint as a communication tool. Even harsh critics seem to use the tool – with minor variations and embellishments – even as they attack the platform. Despite the introduction of plenty of new technology and platforms over the years – including more dynamic PP tools like Prezi and new visual options – the tried-and-true model remains ubiquitous.
- Interactive, digital 3-D environments like Second Life have a very low profile, and usage, despite the early hype and promise. A few cutting-edge firms use the platforms for a wide range of communication activities (including secure, enterprise versions for internal use) but many pros seem to have little awareness or interest in this technology.
- Corporate communications content is almost devoid of humor, which is so prominent in our digital lives and a key ingredient in the best marketing and entertainment campaigns. I understand some topics are serious, but the PR industry seems to have a deathly fear of humor that fuels work that is needlessly boring and forgettable.
- I still see much more “push” communication – or talking to/at our audiences – than “pull” activities, where users can access information they want, when and where they want to. Genuine conversation – which can be fostered through a range of new social media tools – is even more rare.
- Many companies still have no social media strategy. And I’m not talking about a proactive, intervention plan. Many don’t even have a defensive, passive social media program – with a basic employee policy and/or rudimentary monitoring.
- While the internet is truly global – a virtual community where distance and borders are irrelevant – many companies are still surprisingly insular and lack basic knowledge of global communication trends and differences. (One example: no awareness or recognition of the dominance of languages other than English on the Internet.)
- With apologies to my friends in IT… most IT departments in organizations remain a reluctant partner and barrier to progress, rather than a technology leader or facilitator. Yes, they have to consider costs and risks. But IT’s lack of attention to new technology and thin excuses (we can’t support that third-party platform) has made the function less relevant in many organizations.
- Finally, perhaps the most surprising…too many professionals still lead with a tactic at the expense of strategy. It’s the old shoot, fire, aim adage…with a checklist mentality focused on deliverables and activity and not on driving impactful, relevant objectives. The new version – “can you set us up with a Facebook page” – is simply an updated variation of pushing out the old employee newsletter (without clear purpose or metrics.)
Like in any industry, it can be hard to change entrenched habits. And our bosses or clients – senior executives – are often the ones pushing back on untested, new approaches. But if we hope to position ourselves as smart, agile consultants we can’t fall back on excuses and inertia.
Over the past couple of weeks I’ve had to come up with some best practices on M&A communications. I thought I’d share these and invite any comments or questions.
Though circumstances around every M&A situation will vary, there are certain best practices that can help ensure communications is credible and effective, and help organizations to navigate cultural and operational integration. Essentially, organizations need to clearly explain the rationale and implications of the M&A, and lay out a clear roadmap to help staff understand their role going forward. It’s also important to provide clarity around expected impact on staffing, culture and integration of workplace benefits and programs – these will be important concerns for most employees. Underlying the messaging, of course, there needs to be compelling reasons for employees to remain loyal and engaged through the transition period and beyond.
Here is a checklist of these key considerations:
- Focus on the rationale – One of the critical drivers to employee acceptance of any change message is the underlying rationale…why do we need to change? Why now? Why this way? What are the fundamental reasons for the merger or acquisition? The logic and credibility of this core argument will determine the success of the integration effort.
- Be timely – Many M&A situations raise questions about winners and losers – what brands will survive, what facilities might close, what leaders are promoted, etc. It’s important to confirm and communicate these facts in a timely, logical sequence to avoid uncertainty and anxiety among employees. Though some decisions may not be popular with all staff groups, it’s preferable to communicate these changes promptly than risk a sustained malaise or inertia among staff.
- What’s in it for me? – One of the critical elements required in any M&A communication effort is a clear indication of how employees across all regions and levels will benefit from the change. These benefits can be intangible (pride of global leadership, external recognition) or more practical (increased opportunity for career advancement, financial gains, increased security) but they need to be addressed prominently in the outreach. It won’t be good enough to demonstrate how the change is good for the company – you need to make the link between company gains and personal benefits.
