Category Archive

I attended an industry event this week that reinforced that a massive gap in awareness, understanding and adoption of social media persists in the communication industry. I don’t claim my event was a representative sample - the participants were from 8 of the major corporations in the New England region - but I suspect the outcome would be replicated in most other regions of North America. Here were the highlights:

• Most participants are still trying to figure out the terminology, mechanics and possibilities of social media…hence their attendance at this event
• Excluding my situation…one of the groups had established an external blog (that didn’t allow comments or questions) and a couple of others were considering internal blogs. Only one company had what could be considered a full menu of social media applications - blogs, collaboration wikis, etc.
• Virtually all participants claimed the executives in their companies were hesitant and uninformed about Web 2.0, and the communication folks said they were struggling with how to explain and justify the benefits of social media
• The battle to retain control over the communication process - which I would argue is an illusiory and counter-productive exercise - is alive and well in the profession: a couple of the participants professed to be concerned they could no longer “control the message” and were not willing to take the chance of negative comments
• There was much angst about managing the risks related to engaging in social media, though those were never clearly laid out beyond mention of potential disclosure issues or lawsuits. I heard much less about the merits and potential benefits of engaging in conversations, addressing customers directly and driving more transparency and credibility.
• Surprisingly, the biggest internal barrier to engaging in social media was not the Legal departments, but the IT folks…a trend I’ve seen repeated in my career
• The focus of the discussion was on basic applications like blogs or wikis…and very little discussion of the wide range of marketing forays in social media

What’s the lesson here? Clearly, social media is still a work in progress for many in the communication industry. Those that are involved are typically way ahead of the others, and the gap does not appear to be closing. There is a lot of focus on clearly defining the purpose of engaging in social media - which I endorse - but also much debate and distraction on the obstacles and potential risks. Many companies have figured out solutions to the arguments typically raised by opponents or laggards, and most of it is really just common sense. The challenges of getting executives and CTOs on side is clearly a problem, but it’s also an opportunity: Who wouldn’t want to be in a position to be the expert and driving force on the most important communication trend of the past decade? If IT, the CEO or even marketing are wondering what to do, why not the PR or communication leader? Isn’t this what communication professionals have been asking for: a seat at the table?  

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.

This post by Brian Solis provides a good summary of the uneven, messy and often frustrating struggle of the PR industry as professionals seek to understand and/or adopt Web 2.0 technology and beliefs. There’s plenty of good observations here - notably the vast chasm between those who get it and those who have no idea what the rest are talking about - but perhaps the most interesting insight is how our industry seems intent on continuing to trip on its own shoelaces. After falling into disrepute over the past decades - fostering the reputation or PR practioners as hacks, shills, thinly-disguised marketers or (gasp) something called publicists - we’re now surrounded by numerous examples of PR folks using social network tools with limited understanding, in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. Put another chink in our collective reputation.  

Like Solis, however, I choose to be an optimist. The evolving Web provides an incredible opportunity for PR - an industry build on fostering relationships across audiences, after all - to reinvent itself and find a new ethical compass. As Solis writes in his post:

PR 2.0 is the understanding and practice that communications is a two-way process and incorporates the tools, principles, strategies, and philosophies for reaching, engaging, guiding, influencing, and helping people directly in addition to the traditional cycle of PR influence.

That’s as good a mantra as any. It’s our collective responsibility to learn about the new technologies and trends, to understand and adopt the progressive ethos of Web 2.0 and to educate our colleagues as best we can. Why? Because it works…and it’s the right thing to do. Every day I have at least one conversation about the need to drive candid conversation, avoid hype or consider the needs and concerns of the audience. The checkered legacy of the PR industry will not be fixed overnight, but this is our chance to turn the page.

Last night I watched the new documentary on the Rolling Stones, Shine a Light, which features concert scenes from a couple of years ago in NYC. What does this have to do with PR? Well, for one thing they proved that stereotypes are shallow and often misleading generalizations; these guys were a bit ragged - which is part of their charm - but they could still easily blow most contemporary bands off the stage. They were powerful, mesmerizing and totally impressive. I asked myself what made them so compelling, and the answer was simple: they are undeniably and unabashedly authentic. Sure Mick plays to the audience, but it appears their love of the music and each other is deep, genuine and contagious. At times, the audience seems almost incidental to their pleasure and communion…and clearly they are not doing this for the money or adulation. I was never bored, often in awe and got chills at some of the most touching, unvarnished moments - such as Keith on his knees, head down, hanging on the neck of his guitar for what seemed like minutes after the last note, apparently not wanting the magical evening to end. Or the bandmates hugging and bowing to the audience after yet another show.

