Twitter Affirming Its Relevance

I have to admit that like many others I was initially skeptical of Twitter when I started using it a couple of years ago. It wasn’t clear to me how it fit into my tool-kit of social media applications – largely because I was already in the process of trying to narrow down my options  to retain my sanity. Truth be told, I’m still not a frequent user – though I have used it to keep in touch with friends and events. But putting aside my personal preferences I see increasing evidence that Twitter has become more than just a trival fad.

In just the past two weeks, I’ve seen several examples of how Twitter’s growing popularity, immediacy and reach has increased its relevance and value well beyond a virtual gossip cooler. Last week there was ample news coverage on the update tweets from “Astro Mike” from the space shuttle Atlantis. (Even though it appears Mike was actually forwarding his so-called tweets to NASA via email and the updates were not real-time, his content was unedited and the recipients were on Twitter.) Just today in the USA Today an enterprising reporter asked CEOs on Twitter to provide quick diagnoses on the economy via Twitter responses – sort of a social media version of quick sound bites. And there are many examples of Twitter buzz beating formal outlets or news organizations to the punch; a couple of weeks ago in Boston I heard about a subway stoppage – in real time via Twitter updates – well before the official announcement via the web. As Twitter becomes more integrated into other platforms and networks – such as Facebook – it should only increase in relevance and popularity. Check out a good summary of the Twitter hype – and the meat behind the hype – in this article. 

One of the lessons I see here is that it’s difficult to predict what social media tools will evolve into major platforms and which will fade into obscurity. I initially saw Twitter as the latter, but I now believe I erred in my assessment. Watching how these tools evolve – and perhaps even become profitable – is one of the most interesting elements of the Web 2.0 revolution.

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.

Wells Fargo Campaign Shows Good Offense is Not Always a Good Defense

Major American banks continue to demonstrate they haven’t learned the lessons of their recent  PR debacles. Wells Fargo recently took out full-page ads in several major U.S. newspapers announcing they had reluctantly cancelled employee recognition events, but they also defended the practice and blamed the news media for misleading coverage on the issue. Check out a story on the ads here.

The ads created predictable churn on the Web and among pundits. I found this commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown to pretty close to my view on the topic – Brown gives Wells Fargo the chutzpah award for a strong and spirited counter-attack, but argues the tactic ultimately fails and suggests the bank would be better served spending funds on their employees rather than expensive ads attacking the media. Wells CEO John Stumpf should certainly be commended for wanting to recognize his employees and giving them a public high-five in the ads, but his comments also reflect the hubris and insularity that has generated so much vitriol among critics of the banks. Notwithstanding the merits of employee recognition, this is not the time nor the channel to argue for costly trips.  Would it not have been simpler to simply introduce alternate recognition tactics? I know of several companies who have eliminated recognition trips and meetings and replaced them with other rewards, with apparent understanding from their employees. A Wells spokesperson claims that in addition to setting the record straight on the trips, the ads were intended to publicly acknowledge the accomplishments of employees. Even if you believe that, it might have been more effective to use the cost of placing the ads directly on employee rewards.

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.

TV is not Dead

Analysis of the TV viewership of the Olympics in the U.S. seems to reaffirm that television retains a prominent role in major global events. The stats, as per this article in US Today, appear fairly robust given all the distractions available to people seeking information or entertainment. But the real story here is the growth of coverage and viewership on-line. Millions tuned in to websites and blogs to watch the competitions (live and replays), peak at results or comment on the drama. The same pattern seemed to hold true for the recent political conventions in the U.S. – huge numbers for the keynote speeches but plenty of traffic and chatter online before, during and after. And the online political fundraising continues to be strong.

One conclusion to these developments is that network (or cable) TV is far from dead, particularly when it comes to seminal, high-profile events. But the other is that the Web has become a critical complement for coverage on major events, offering an array of advantages and options that are much richer than television. That lesson – that it’s often not one or the other but probably a mix - is valuable for PR professionals, who can sometimes ride bandwagons and be dogmatic and impulsive about the next big tactic – or as my friend calls it the “shiny new thing.”

Tim Russert’s Death a Big Loss for Journalism

The death of political journalist Tim Russert this weekend has sparked a flood of well deserved tributes. But I think some of them are missing the point (the fact Russert was a great father is positive, but not really relevant to his huge contribution to journalism.) As noted in this post by Jeff Beringer in the GolinHarris blog, Russert was respected and will serve as a role model for future generations because he was a consummate professional and absolutely, undeniably authentic. His legendary preparation, passion for his craft, interviewing skills and dedication to fair, relevant journalism was rare in network television. But what stands out for me is that Russert didn’t have an obvious agenda or bias. Unlike other pundits who get kudos for being honest and direct - Lou Dobbs of CNN comes to mind - Russert’s authenticity was not driven by a dogmatic editorial position or bombastic personality. He was a regular guy interested in finding the truth, asking the tough questions and fostering a productive debate. I truly hope his lessons live on with a new generation of reporters. 

The Maturation of Twitter

Though I’ve dabbled in many areas of social media, I’ve never jumped on with the Twitter bandwagon. To me – and I suspect to others – it remains a fun but essentially trivial fad that is not worth the trouble. But things seem to be changing. Check out this article in the Toronto Star, which suggests Twitter may have reached a tipping point into relevance with timely and critical news updates from recent disasters and political events. As the article puts it, Twitter has become a critical real-time, unmediated, globe-spanning conversation, with everyone a 24-hour news service. Even more than blogs or even social networks, a micro-blog platform like Twitter can provide reach and grass-roots immediacy that easily trumps the major media outlets.

Beyond becoming a news channel, Twitter continues to evolve as a useful networking tool that overlaps across the major players (Facebook, Linkedin.) The best example I’ve seen is several informal user groups in the tech sector and the Twitter updates that have mobilized participants in SXSW in Austin the past couple of years. And as Dell has shown, Twitter can be used as a marketing tool by posting specials and blog links to interested “friends”.

The lesson here is not so much that Twitter is protean and appears to be maturing into a more useful platform, but that it’s a risky game to predict how things will turn out in the Web 2.0 environment.

PR Etiquette on the Web…Not.

I just read an interesting account of the latest dust-up between PR agencies and two disgruntled journalists who have shutout PR pitches or outreach of any kind. I guess it was wishful thinking that the worst abuses by the PR industry – which continue to tarnish the reputation and many of its professionals – would not be exported to the Web. The Seven Promises proposed here by Todd Defren - essentially a checklist designed to avoid egregrious PR practices around “pitching” a story - make a lot of sense. Anybody starting out in the business should paste these rules on their cubicle wall. In the meantime, don’t be surprised if you get called a hack or publicist. You are paying the price for the mistakes of others.

The Olympic Torch PR Fiasco

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.