- Be candid about implications – Beyond making a compelling case for change, leaders also need to be candid about the more negative or contentious implications from the M&A – such as restructurings or layoffs. Trying to avoid these tough issues will erode the credibility of the communication effort (and leadership team.)
- What will not change? – With talk of change and integration, most employees will be very interested in confirming what won’t be changing, particularly with regard to their daily jobs and more esoteric issues like culture. Will there be change to the core values, for example, or compensation strategy. If that’s the case, that needs to be emphasized in the communication effort. Confirming these surviving pillars – whatever they are — will provide some sense of continuity and security to employees.
- Dialogue vs. push – It’s particularly important during broad-scale change efforts (including M&As) to go beyond basic “push” communication tactics to fully engage employees in the topic and drive understanding and support. The communication effort should engage the employees in the change process through discussion and participation where appropriate, rather than just as recipients of the messages. There should be ample opportunities for staff questions. If the old adage is you cannot over-communicate during times of change, I would adapt that to add you also can’t listen too much. It will also be critical to engage managers as active participants in the communication process. It goes without saying that social media provides rich opportunities to support this conversation, so communicators really have no excuse in this regard.
- Plan beyond the announcement – Many companies leverage broad, multi-year internal marketing campaigns to direct and support post-merger integration. Thinking beyond the initial announcement helps package a complex set of messages into a compelling, logical thematic framework that can appeal to employees and provide a sense of continuity. A well crafted campaign can also help to address the points above – for example defining the vision but also reinforcing the “how” or culture – through engaging collateral and messaging.
- Integrate internal and external messages – Whatever organizations do around M&A communication, they need to ensure their directives and messages are consistent across audiences, particularly related to marketing or staffing messages. Not everything communicated internally needs to be shared or identical to external messages (for example internal messages exhorting additional effort may not be relevant or appropriate for customers) but they need to be aligned and based on a common platform. In a similar vein, any communication plan needs to carefully coordinate outreach with employees from both companies involved.
- Engage hearts and minds – While it’s critical to have solid empirical evidence to make the case for a merger or acquisition, too often leaders assume facts alone will sway the organization. To increase chances of success, communicators should ensure their change program appeals to the emotions of their employees. That can be done through the messaging, packaging and tactical plan. The best change programs have an almost visceral, personal element.
- Devil in the details – As with any organizational directive, employees must understand how they need to do their jobs after the announcement…how they personally have to change. A critical element of any M&A program is clearly defining what employees at all levels and roles need to do differently – whether it’s behavior or process. If the scope of change is massive, the company will likely need to engage in substantial training and briefing programs.
- Focus on customers – Despite an obvious emphasis on communicating with staff, it’s important to keep in mind employees need to remain productive and engaged during any transition period. Any communication program, therefore, needs to avoid becoming a major distraction and should concentrate on helping staff do their jobs despite all the changes.
- Measure your progress – As with any communication effort, it’s important to monitor the reach and impact of any program in order to measure effectiveness and make necessary adjustments to messaging or tactics. In many M&A cases, organizations introduce additional metrics to ensure they are closely tracking their progress.
What do you think about these best practices?
I am reminded on a regular basis of the gap between organizations leading the adoption of social media – who are embracing and shaping new trends and applications – and others who still seem hesitant to devote any resources or intellectual capital to the discipline. The latest example comes through the concept of listening. While some organizations are (inexplicably) barely paying attention to online dialogue, others are working hard to improve their listening ability and using the information to shape their customer outreach, products and even their business operations. They are listening with a purpose – to use the insights and information they gather to truly engage with their customers, critics and fans online.
A recent blog post by Brian Solis details the progress of companies like Dell and Gatorade, who have expanded the concept of a community manager – the model for many companies engaged in social media – to that of a social media command center. This command center model not only provides a more robust, integrated structure to monitor, analyze and moderate online dialogue – which can be a challenge for organizations with a global profile and thousands of daily mentions – but also helps the team to internalize and respond to the various inputs.