In a sea of hype, invasive marketing, clumsy advertising and superficial celebrities, these guys are the real thing. Love them or hate them, you know who they are and what they stand for. And they clearly do what they do because they still love rock and roll. The lesson here for PR professionals is simple: be authentic and foster real connections with fans (or consumers.) We’ll all be better off for it.  

There is plenty of commentary on Comcast’s recent decision to stop slowing data transfer among users - notably the large files used by folks who use file-sharing applications like BitTorrent. Check out this post for a good summary of the various sides in the polemic. I realize that there was plenty of heat from the FCC on this one, but I see this as yet another example of the immense power of online users - the network or community, in social media speak - and the perils of trying to spar with online consumers. I suspect Comcast’s late conversion to civility and good citizenship has as much to do with their increasingly horrid reputation online (check out the vitriol on this popular site) as their desire to play nice with Kevin Martin at the FCC. Chalk up another win for the consumer.  

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

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

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

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

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

The past two weeks, I’ve experienced a type of strategic whiplash. Let me explain. For the past few months, I’ve been promoting the merits of breaking all the rules and driving big changes…even if you don’t have all the answers or guarantees. My frame of reference is the incredible track record of innovation in social media at my former employer (Dell), which never would have occured if we had followed all the rules and procedures or tried to justify our plans through traditional analysis - such as ROI or SWAT metrics. We launched programs in perpetual beta mode knowing they would have to be refined and adapted. We ignored artificial timelines based on outdated, internal priorities and stretched the envelope on issues around policies and procedures. The key lesson was that in some cases the prevailing norms and rules need to be ignored or adapted, lest they stifle any real innovation or change. It worked.

But just this past week I heard accounts of several examples of large, corporate initiatives that encountered problems or foundered because they were ill-thought and premature - the fire-aim-fix model. So what is it, I asked myself, do you ponder and plan or do you forge ahead and break some glass?

The answer that emerged for me - and most of my colleagues - is that there are valuable lessons to learn from both camps. To drive real change and innovation, there will be occasions when traditional rules and timelines have to be stretched or ignored. And old rules and reservations have to be questioned and justified on a regular basis to ensure they are still valid and relevant. But there will always be room for thoughtful due diligence and planning. (I’ll even admit that some of the typical consulting tools can be useful here…if they are shorn of the usual jargon and complexity.) The critical strategic questions for any initiative - why are we doing this? what problem are we solving? what are the implications and benefits? - are more valid than ever. And thinking through how a program will evolve from start to finish is common sense, as long as the planning process does not become more important than the outcome. Asking the tough questions up front does not preclude moving fast and breaking some rules…but it does dramatically increase the chances of success.   

It’s been fascinating to me to watch how the sibling disciplines of marketing, advertising and PR are reacting to the tidal wave of the Web 2.0 revolution. The way I see it, this race to awareness and wisdom has been a bumpy ride with laggards and leaders in all camps. But marketing teams and advertising agencies - despite some celebrated stumbles - seem to be well ahead of the staid PR community. This recent article in BusinessWeek makes a strong case of why, and how, the advertising community has led the way.

The quick reason is easy: fear of extinction. No industry is as threatened by the social media movement as traditional advertising. The slow but inevitable death of one-way messaging means marketing teams and ad firms can no longer dominate the brand message or discussion. In an environment with unlimited choices and massive amounts of information and commentary available to all, information about products is no longer controlled or even generated by the companies or their ad agencies.  Word of mouth is now the most influential marketing force, and overt selling is anathema to the free-flying ethos of many social networks and websites. Over the last few years the smarter ad agencies have accepted this paradigm shift (cliche alert!) and are focusing on engaging in, and shaping, the conversation rather than just pushing their products.

PR is a different story. The two main camps - in my humble opinion - are those in violent denial or others who aren’t even aware enough of these changes to have an opinion. (And no, going to one of those canned industry conferences on the topic does not count as awareness or understanding.)  Perhaps because their demise does not appear so imminent or obvious, many PR professionals are well behind their marketing cousins in terms of understanding the trends and the technology. It’s time they open their blinds and pay attention to what is happening - those who finish last may not get to compete again.

Check out this incisive post by word-of-mouth guru Andy Sernovitz, who provides yet another account of the disappointing tendency of corporate PR departments to ban access to social media (or to the internet!) Andy does a great job exposing the weak, self-defeating logic of this archaic position. For those of you trying to do your PR jobs in “closed” environments and struggling to justify why you need access to the net, look no further than the arguments in this post. This unfortunate tendency to deny access to social networks (or YouTube, Second Life or any other online site) is almost as dumb as the old chestnut of removing tough questions from an FAQ briefing document…as if that will deter folks from asking the offending question. Some lessons are never learned.

