Category Archive

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.  

Over the past few weeks I’ve been working on projects that would entail recreating physical displays or locations - such as a corporate museum or historic location - in virtual form…either through an interactive, digital application or in a virtual environment like Second Life. Trying to explain the huge creative opportunities of these virtual locations - not to mention the portability and cost savings - can sometimes be a challenge to folks who have never experienced Second Life or elaborate digital or Web games. These well-meaning sceptics usually assume the virtual versions will somehow be “flat” and miss a critical human element. Take a look at a great example of a real location transformed and made accessible - and in some ways better - online. This article shows how folks have made the Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. a compelling, social virtual experience. Though the virtual version can’t fully duplicate the real experience - including the tactile element that makes the wall so memorable and powerful - some interesting features (such as being able to view personal scrapbooks on all the names) provide information that isn’t available at the memorial. A good example of creativity and good taste.

A recent post by Edelman’s Steve Rubel argues that with the increasing proliferation of websites and myriad new applications it becomes inevitable that the era of sites as mega destinations will become a thing of the past. The focus is now on portability of the experience - the ability to find the site from anywhere, anytime rather than having to return to the source website. This makes sense to me, though I believe sites (or networks) like Facebook that allow multiple applications may remain important web locations - or at least starting points.

Since I’m wearing a hat as an internal communications leader these days, it made me wonder if and how this trend is relevant to employee audiences. For many companies, communication professionals are still struggling to convince executives about the merits of social media, and those on the cutting-edge are still few and far between (at least from what I can tell.) So I suspect this issue will remain a topic of conversation among a few practitioners rather than an imminent  reality. But I think there is merit in explaining to these same leaders that the days of the big intranet is perhaps gone - or at least that it can remain relevant if we make it possible to access the intranet through various digital tools and channels, and that users can customize not only the content for the access points. So to build on the metaphor I’ve been using on the issue…it’s no longer “build it and they will come” but rather “build it and make sure users take it with them wherever  they go.”

My former colleague and fellow Canadian Joe Thornley shared his “do’s and don’ts” for corporate blogs in a recent post, and they provide a very good checklist for any potential company bloggers out there. Since my focus these days in on internal communications, I reviewed the list with an employee audience in mind and - no real surprise - many of the rules still apply. Take a look.

 Do’s 

Listen first -Probably the most relevant tip with regard to internal corporate blogs. Unfortunately, I see a real tendency to want to harness this new channel to push yet more messages to employees. This is the area I will be focusing my efforts in my own company before single post is written. I also intend to increase the ways we can actually “listen” to the workforce beyond rare, formal surveys and polls. Or else, we’re talking to ourselves.

Write about things you are passionate about -Again, this is not the first instinct of many executives when they begin to write for an internal blog. The default is usually to write about corporate news or priorities, and you’re lucky if the folks writing feel strongly about these fairly prosaic issues. It’s also a tough sell to convince executives (or internal experts) to inject their personality into their posts, not just their expertise.

Give without asking for a return -See above…not a normal reaction for executives steeped in discussions of ROI and driving engagement. The challenge is to convince them these things will come, but if and only if they provide something of value to employees through the blog and folks decide to join the conversation. It’s also important to note that a blog will quickly uncover anything that is not genuine or authentic, so any concern for the employee had better be real.

Keep it positive - This may be easier to do in an internal context. In fact, the challenge may be reversed in a corporate setting, working to avoid sugar-coating problems or dancing around unpleasant facts through corporate hype or fluff. There may already be too much positive communication in most corporate settings - and some of it is likely somewhat fabricated or embellished.

Be patient and persistent - No argument here. It takes time to build an audience, to find a voice and to foster a real, vibrant conversation. This holds true for an internal blog even though in theory the employees are a ”captive” audience. Provide relevant and valuable information and allow robust, candid commentary…and they will come.

Dont’s 

Don’t use a ghostwriter -I am a strong advocate that internal authors should essentially write their own posts - even the CEO. Though it’s OK in some circumstances to help them out or do some light editing, they should provide most of the copy in their own voice. Without authenticity, the impact of the blog will be severely limited. This is a tough one for many executives used to plenty of hand-holding and direction in the development of their speeches and memos.

Don’t fake it -I make the case with my peers that to be credible an internal blog must be timely, transparent and candid. As Joe notes, blog readers can be ruthless and unforgiving at the mere hint of a cover-up or lie. Though the criticisms may not be as overt in an internal blog, lack of credibility will quickly corrode the relevance of the blog.

Don’t give up -May not be as relevant for an internal blog, but valuable advice nevertheless. This is not a short-term process with immediate rewards. Like many good things in life, it takes time to develop a good internal blog. After all, this is about building new relationships across levels, locations and communities. That’s not something that can happen overnight - particularly in companies without a tradition of internal conversation.