There are numerous benefits to this enlightened approach. Solis writes about the Gatorade team, which is able to adjust online marketing campaigns in real-time based on analytics and user comments. Dell’s command center, meanwhile, provides a centralized platform to coordinate the outreach of its online ambassadors, expert authors and customer service activities. Issues and potential emerging PR problems are quickly identified and assessed. Various social media platforms and programs are integrated and managed without attention to traditional silos and functions. In other words… you listen, you learn, you react and you adapt.
As Solis describes it, Dell has become the model of a truly social and adaptive organization. And it’s important to note this goes beyond a defensive posture to respond and react to individual customer issues; the ultimate benefit from engagement with online communities is being able to harness their opinions, ideas and wisdom on topics well beyond sundry product or service complaints. Perhaps the biggest lesson from the actions or Dell and Gatorade is that existing organization models and concepts are no longer effective in this age of social media – which transcends traditional disciplines like marketing, IT, research and public relations. Even appointing a few individuals as community managers is a stop-gap measure. It will be interesting to see how other companies manage their social media activities in the coming months. My guess is the gap between leaders and laggards will only get wider.
The folks at AdAge posted an article recently on what they (and others) have described as the biggest social media campaign of the year: Coca-Cola’s global Expedition 206 project, where three “happiness ambassadors” travelled the world to document people’s search for happiness. Based on many measures, this campaign was a huge success, with over 650 million media impressions and huge global audiences across the campaign platforms – notably in relatively immature Coke markets like China. (It likely didn’t hurt that Coke’s social media properties are already among the most popular in the world.)
It’s interesting to note that some observers – including a few commenting on this article – aren’t sold on the success of the campaign. A few critics questioned whether the program had actually translated into a spike in sales, arguing increased awareness or positive buzz was a soft, meaningless measure of ROI. Others claimed they had never heard of the campaign, suggesting the ratings might be hype.
But beyond the debate about evaluating success – which is a big enough topic for another post altogether – I see a few important lessons for all communication/marketing professionals in this campaign:
- Social media is about people and local markets – The Coke folks developed the campaign blueprint at HQ and leveraged a core team to coordinate the massive undertaking, but used a decentralized approach where local teams (and the personable ambassadors) had flexibility to implement and customize the outreach. It’s also worth noting the prevalence of informal video in this program – a popular and compelling format that is too often ignored in many corporate programs;
- Be open to learning and adapting along the way – The Coke team freely admits they were flying blind on many aspects of this program, and leveraged the insights and feedback along the way to adjust the plan;
- Dont’ wait for things to be perfect – It might surprise some that even a social media leader like Coke launched this campaign knowing their teams would have to stretch to implement the campaign (for example, requiring a higher level of coordination across marcom groups and forcing many local teams to become more familiar with social media). Sometimes a campaign is the impetus for organizations to raise their game and overhaul technology and/or process…and that’s not a bad thing;
- Face-to-face still matters – Coke used a wide range of virtual activities in this campaign, but complemented the robust online tactics with critical local meetings and testimony by the ambassadors, which in turn generated much of the digital content. The heart of this campaign – as it were – was the personal friendships and outreach of the 3 ambassadors on the ground;
- Engage partners in relevant communities – The ambassadors reached out to local bloggers, fans and reporters to support their local outreach and extend local word-of-mouth;
- Be creative - This campaign went well beyond the typical, relatively safe Facebook and Twitter outposts favored by more timid organizations. The result was a campaign that was bold in scope and also much more interesting and lasting in terms of content and coverage.
These lessons were similar to what I experienced at Dell as part of the core team that developed and launched the social media programs several years ago. There were many things we didn’t know when we started, but we never would have learned – or made any progress – if we had waited for the perfect situation. Our focus was on getting the basics right – our strategy, objectives and key principles – but positioned our efforts as a constant beta test…constantly assessing, innovating and improving. Like with Coke, our efforts forced the issue on many fronts (for example the introduction of new technology and upgrades in infrastructure.)
The frenetic, unpredictable pace of evolution in social media doesn’t allow for ponderous, diffident planning more common even a few years ago. Yes, planning and strategic rigor still matter, but they shouldn’t get in the way of great ideas.