I’ve had a number of robust discussions in recent weeks about the value of the old PR stand-by…the message platform. Most of my time in these discussions has been spent trying to clarify that the objective of these platforms is to inject some measure of consistency and order to the communication process. I have also spent a fair amount of energy arguing why it makes sense to proactively push out these desired messages. Pretty basic thinking, right? Not so much. The reaction on this topic has been interesting.

Beyond the folks who have never used a platform, there are others who fail to understand these messages need to be relevant, timely and credible to have any impact. They also need to be dynamic and flexible, adapting in both volume and tone depending on the receptivity and awareness of the target audience – whether it’s internal or external outreach. So just turning up the volume or frequency for a rigid, insular script of corporate slogans is of very limited use…not to mention that it’s fairly arrogant and obnoxious.

But it’s the other reaction that is most interesting…the one at the other end of the spectrum. Some professionals immersed in the world of social media question whether a message platform has become an irrelevant anachronism in this era of digital conversation, online communities and user-generated content. In effect, can a company still drive the agenda – or even steer a discussion – through the use of a defined, proactive script?

The answer, from my perspective, is yes…but with important qualifiers. The key is to look at communication as a dialogue, not a one-way megaphone (hello advertising!) There is still obvious value in thinking about what you want to say - and maybe even repeating it a few times - to get something across to your target audience. But you can’t do it in a vacuum. You need to listen before, during and after to gauge the resonance and traction of the messages. You need to adapt and refine your messages based on comments, questions and suggestions. Ideally, a message platform should be a starting point, not a permanent mantra.

To me the lesson is that PR tools can still be very relevant, but they have to catch up to the Web 2.0 environment.

I’m typically the first to tell my peers and colleagues that technology is only a means to an end, and I avoid the temptation to let a cool device come before a strategic plan. That said, technology does have a dramatic impact on how we can communicate with our stakeholders and among our own teams. So I always pay attention to the product launches at huge shows like CES - which is coming this month. According to this article in Fortune, the program this year will feature a number of technology trends:

• New products and applications designed to facilitate the transfer and playing of digital content (in this case MP3 content) like iPods and iPhones
• Devices that allow users to connect to the Internet without the use of a computer, building on the expanding ubiquity of wi-fi zones to access information as diverse as sports, news, maps or weather
• Tools that allow users to play streaming radio broadcasts
• Devices that make wireless even more…well, wireless…building on technology like Bluetooth that allows virtual connections across a wide range of tools

All of these have obvious implications for corporate communications, particularly from an internal perspective. Companies struggling to reach their front-line and remote workers - including those without computer access - should play close attention to this emerging technology. These devices also open the door to more “pull” communications and personalization - which help reduce volume and increase relevance. On the surface, all of these trends seem to have potential applications for all the PR disciplines. Technology provides the delivery channels and tools, of course,  but it also opens the door to important changes in the format and scope of content (e.g. more digital and audio).  Any communicator worth his/her salt should be aware of these basic trends and look for ways to leverage them in their own environment. Otherwise, they risk becoming increasingly irrelevant and marginalized - a criticism the PR industry is already trying to fight.

Some have accused me of being too complimentary with Apple, so this post will likely fan those critical flames. So be it. A recent article in BusinessWeek provides an interesting analysis of what makes Apple such a marketing  (and financial) juggernaut. In a nutshell, it’s not just the fabulous, buzz-worthy products - though those certainly are the crown jewels. As BW’s Sohrab Vossoughi argues, Apple is more than just a pretty face - the company has created a seamless and impressive ecosystem that creates strong demand, generates tons of (mostly positive) attention, and generates passion among its legions of fans. The ecosystem features the suite of products, of course, but also numerous innovative accessories, software, services, customer support, a retail experience, employee training, websites, marketing, advertising and even public relations. All of these link together beautifully to create a unique and superior customer experience. Every customer touchpoint is considered and perfected…and fully branded.

No - Apple is not perfect. I’ve written about some of its PR missteps. But the company carries important lessons not just for product designers or business strategists, but for anybody interested in how successful brands can outpace the competition and resonate deeply with customers.

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

Fast Company posted an interesting article this week which asked whether PR could save China from its recent spate of scandals. The article raises some interesting points about how China is leveraging some of the typical crisis management tactics, but also confirms China is most definitely a unique “client.” The context is interesting, since most observers would agree the Chinese government has very limited credibility as a source of information - so the “bank of goodwill” we always hear about is likely near empty. That tends to happen when you control (and censor) the press, stubbornly deny what has been verified and witnessed by millions and have a long history of highly dubious statements couched in hyperbolic Marxist rhetoric. The Ogilvy executive quoted in the story - who is working with the Chinese government - argues that China gets a rough ride because of an information vacuum and consequent misunderstanding by the Western press. This may well be true, but I suggest it’s due more to China’s atrocious track record in communication.

