Technorati: Blogosphere Vibrant, Getting More Influential

Technorati’s annual “State of the Blogosphere” is full of interesting findings, but the headline is that the influence of the blogosphere on everything from politics to marketing continues to grow. [Note: the survey is limited to bloggers and data from the U.S.] Here are select findings:

• The blogosphere (in the U.S.) is doubling in size every 230 days
• Hobbyists (who blog for fun) make up 72% of bloggers
• Though Pros (who blog full-time for a company/organization) make up only 4% of bloggers, they are becoming more prolific and influential
• Twitter has had a big impact on the blogosphere, fueling the dramatic rise of micro-blogging…up to 74% of bloggers now use Twitter
• The blogosphere continues to take over turf historically owned by traditional media sources and journalists
• Self-expression and sharing expertise continue to be the primary motivations for bloggers, and 70% of all respondents say that personal satisfaction is how they measure the success of their blog
• For pros, the key measure of success is traffic – or unique visitors
• Blogs cover a wide and diverse range of topics – including many niche subjects
• Most bloggers describe themselves as “sincere”
• Reasons for blogging range from sharing opinions and expertise (popular with hobbyists) to attracting new clients or business opportunities (more important for the pros)
• 30% of respondents say it’s important they conceal their real identity – most for fear or harassment
• Most bloggers are positive about the impact of their blogging on their personal and/or business lives

No real surprises for me in these findings, though the relatively small number of core professional bloggers seems disproportionate to their profile and influence. Then again, this tendency mirrors the trend of the small minority of people who contribute or comment on blogs. The one finding that seemed dissonant is the plurality of bloggers who feel compelled to conceal their identity. I’m not sure how this fits with the ethos of transparency, but they clearly feel compelled to separate their blogger persona from their personal identity.

FYI: Technorati is posting additional comments and articles, so look for updates in the days ahead. A couple of third-party comments on the report are here and here.

Research Confirms Social Media (Still) Booming

It’s hard to keep up with – let alone assess or interpret – the myriad statistics and reports related to social media. But a few recent studies all suggest one basic fact: Web traffic and use of social media platforms continues to boom. The discussion is no longer whether social media is a fad, but how dominant and important it has become – impacting everything from communication and purchase behavior to advertising and journalism.

One regular study of Web users by Universal McCann suggests – among other findings – that social networks are becoming the dominant platform for the creation and sharing of content for active Internet users. (By the way, McCann estimates there are now about 625 million “active” Internet users – about 1 in 3 surfers.) Other key findings: nearly 2/3 of users are managing a profile on a social network; users are moving towards the increasing rationalization of their content (across platforms); and the creation/sharing of video content is booming.

Statistics gathered by Socialnomics echo this trend. (Check out the great video embedded in this post.) There’s too many amazing stats to list here, but a few that struck me:

• 1 out of 8 couples married in the U.S. last year met via social media
• Facebook has added 100 million users in less than 9 months
• 80% of companies use LinkedIn as a primary tool to find employees
• The second biggest search engine in the world is YouTube
• 80% of Twitter usage is on mobile devices
• 34% of bloggers post opinions about products and brands

And the list goes on.

Want a real-life example? I just read an article in Maclean’s (yes, I try to keep up with news in my native Canada) with a great summary of how some organizations are using crowd-sourcing to find great ideas and even to save money…getting the “crowd” to do work for free, as it were. The most interesting example is Netflix’s contest to have online geeks come up with the best algorithm for improving the site’s movie recommendations. According to Maclean’s, so far there have been nearly 50,000 entries. (In this case, Netflix is offering a million dollar prize.)

The lesson here for any organization is that ignoring this seismic shift – which is cultural and economic as well as technological – has become strategic, and probably financial suicide. Organizations need to study and understand these trends – particularly how they impact their customers and employees – and develop credible strategies to engage in the on-line conversations and market their wares. Consumer habits have shifted dramatically, and the Web is playing a huge part in how they access and share information, do their work, buy products and services and even find their mates. So why do some companies continue to party like it’s 1999?

Is Employee Advocacy on Health Reform Credible?

According to several on-line reports, including this one, at least one of the major insurance organizations (in this case UnitedHealth Group) is urging its employees to campaign against any public health insurance option. The program allegedly includes talking points,access to “advocacy specialists”, instructions on attending local tea party meetings and a script for personal letters to Congress. This tactic – called AstroTurf campaigns – is not new, of course, but the jarring issue here is that UnitedHealth has kept a public stance which is  much more conciliatory towards reform proposals.

This issue raises two questions for communication professionals. The first is whether this type of artificial grass-roots campaign actually works – either with members of Congress (who are doubtless used to getting thousands of form letters) or with the general public. The jury may be out on this question, though I would suggest if the central arguments (or criticisms) inherent in the campaign are weak, then no amount of noise will give them traction over the long-term. Then again, maybe I’m an eternal optimist with a belief that most people are basically moderate and logical. Beyond that, if the authenticity of the employee comments or letters is eroded, I would think they carry less weight with most politicians or pundits.

But the bigger question is whether its appropriate for companies to ask – or tell – their employees to participate in de-facto lobbying on behalf of the organization. I think its legitimate, and even smart, to share the company’s position on key public policy issues with employees, and probably even to allow them access to relevant information or materials. Where I believe they cross the line, however, is to ask them to actively get involved in the process…either by attending meetings, signing petitions or writing forms letters.  The problem: what happens if an employee disagrees with the policy? Presumably some employees of UnitedHealth or other insurance companies are sympathetic to the idea of health insurance reform, and may even disagree with the corporate line about a public option. Can they safely refuse the directives of their leaders and managers? I think the UnitedHealth directive crosses the line between education and coercion, much like when employees are gently encouraged to vote for certain officials that support corporate policies or legislation. In my book, advocacy must be organic and authentic to be credible.  I’d be interested in other thoughts.

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.

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.”