Many discussions about social media inevitably turn to the issue of ROI – or how you can measure impact and, more specifically, if there is empirical evidence (or reliable projections) that social media can boost hard business metrics like productivity, revenue and profits. While I’ve heard of a few isolated success stories (like Dell’s profits through Twitter promotions) I haven’t seen much consensus on a measurable, widespread impact – particularly related to consumer activities. In fact, there are still pockets of skeptics who deny social media can add directly to the bottom line. (Conversely, some social media fans/users suggest focusing on finding a bullet-proof ROI link is missing the point, since social media is more about conversation and engagement than short-term returns.)
Well, the folks at McKinsey – who could never be accused of using fuzzy math – recently came out with a study that suggests companies who make extensive use of the Web 2.0 technology have higher returns and margins than their peers. [FYI: you may have to subscribe to McKinsey to view the full report.] What’s telling about the findings is that McKinsey found that organizations that were highly networked – meaning they leveraged collaborative technology inside the enterprise as well as with external partners – were most likely to be market leaders (and gainers) and benefit from higher margins. There is plenty of room for progress, however; only 3 percent of survey respondents were defined as fully networked enterprises – with robust social media engagement across audiences. McKinsey also details the trend towards increasing use of social media inside the enterprise, and the shift beyond the more established business-to-consumer activities. The authors suggest this trend will exacerbate a gap between the forward-thinking organizations (who are gaining measurable benefits) and those reluctant to fully engage the collaborative technology.
A closer look at the findings shows that respondents to the global survey defined a wide range of “measurable benefits” – which confirms that most organizations are looking well beyond core metrics like profit-and-loss for evidence of ROI. But the purported benefits are by no means soft, in corporate parlance. Take a look at the top 4 benefits – based on percentage of respondents whose companies achieved benefits from use of Web 2.0 technologies – across the main categories:
- Increase speed of access to knowledge (77% of respondents)
- Reduce communication costs (60%)
- Increase speed of access to internal experts (52%)
- Decrease travel costs (44%)
- Increase effectiveness of marketing (awareness, consideration, conversion & loyalty) (63%)
- Increase customer satisfaction (50%)
- Reduce marketing costs (45%)
- Reduce support costs (35%)
- Increase speed of access to knowledge (57%)
- Reduce communication costs (53%)
- Increase satisfaction of partners (45%)
- Increase speed of access to external experts (40%)
How can companies join the networked high flyers described in this survey? Here are suggestions from the McKinsey study:
- Integrate the use of Web 2.0 into employees’ day-to-day work activities. What’s in the work flow is what gets used by employees and what leads to benefits.
- Continue to drive adoption and usage. Benefits appear to be limited without a base level of adoption and usage.
- Break down the barriers to organizational change. Fully networked organizations appear to have more fluid information flows, deploy talent more flexibly to deal with problems, and allow employees lower in the corporate hierarchy to make decisions.
- Apply Web 2.0 technologies to interactions with customers, business partners, and employees. Fully networked organizations can achieve the highest levels of self-reported benefits in all types of interactions
As someone who spends a great deal of my time working with companies on internal issues, I’m glad to get this additional ammunition to help convince companies their greatest potential to leverage social media may be inside the organization. McKinsey’s describes these progressive internally networked organizations as cultures where “information is shared more readily and less hierarchically, collaboration across organizational silos is more common, and tasks are more often tackled in a project-based fashion.” Buried in this description is the root of the problem; the reality is that some companies are still not willing to foster this type of decentralized, fluid communication environment. To some, information is still power…and they don’t want to give it up.
There’s been plenty of discussion and printing dedicated to the topic of corporate reputation, with a few chestnuts emerging as common themes – such as the merits of building a “goodwill bank” and the quick and dramatic impact a crisis can have on reputation. There are also many consultants selling their respective solutions to improving or rehabilitating a tarnished reputation. In my observation many of these programs leave out the employees; too often the diagnosis and prescription is heavily (if not exclusively) focused on external stakeholders. (A popular evaluation metric used by the Reputation Institute looks at “workplace” as a key factor, but their approach is based more on perceptions of the employer brand than employee outreach or behavior.)