Ironically, China has some important PR assets in its favor and may be able to salvage and even burnish its reputation. For one thing, when it says it has started a “working group” to address and fix the problem - as detailed by the Ogilvy rep - that means something totally different than in Western countries. If the Chinese government wants to change something, it can and it does. Right away. No discussion, dilution or opposition. And it has shown it can take dramatic action - such as making a very public example of the poor officials in charge of whatever department has been sloppy. And it also helps that they are guaranteed to stay on message…save for the occasional demonstrators on street corners around the world. Ultimately, it will be the power of money that drives change; China will not let anything hinder its dramatic economic renaissance - not even corruption and scandal.  Not the greatest reason for probity, but if it ends up making the Chinese government more responsive and transparent we’ll take it.

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

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

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

In a recent post, Shel Holtz adds to the chorus of pundits highlighting the contradictions - and hypocrisy - of executives increasingly embracing social media for marketing or PR but holding back on the employee front. For whatever reason, leaders and communication executives can more easily put aside their fears and take a leap of faith into the digital void outside their companies - which implicitly presumes that employees are more likely to flame the company and abuse the rules than customers, critics, journalists, consumers and even competitors. Can somebody please explain that logic to me?

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

I’ve been reading a fair deal lately about the technological savvy - or lack thereof - of the candidates vying for the Republican and Democractic slots in the upcoming president elections. On the one hand, there are kudos being thrown around for the smart websites and blogs of many of the candidates - with some like Ron Paul and Barrack Obama being singled out for astute use of these tools to generate buzz and raise money. But I’ve also read/heard some criticisms about the stunning lack of personal awareness (let alone understanding) of emerging technology by some of these same candidates. (There was an excellent editorial in the Washington Post, but can’t link as it’s subscription-only access.) Apparently some of these folks - notably John McCain and Mitt Romney - are unfamiliar with the basic mechanics and tools of the Web 2.0 environment - including MySpace. Some of this is blamed on the generation gap - after all most of these folks are well past their teen years - but whatever the reason this is cause for concern: it’s not a good scenario when the leadership of the country is woefully out of sync with developments related to the internet and evolving communication patterns. 

These politicians can likely bluff their way by and hire specialists and consultants to brief them and point them in the right direction. What worries me even more is the stubborn gap in the communications field, where I still run into senior practitioners who zealously avoid computers or are years behind in terms of tracking developments on the Web. These are the people who are paid to counsel organizations on how to communicate and market effectively, so their knowledge gaps raise serious quality and credibility problems. Age can forgive some of this lag, but not all of it. Insularity, institutional inertia and the rapid pace of change are other potential reasons. Either way, there is no excuse: no serious communications expert can be out of touch with major Web trends and innovations. This is where that old HR chestnut lifelong learning becomes a reality.   

PR pundit Shel Holtz recently blogged on the ongoing debate of who should ”own” - or manage and lead - social media strategy. The post is a good snapshot of the conflicting arguments on this issue - which is much more than a theoretical polemic, since figuring out who does what is often a huge stumbling block to many organizations considering getting involved in social media. The question comes up in almost every presentation or conversation I have on the topic. For what it’s worth, I agree with two key arguments presented by Holtz:

- Specialized agencies should not own or lead social media projects, since giving up control to external teams - no matter how talented, smart and well-intentioned they are - takes decision-making too far from the critical teams inside the organization

- Social media strategic planning and execution should be directed by a cross-functional team, since various players should have a stake in the program but all have biases and shortcomings that could derail the effort without a broader perspective

The second point is the most important, from my perspective. It’s very tempting to try and leverage social media for narrow, tactical gains that ignore the broader implications and strategic priorities.  Marketing, for example, has plenty of expertise in digital content and online marketing, but they might be too tempted to push the selling envelope. IT is too often focused on its own internal roadmaps and might resist applications and programs that were created outside the firewall. PR might want to reinvent the press release to the detriment of larger branding initiatives or outreach beyond traditional media. In short, the team format is probably required to strike the right balance across diverse (and often competing) priorities and steer the effort in the right direction.

The best examples of companies engaging in social media (e.g. Dell, Procter & Gamble, Nike) seem to share bold, englightened leadership, strong agency support and broad, cross-functional programming. Probably not a coincidence.

