More Than Ever…The People are the Brand

Communication guru Shel Israel touches on a compelling idea in a recent post on the relationship between personal brand(s) and corporate brand(s). I was particularly drawn by his comment on how people are becoming a central element of the corporate brand: “Personal brand is changing corporate and product brand in an increasing number of cases. This changes who shapes brand and why and how it is done. It changes how markets perceive brands and this is an area where little thought and conversation has emerged so far.”

Israel argues that traditional marketing messages focusing on “big brand” themes positioned through a corporate and/or homogenous voice are giving way to increasing personalization…and the humanization of corporate brands. This is being fueled by the advent of social media platforms that are based on individual participation and contributions. It’s interesting  to note Israel uses Dell as an example – which I experienced first hand as a member of the Dell social media team. Dell started to turns thing around when it started listening – really listening – to the online conversation but also because individual employees jumped into the conversation. All the platforms – both internal and external – were populated with real people who answered questions, shared ideas and tried to resolve complaints. Some of them – like Direct2Dell moderator Lionel – became key representatives of the Dell brand online.

This trend toward personalization is likely to gain momentum. After all, companies are engaging individual leaders (and sometimes employees) as blog authors, Facebook friends and Twitter voices.  Videos and podcasts feature company experts and guests in informal settings. Discussion boards are hosted by groups of company experts, some with large followings. Even websites are less impersonal, often featuring profiles and individual guides or hosts. As Israel notes, marketers are eager to leverage this movement towards the humanization of brands – since it’s inherently more credible and resonant with customers – but the very notion of diverse, individual voices makes this difficult. And that’s not a bad thing. For better or for worse, company reputations and identities will become more closely identified with the collective actions and voices of their employees, rather than paid advertising or impersonal PR campaigns.

Two More Reasons Companies Need to Pay Attention to Social Media

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

Reason #1: Staying Ahead of New FTC Regulations

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

1. Require truthfulness and disclosure in all social media outreach

2. Monitor the conversation and correct misstatements

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

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

Reason #2: Getting Ready for Real-Time Search

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

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

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

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

Wisdom of Crowds Not Infallible

There’s been generous media coverage – and no shortage of angst and debate – over Wikipedia’s recent decision to add new oversights to its open editing mantra. Check out this article here. Going forward – as one example – Wikipedia will assign volunteer (trained) editors to approve certain public edits, notably those involving living people. The main driver for this change was an increasing number of inaccuracies appearing on the site, which clearly wasn’t being helped by existing tracking mechanisms. Some argue this step signals the end of true user-submitted content at Wikipedia, and an implicit acknowledgement that the “wisdom of crowds” is not so perfect after all.

But as the article notes, the idea of nominal controls and even site managers is not new, nor is it a sign of the apocalypse of social media. It’s inevitable that these sites have to evolve as they grow; in fact, its a core element of the social media “beta” philosophy. The experience at Wikipedia has shown that there will often be a minority who try to game the system, break the rules or use an open platform to vent their opinions – whether they are appropriate or not. (Unfortunately, among the culprits are corporate or agency PR folks who have trouble accepting that hype or whitewashing is not credible or appropriate.) That’s particularly true with sites that position themselves as legitimate sources of information or ideas.

The trick is to develop clear, simple, common sense rules that filter out the egregious abuses but keep the site dynamic and true to its free-flowing ethos. Perhaps I’m naive, but I still believe a majority of users have good intentions and want to make these user-driven sites relevant and appealing. (In one incident I personally experienced, a group of passionate users actually built a parallel website to show how the original could be improved. They were critics, but deeply committed to making the site productive, rather than just venting. We ended up using some of their ideas.) Like many topics related to social media, the best answer lies in avoiding dogma and absolutes…and listening to the crowds.

Social Media Requires Planning…Not Just Flash

A recent post by David Armano suggests companies will face five core challenges due to social media – whether or not they embrace or delay the transforming impact of the new technology: integration, governance, culture, HR and ROI. I agree with David’s argument; as I’ve written in several posts, in my experience most organizations considering social media focus on the technology and content but drastically underplay the more pedestrian topics like organization, process and even resources.

Most organizations have to create new roles, structures, routines and policies to efficiently manage their social media program(s) and this can be a laborious process in companies just entering the game and/or reluctant to change their existing infrastructure or funding model. In one recent personal experience, I spent as much time on logistics – forming new cross-functional editorial teams, defining policies, building a process, training key staff, securing adequate resources – as on the technology itself (though that wasn’t without learning pains.) Changes usually require disparate teams and functions – notably marketing, PR, IT and HR – to work much more closely together and ignore the historic silos or job descriptions. Inevitably, some departments will resist the changes without strong leadership directives. Going back to Armano’s model, the area that seems to really lag is metrics, which requires an organization to decide if and how it wants to measure the impact of its social media initiatives. This is not an easy topic to address even for the most progressive companies – since there is no accepted blueprint or easy empirical formula – so its no surprise many just choose to set it aside and hope for the best.

Ultimately, companies have to make a fundamental decision about their cultural DNA and perspective on communication. That will typically fuel the strategy and deployment of new resources and platforms. Without consensus on that core value, progress will remain elusive.

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.

Strategic Planning Still Paramount…and Lacking

Noted PR pundit Shel Holtz recently shared his favorite communication planning model – which he actually attributes to Wilma Matthews. At a high level, I endorse this basic model and strongly agree with the premise that careful planning prevents communication (or PR) for its own sake. Too often PR professionals – across all disciplines – give in to the tide and begin to communicate without a clear target, plan or purpose…beyond perhaps getting “hits” or spiking the tone and focus of media coverage or customer feedback. 

Where I stray somewhat from the basic recipe suggested by Holtz and others is that their models invite a simplicity and superficiality which belies the complexity and nuance of most communication scenarios. One example is the selection of audience(s) – which in many of the real-life programs I’ve developed and executed requires a miniature plan in itself…with a range of discrete audiences demanding their own tactics, messages, channels and even metrics. Another element that is not evident in the model is timing…as in what happens when. Too often, tactical plans and message platforms are developed as if they have a static shelf-life, while in reality they should probably evolve in conjunction with changes in audience awareness, perception and behavior. Another example where subtlety is often lacking is in messaging, where too often plans prescribe blunt, aspirational (if not disingenuous) messaging without consideration for supporting evidence, tone, context, customization and feedback from target audiences. I won’t even mention metrics, which is often sorely lacking in both the planning and execution of PR programs. 

My final reservation is really more philosophical than tactical. What many communication plans seem to miss is a dedicated section prescribing what to do – with regard to a policy or corporate decision – as opposed to just what to communicate. This may seem like a small nuance, but it’s not; it’s the difference between sitting at the executive table helping shape the critical decisions and being asked to help communicate a decision that’s already been made. I intentionally frame my plans to feature our recommendations on what the organization should do in response to a particular situation. 

In the final analysis, smart communication planning  is rarely a bad idea, but using basic cookie-cutter models should be a starting point rather than the final step.

Unions Jumping on New Media Bandwagon

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

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

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

Obama Learns Importance of Context in Messaging

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

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

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

PR Still Out of Sync with Social Media

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

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

Using PR to Turn the Tide Against “Junkets”

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