There are several reasons why activities related to corporate reputation need to fully involve employees:
- Companies intent on measuring and managing their reputation ideally need to follow the same steps internally they would with consumers or customers: assessment, gap analysis, prescription, outreach, progress evaluation, etc. On the assessment front…employees need to fully understand and embrace the desired reputation to effectively deliver on the brand promise, so evaluation of their opinions and ideas is critical. Making assumptions about what employees know, feel or want on any topic is a risky strategy. Employees are a key part of the opportunity (or problem) and the solution.
- Employees help form the existing reputation and need to buy into the desired reputation. Some would argue a desired reputation that is not relevant or credible with employees cannot become reality, so any reputation program has to consider the internal gap and include appropriate solutions to move the employee needle. In short, new reputations cannot be developed in a vacuum.
- Much like in broader change efforts, the more employees are involved in defining the solution/strategy the more likely they are to be fully engaged…so companies should consider how they can engage employees in the process of defining and enhancing the corporate reputation. At minimum, companies should think about soliciting & leveraging the ideas and best practices of their teams.
- With the advent of social media, employees are more likely to help shape and drive the brand identity and reputation of companies online – employees are potentially the most credible fans and advocates, but also the most devastating critics. (This goes beyond the occasional “rogue” employee that breaks rules and ends up on YouTube, like these guys.) In the social media context individual, peer-to-peer interactions often have more traction than traditional, generic marketing activities. So any reputation program should – at minimum – have a clear roadmap for how employees can help drive the reputation through their formal and informal online activities. (FYI – the external reputation analysis can confirm how much employees drive the opinions…good or bad.) Some progressive companies have taken this a step further and developed programs to fully leverage their employees as an army of online ambassadors and fans (e.g. Dell.)
- Whatever the gap between desired and existing reputation, employees must be provided with the direction, tools and support to help achieve the ideal reputation…after all they are the ones developing/delivering relevant products and services and shaping customer interactions. This can go well beyond communication into HR programs, training, recognition, incentives and so on.
- To give credit, many companies address the direct link between their employees and their reputation in their community outreach programs, but these are often limited, choreographed initiatives where employees are encouraged to participate in specific, company sponsored programs. I would argue these programs are almost seen as a price-of-entry for any company and provide limited reputation benefit unless they are seen as particularly noteworthy. Furthermore, I know from personal experience many companies don’t explain the purpose or importance of these outreach activities to their employees. In short…not good enough.
- The inherent value of an integrated, multi-audience reputation program is it helps ensure the program is focused & aligned across various stakeholders and internal teams. Too many companies fail to make clear links between their brand, reputation, vision/values, etc. and employees are left confused, so it’s important to have a holistic approach that connects the dots.
With all the effort and spending in the area of corporate reputation, it’s time to put further thought in the critical role of employees in the development, promotion and protection of company reputation.
Two recent surveys of leading companies point to the progress and potential – but also the challenges – of engaging in social media. Great context for those wondering what everybody else is doing.
First up…a new survey of 400 global companies by Deloitte, which focused on the perceived benefits and potential of online communities – or “tribalization of business”. The headline of this study is: good progress and plenty of promise…but it’s tough to find the right formula for maximum success. As the survey puts it: “While enterprises are effectively using online tools to engage with customers, partners, and employees for brand discussion and idea generation, organizations are continuing to struggle with harnessing social media’s full potential.”