I just returned from presenting at a Conference Board event in Chicago, which was focused on engaging employees in the brand. The workshop I facilitated with my good friend David Kippen at TMP Worldwide was about how to manage a brand in the face of the Web 2.0 revolution. It’s always an interesting gauge to compare notes with peers at an industry conference or event, and this one was no different. Here are some of my main observations:

• At this point virtually all companies or organizations in the session were aware of social media - though some only peripherally - and are thinking about if and how they get involved. From my unscientific poll of attendees, most seem intent on doing something, though what exactly they are not sure. A few had already started down the path of setting up wikis or blogs.
• There appears to be much more focus on how the Web 2.0 tools can be leveraged with (and for) an internal audience. This is great news, given the huge potential to leverage these tools to engage employees in relevant conversation, foster collaboration and leverage internal best practices and ideas.
• The IT and Legal departments are universally seen as the biggest barriers (perceived or real) to getting involved in social media. On the Legal side, the complaint is understandable - though I made a case at the conference that Legal’s resistance is often overstated and it’s not an onerous task to define clear rules of engagement (either for internal or external tools.) Still, there are numerous nervous discussions about worst case scenarios (what if our employees share secrets or badmouth the CEO?) despite the fact this can already happen over the phone, email, etc. The IT criticism is more problematic, and is certainly in line with my own experience and observations. The department that should be leading the charge in exploring and adopting new tools and technology is too often a laggard, stubbornly resisting change of any sort with little or no valid reasoning (is it really valid to suggest it takes several months for a project to get on the “roadmap”?)
• Folks from a wide range of departments - Corporate Communications, HR, Marketing, Internal Communications - were represented at the event and actively involved in the discussions. This is an excellent trend, since in most cases it will take a robust cross-functional effort to devise and implement a social media strategy.
• In some cases, Marketing seems to be leading the corporate charge in social media. On the one hand this is good, since the marketing folks are typically savvy in online trends and technology and certainly know their way around digital content (like videos and websites.) On the other hand, this should raise some red flags, since though smart and well-intentioned, folks in marketing are the most likely to ignore the informal rules of engagement and push the envelope into pushy and ill-advised pitching.

All in all, it was good to see this topic front and center in yet another industry event. Slowly but surely, seems like the PR industry is catching on that this is most definitely not a fad.

Seems like I am not the only one who rages in frustration at the inertia and inexplicable hubris among some in the PR industry. Check out this post by Brian Solis on his PR 2.0 blog. You’ll get a good laugh from the eulogy for the traditional press release, but more importantly you’ll nod your head in agreement with the argument that the PR agencies - and many of its practitioners - refuse to change their ways despite overwhelming evidence the world has changed. A follow-up post by Solis focuses on clumsy attempts to engage in blogger relations - a process reflecting limited understanding of the fundamental changes driven by social media.

As I’ve noted in previous posts, I’ve seen evidence of both the englightened and the egregious in this area - but unfortunately more of the latter. If I take a litmus test of meetings I’ve attended, articles I’ve read and conferences I’ve participated in, I believe most of the PR industry is still looking for an easy fix and trying to apply social media lipstick (or gloss?) to their old, tired handbook. And the painful thing is that most of the old playbook didn’t work even before social media emerged a couple of years ago. Though folks in PR like to make fun of their distant cousins in advertising and marketing, this is one area where the PR agencies are far behind in relevance and innovation. Some of that might be due to the built-in expertise and capability ad agencies have in Web technology and digital production, but that’s an easy excuse. The real answer lies in leadership, creativity and courage - individually and collectively - or lack thereof. Time for PR to get with the program and join the revolution.

I’ve got to give him credit. Richard Edelman - CEO of his eponymous PR agency - seems to get it. Social media…that is. Although his agency has been involved in some celebrated snafus involving social media (check out this post by BL Ochman for an accounting of the latest mess) Edelman’s personal blog - which summarizes his recent presentation at a Forrester Consumer Forum - says all the right things and reflects a solid understanding of the nuances and norms of social media. Perhaps Edelman’s most salient point is in his headline - “be it, don’t buy it.” It’s a refreshing, timely plug for building credibility through candor and behavior rather than hype.  But as Edelman alludes to in his blog, the real challenge lies in convincing deep-pocket clients to forego the carpet-bombing PR campaigns and take a leap of faith into the messy, uncontrolled and egalitarian world of social media. And getting folks in his own agency to avoid tripping on their shoelaces should help too.

If industry conferences and pundits are any indication, the PR industry is finally waking up to the new world of online social networks, and the futility of trying to fit their outdated tactics in this new paradigm. This cogent blog by Sally Falkow is one several I’ve read recently from PR pundits and insiders that are embracing the Web 2.0 changes. But I am still a bit cynical about the deathbed conversion. I sense that many of these folks are simply figuring out how to change their tactics - and reluctantly accepting they must give up some control over the communication process - but not really changing their philosophy. Folks, it’s not about trying to come up with new “social” ways to generate a headline…it’s accepting that the headline itself does not mean what it used to. The whole game has changed - how people get their news, what influences their purchasing habits, how they perceive marketing and advertising, how they make friends, and how they share information with their peers and friends. A simplistic new formula designed to boost SEO results or engage a few influential bloggers is not the answer, though these steps may be a good part of a larger plan. Organizations (and their PR teams) should first accept they now must contribute to an ongoing conversation about their company or products in which they are one voice among many - and that’s if they are already active online. They need to be transparent and contribute value and insight or they will remain irrelevant, no matter what tools or channels they use.  And to start, as Sally points out in her blog, they have to listen - really listen - before they start to spurt out messages or marketing programs. That may be the hardest lesson to learn.

Update: Never let it be said that I’m obtuse. My Canadian friend at Canuckflak makes an excellent point on this blog that the Web 2.0 revolution  - so obvious and prominent in the wi-fi hotbeds like San Jose, Austin or Stockholm is still a twinkle in the stars in many other countries with far more limited broadband and computer distribution. Point taken. So PR as we know it may not be dead - or dying - in these parts of the world. But I’m willing to bet it will be dramatically different in the near future.

Had a great discussion at work last week about emerging best practices in PR - with a focus on companies that are doing innovative things in the area of social media to drive their marketing efforts. At the top of the list was Nokia. An increasing number of companies (including mine) are using fully-loaded social media news releases - complete with links, bookmarks, tags and options for feedback and questions - but Nokia is leading the way in terms of outreach to influential bloggers. As detailed in this good summary post, Nokia is supporting product launches with targeted outreach to dozens of influential bloggers. Here is a post by Steve Rubel on the program. Not only do they send the bloggers the trial product in advance of launch - in this case the new N90 video phones - but they also set up a dedicated website where the bloggers can access additional information and materials, share comments with peers and engage in dialogue (online or off) with Nokia product reps. Beyond the dialogue on the Nokia blog, of course, these VIP bloggers posted comments on their own blogs. (One was so positive it was misidentified by BusinessWeek as a sponsored corporate blog.) Along the same lines, Nokia also recently launched a moblog (for mobile blogging) inviting users of the new NSeries phone to download their videos.

Consider this an evolved version of the traditional distribution of product samples for beat writers. But beyond using bloggers rather than journalists, the process has the added aspect of conversation and is inherently transparent - beefs and warts are there for all to see and discuss. It’s a courageous approach that is a big step in the right direction. As my good buddy Paul Walker from GCI says, however, Nokia still has room for improvement. Though Nokia seems to have mastered these social product launches, they still need work in fostering a more sustained conversation with consumers - not just the VIP bloggers - beyond the big launches.  Still, some good lessons there for the PR and marketing troops.

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

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

Apologies for the paucity of posts the past week - combination of deluge at work and the distraction of the Austin City Limits festival (very hot…saw Dylan.) But I did find the time to have a good discussion with a colleague who was suggesting that advertising agencies should all become totally media agnostic. It’s not a new concept, but it seems to be gaining momentum. To be relevant and credible, marketing folks need to start with a blank slate and look at the product and target group to confirm their outreach strategy - not the other way around. The reflex action towards broadcast - which still seems prevalent despite evidence that it rarely works - might not be the right answer. (Conversely, the equally knee-jerk idea to just ”go digital” might be just as ill-advised.)

All of this talk made me reflect on the need for communication folks to follow the same mindset and become agnostic with regard to function, role and even channel. Positions that were previously dedicated to a specific audience (journalists), a channel (intranet) or a role (employee relations) are rapidly becoming obsolete. One reason is there is so much overlap across audiences - such as internal and external - and that the “toolkit” of channels is evolving rapidly. Another is that communication teams need to be responsive and dynamic in order to be relevant and effective. Trying to develop and implement a communication plan within the silos of existing labels is self-limiting and bureaucratic, and almost doomed to fail. I suggest the best orientation is to think of communities or networks - which are self-identified and are reached through conversation - rather than more general audiences.  The  strategic imperative is to find the best way to engage those communities in dialogue and provide them with enough valuable information to generate attention and (ideally) support and brand loyalty.  Specialized and niche roles will still exist - not all of us can wax poetic about pertinent government regulations, for example - but they cannot do so in a vacuum…or time-capsule.  Time to update my business card to “conversation architect.”