Key takeaways include:
- There are signs that company use of social media is maturing, with the notable example of a shift to consider online “lurkers” (or observers) rather than just active users in online communities
- Companies still struggle with the main obstacles of building online communities – getting users to join, stay engaged and return – and use participation as the main metric for success (the study suggests there are more useful analytics, such as search engine rank and links/citations on other sites)
- The top business objectives for online communities are (in order): increasing word-of-mouth, customer loyalty and brand awareness
The Deloitte authors provide an interesting prescription to companies engaged in social media that reflects the need for a new perspective and approach:
- Think tribe – not market segment
- Think network – not channel
- Think customer-centricity – not company-centricity
The folks at McKinsey have also spent a considerable amount of their grey matter studying the implementation and impact of social media. One of their most interesting products is an interactive report on Web 2.0 featuring results from their annual survey of 1,700 business executives. (FYI – You may need to register to access the full report.) The survey provides a great snapshot of where companies are investing, what they’re trying to achieve and what technology they are deploying.
Too many findings to show here, but here are some highlights (I’m sticking to Top 3 for each):
- Most important technologies and tools: Blogs, social networking, wikis
- Technology/tools being used internally for developing products & services: wikis, blogs, social networks
- Technology/tools being used internally for managing knowledge: wikis, blogs, RSS
- Technology/tools being used internally for enhancing company culture: blogs, social networking, podcasts
- Technology/tools being used internally for fostering collaboration: blogs, social networking, wikis
- Technology/tools being used internally for training: videos, wikis, podcasts
- Technology/tools being used internally for finding and recruiting talent: social networks, blogs, videos
Not surprisingly, the mix of tools used to interact with partners and customers differs from the internal recipe…as do the objectives. In fact, it’s interesting to look at what McKinsey has categorized as main objectives for each audience:
- Partners: achieving better integration, lowering purchase costs, developing products, solving problems
- Customers: acquiring new customers, improving customer service, developing products, helping customers interact, marketing
- (Employee objectives are noted above.)
There were a couple of surprises for me in the findings. One is the relatively low ranking for micro-blogging…which belies the hype for Twitter and similar internal applications (e.g. Yammer). The other is the low profile of “prediction markets” – which I take to include crowd-sourcing platforms popularized by Dell and Starbucks. Perhaps the most disappointing (though not surprising) finding is that senior executives are the lowest users of Web 2.0 technology. Therein lies one of the biggest challenges for communication and marketing professionals – it’s hard to sell Web 2.0 strategies to executives who don’t use or understand the technology.
A recent study by Altimeter/Wetpaint makes a solid case for a strong link between superior financial performance and deep engagement in social media…at least across the world’s leading brands. They conclude: “socially engaged companies are in fact more financially successful.” Some ardent advocates of social media have argued against trying to measure its value using traditional metrics – like financial ROI – but nevertheless this study fills an interesting gap in the debate.
Beyond the headline finding, there’s plenty of other good info in this report. Perhaps one of the most interesting conclusions is that social media is virtually a given among the top 100 brands – which surprised me – though the authors admit too many companies still dip their toes in without fully planning or sustaining their forays. The companies featured as the most “engaged” are the usual suspects – Dell, Starbucks, SAP and Toyota – and the study does a good job of quantifying engagement using an analytical model and even details 4 categories of engagement. (Full disclosure, I was part of the social media team at Dell in 2007-2008 and directly involved in the work described in the study.) There’s also some good best practices and take-aways for communication and marketing professionals to leverage.
Now it remains to be seen if this study – along with other positive reports and testimonials driving the adoption of social media – are enough to convince skeptics and laggards…particularly those beyond the top 100 brands. In fact, I’m eager to find more evidence of how many organizations are truly engaged in social media – and not just in the U.S. or among the biggest organizations.
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.
One of the most fascinating elements of the Web 2.0 revolution is the scope and speed of innovation driving new developments on the Web. Witness the creation of new measurement and search tools related to tracking content on Twitter. This post by Brian Solis discusses the merit of Summize, one of several new monitoring tools. This one includes a “sentiment” tracker that breaks down the content according to positive or negative connotations – sort of like the typical “tone” tracking for news media content. I admit I’ve not been using Twitter much these days and have not used any of these monitoring tools, but based on what I’ve seen these should be added to the toolkit of all PR professionals involved in social media. Yet another example of the dynamic, creative environment on the Web.