I just read a post by Steve Rubel suggesting PR and marketing organizations need to actively promote and fill a new role - that of geek marketer. These cross-trained specialists have the rare talent to understand the creative (and financial) demands of marketing but are also well versed on the rapidly evolving technology that most of use barely understand - let alone use. Typically, these folks straddle across departments and are instrumental players in driving digital media programs in their respective organizations. Based on my observations, I agree with Steve. Too often the folks in marketing are either ignorant or afraid of the evolving technology, or they try to jump in without learning the nuances and etiquette of the online world. And that can be ugly. The geeks, for their part, are so far ahead of the curve they seem detached from the realities of the business, and have little patience for communication strategy. (By the way, in my experience the tech geeks and visionaries do not come from IT - which is its own bureaucracy with entrenched rules and inflexible roadmaps.) Rare is the person who has enough knowledge of both sides of this divide to bridge the gap, foster collaboration and drive projects. Think of it as somebody who know how to sell and to measure, but also to listen and develop content and applications that are compelling and user-friendly. The good news is I see things turning around - both in agencies and companies. Though they may not all have a clear line of sight on titles or structure, organizations are reacting to the need for new skills and talent. Though finding elusive geek marketers is a good stop-gap answer, the long-term solution lies in immersing marketing and PR teams in the new technology, and ultimately in updating marcom into a new discpline that inherently includes advanced technology and internet strategies. No more silos. We all have to become geek marketers.  

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

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

The NY Times had a good overview this week on the outcry created by the new Wikiscanner site, which traces and posts the source of changes to Wikipedia, our favorite online encyclopedia. The site matches edits on Wikipedia with the computer network where the change originated - so now it’s much easier for all to see who has posted what edit.  The scanner has brought to light some interesting examples of companies trying to correct or shape entries under the cover of darkness. Given the potential abuses and errors inherent in the Wikipedia model, nobody would argue against the right to post corrections and clarifications - particularly for organizations featured in the listing. But what has raised the ire of pundits is the companies in question did not identify the changes as theirs - the origin of the edits only came to light thanks to wikiscanner. And some of the edits highlighted in the article were dubious at best, more akin to spin and censorship than helpful clarification. Thankfully, it appears the most egregrious edits were removed soon after they were posted, thanks to the in-house Wiki team.  

There are two important lessons here: one tactical and one philosophical. On the former, frustrated organizations should use the public forum available on Wikipedia - or even contact the editors - if they feel there are factual innaccuracies in posts related to their business. But more importantly, companies should know by now that one of the core tenets of the Web is transparency - anybody posting or editing content should identify themselves and be accountable for their comments. This is critical to the credibility of the process - and the information.

From my perspective, the end result of this open-source editing is usually better information. The collective input of the global online community combined with measured input from organizations featured in specific listings usually results in a pretty balanced, useful product.  The process isn’t perfect, but I’ll take this over unfiltered corporate propaganda.

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

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

A recent column in Ad Age from an executive recruiter suggests that a majority of marketing and advertising executives still do not have the required chops in online media to adequately do their jobs - and this is offered up as a probable reason for the merry-go-round of CMOs in the corporate world. While some lag in expertise and experience is understandable, given the rapidly evolving media and technology environment, this gap explains some of the painful adjustments and mistakes we’ve seen from the advertising world in recent months. Some agencies seem to think it’s still 1980 (hello pharma companies) and are sticking to their trite, 30-second television model no matter what. Others are dabbling in digital tools with ill-advised and clumsy forays in online marketing. A few, thankfully, have accepted the dramatic shift in communication habits and are making important changes to their brand management strategies. Let’s check back in 6 months to see what progress had been made - particularly in the leadership ranks.

Neville Hobson has a post that provides a good summary of the evolving methodology for measuring the influence of individuals online. This is a critical issue for public relations practioners and marketers trying to identify and reach those oft-mentioned “influentials.” Seems like the methodology is becoming more sophisticated and going beyond the Technorati/Alexa rankings (which are watched obsessively by some) and raw traffic and subscriber numbers. Edelman has developed a new social media index that captures social networks like Twitter, Linked-In and Facebook and measures the number of friends and updates, among other items, to generate the index. At first glance, I’m nervous about counting “friends” in networks since that gauge is more a reflection of popularity than influence and is highly vulnerable to abuse, but I applaud Edelman for its efforts in this area. And like Neville, I agree with the premise that any true measure of influence has to go beyond blogs to include the social network platforms.

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

It’s been a truism of late that both advertising and public relation agencies are dragging their feet with regard to accepting (and adopting) Web 2.0 media tools. A quick look at recent award programs, however, suggest the much derided ad companies may not be the laggards. At the recent Golden Lion awards at Cannes - the Academy Awards of the global advertising industry - the grand prize winner was a viral video produced for Dove by Ogilvy & Mather. The ad gained it’s claim to fame on YouTube and not in a traditional television campaign. And it was really viral - I had at least three friends send it to me via email and it was on numerous Web lists. See this post for details.  Compare that to the recent IABC Silver Anvil awards - ostensibly the best of the best of public relations - where many winning campaigns tilted towards the tried and true, and only one specifically mentioned a blog. I’m fairly confident that there were some Web 2.0 applications used in some of these campaigns, but the fact none were highlighted and that no categories reflect the new trends - no awards for corporate blogs?? - says enough. And an award for digital media (e.g. intranets) does not cut it. Seems like I’m not the only one who noticed the timewarp - see this post by Shel Holtz. It will be interesting to see if - and how fast - this trend evolves in the coming years.

A recent BusinessWeek cover story on 3M raised some interesting questions about whether a laser focus on process improvement via Six Sigma or similar off-shoots can end up inhibiting innovation and creativity in an organization. In 3M’s case, a maniacal devotion to rigorous analysis and process improvement – where repetition and predictability are critical – seemed to stifle the company’s legendary creativity.  This theme – of a well-intentioned desire to analyze and refine established business processes becoming an impediment to adaptability and innovation – is very relevant to public relations.

I see parallels with the 3M story in the communication functions of several organizations, where an almost stubborn allegiance to structure, process and even titles prevents the team from fully embracing new trends and innovations. I’ve witnessed a number of cases – which I suspect are reflective of a much broader trend – where communication professionals were virtually locked into roles that were defined by specific projects, tactics or even tools. The problem is, some of these tools or titles can become irrelevant or obsolete from one day to the next. And that’s not a bad thing. (As an example, on my own team I would estimate about half the roles on the team today did not even exist a year ago.) It would make much more sense for roles to be fluid and dynamic and for teams to align themselves to broad strategic objectives rather than defined responsibilities. Fighting to retain old titles or hierarchies is a symptom of a company’s inability or unwillingness to adapt and evolve to remain relevant.  And it excludes the critical elements of learning and unpredictability from the equation. Slavish dedication to any model or process – whether it is dedicated to fixing defects or driving share of voice – can be a dangerous thing.  

Want to see a way to do it right? Take a look at another story in BW on advertising agency Goodby Silverstein & Partners, which totally changed its approach and structure to be truly media-agnostic.

Found a funny post by Steve Crescenzo on the MyRagan site that details the various “types” of communicators in the business - more specifically, folks dealing with internal communications. Only one of the five “types” described by Steve is positive, but they certainly all ring true to me. My observation reading the post is that the main challenge to internal communicators is fighting the powerful inertia inherent in the role - avoiding the easier and smoother ride into irrelevance. It’s often difficult to stick to your position against all the internal clients, naysayers and well-intentioned “experts” - but that is precisely the most important part of the job. Particularly when it comes to pushing back with the CEO and executive team. If you just give in with this crowd, your role is greatly diminished. Doing the right thing has never been more important, and it’s not going to get any easier as our business continues to evolve.

Read an interesting post by Dave McLure that makes a strong case that PR simply does not “get” the Web 2.0 revolution. I don’t want to pile on, but I have to agree with many of his points. I think the most important issue is not one of talent or even willingness, but one of knowledge. As I’ve reported before, far too many PR professionals are woefully ignorant of emerging techonology and trends that impact communication; that’s ok (I guess) if you are an accountant or pilot, but not if you are being paid to help companies communicate, buld their brand and sell their products. And it’s not ok when entire generations of consumers are getting information and joining conversations outside traditional media. The irony is that some PR agencies can easily leverage expertise in the area of new media - notably those that are in global holding companies and can partner with a range of specialized, cutting-edge boutiques - but too often these firms are not closely integrated with the PR teams. The only PR agencies I have seen that truly “get it” are those that have brought Web 2.0 expertise in the house, so to speak, causing the entire agency to learn new tricks and join the revolution. Here’s hoping the rest of the PR community gets on board.  

I attended a great communications conference last week - one which thankfully featured more senior practitioners than the usual consultants hacking their magic bullets - and I was struck by the wide range of understanding and involvement in digital media tools. Some folks still seemed very hesitant to develop corporate/CEO blogs - and were trying to run their analysis through traditional risk-reward paradigm - while others were intent on catching the wave. The discussion was catalyzed when Bill Jensen, who leads an eponymous consulting group, laid out the fundamental shifts in how information is shared online, particularly by the Gen Y cohort. In short, anyone who believes we still control the flow of relevant information - or that we should - is missing the boat. Clearly, some in the audience were not willing to let go of the old model and embrace this scary new environment populated with citizen journalists, vibrant social networks and self-appointed blog pundits. This was particularly true of those involved in internal/employee communications. I suspect this will change in the coming months. Though caution and deliberation is certainly warranted before making the digital leap - it’s better to figure out why and how you will engage in Web 2.0 technology than just jumping in - PR professionals will quickly lose relevance and credibility if they don’t become fluent in this new environment. By the way - I take no personal credit for being knee-deep in this brave new world; I have the good fortune to be working with very smart, creative people who are willing to take risks and understand the huge potential of the web.

Cheers