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 postby Steve Rubel on the proliferation of SEO consultants with dubious tactics (and intentions) is just the latest cry of alarm about this ugly trend. It should be no surprise, of course, that some will promote/sell ways to jack the system to make organizations (or individuals) look better in search results - either by burying negative on-line mentions, generating a lot of fluff and/or driving the popularity of positive mentions. There is certainly merit in proactively trying to get positive corporate or personal content near the top of the ladder - in fact more companies should be doing this as per of their ongoing PR efforts - but problems occur when this is the only purpose of the SEO efforts. And there is a difference between adjusting copy in a press release to get the right words (or tags) featured in a search and generating empty content or fake traffic just to alter the search returns. As Rubel suggests, SEO rankings should be a by-product of engaging in on-line conversation, not an end in itself.  Hopefully PR and marketing professionals just becoming familiar with social media will steer clear of the snake oil salesmen and focus on doing the right thing - driving credible and transparent conversations.  

Check out this recent post by Andy Sernovitz, who’s a reliable source of great examples and insights on driving credible word-of-mouth about products, services and brands. In this post, Andy mentions that venerable Northwestern has introduced a course on social networks. (Full disclosure: I went to NU long ago for their graduate program on integrated marketing communications - which at the time was considered cutting-edge - so I have soft spot for the Evanston institution.) It’s good to see this course emerge because university programs - particularly of the undergraduate variety - provide a handy thermometer of how industry trends and developments are catching on with pundits and students. Let me be clear… I’ve been disappointed many times by recent PR or journalism grads that lack even a basic understanding of public relations - what do you mean isn’t it just about media relations? And I’ve been frustrated more than once by academic departments and professors who seem to have designed their course modules in a musty cave, far away from messy and complex events happening in the real world. So I’ll reserve any celebration until I see evidence this is more than an isolated nod to the social media hype. Still, it’s a positive sign. Go Wildcats! 

Read an interesting post by Shel Hotlz, who suggests that corporate websites (using Fast Company as an example) are adopting many of the social network tools into their sites - in essence becoming a mash-up of network and website. No surprise there, really, but what is interesting about this trend is how organizations seeking to foster an online conversation with fans and customers are trying to broaden their net. It’s pretty clear most companies can benefit from having a site that allows their customers to provide input, comments and ideas - and even to vote on what companies should focus on (like Dell’s Ideastorm crowd-sourcing site.) But does it make sense to open the door even wider and encourage casual fans and observers to share their ideas and opinions. To do that, you need a website that is easy to find - rather than a specific corporate web address - and compelling. This takes us back to two of the unsolved conundrums of the Web 2.0 environment - do you build your own network or do you try to piggy-back on existing networks? And do you remain exclusive in an effort to drive relevance and focus, or do you open the doors wide to avoid insularity and irrelevance? We’ll have to wait and see.

Out on the cutting-edge fringes comes a new idea that has a great deal of appeal to me - establishing a social network within the firewalls of a company - an internal Facebook, so to speak. Check out this post to see details. (Full disclosure - thanks to Paul Walker at GCI for the tip.) Though this idea entails some technology challenges, it may be an easier pitch than trying to convince corporate leaders to let their employees access their external networks - even if they do so in informal company groups.  Typically, internal directories and collaboration tools are high on the list for employee intranets, so I suspect this kind of network would be popular and productive. Another thing to put on my list….

Given my experience at Dell - where I was lucky enough to be part of a small team that transformed the company from social media laggard to leader (not just my personal assessment) I am often asked the secret to our success…how we shifted gears so dramatically and rapidly in such a huge company. There is no magic formula, of course, but as my friend and former agency partner Paul Walker notes in his blog, the most critical factor was the leadership of Michael Dell. Without his unequivocal support and encouragement - and occasional nudges to avoid getting bogged down - I’m not sure we would have been able to do so much so fast. A close second was knowing folks like Paul who could provide education and guidance on the brave new world of social media. (As point of reference, I knew next to nothing - ok, nothing - about social media, or blogs, or wikis…before I joined the effort at Dell and started my digital boot camp.) The lesson: it’s always much easier to break some glass when your CEO is the first one to throw a brick through the window.  

Picked up some interesting chatter online about an ex-Apple insider criticizing the company’s philosophy - and restrictive  policies - regarding social media. Check out one of the strings here. Assuming this is credible (I have no reason to doubt the story) this post is somewhat surprising, given Apple’s leadership role in product design and marketing. But if you think about it this angle makes sense, since from everything I’ve read or heard Mr. Jobs runs a fairly tight, autocratic ship and favors a command-and-control (and secretive) PR style that is out of sync with the company’s cutting-edge image. It was particularly interesting to note that Apple apparently discourages its execs (or subject matter experts) from blogging under their Apple identity…if they blog at all, and does not support the use of online collaboration tools. This approach is totally out of sync with the emphasis on transparency, candor and collaboration that underlines the Web 2.0 environment. Add another chink in the shining Apple armour…. 

Check out this post by uber blogger Robert Scoble in Fast Company. Scoble raves about new applications that allow teams to collaborate more easily and seamlessly in a virtual “cloud”. News like this is sure to make those trying to function in command-and-control companies cry in despair. While some workers are building programs online and lifting ideas and visuals from shared sites, others can’t even get access to the internet. Unfortunately, the gap seems to be getting wider.

I just read this interesting post in TechCrunch, which suggests that an expected downturn in corporate IT spending in the U.S. is good news for the Web 2.0 trend, since the Web is full of free or low-cost alternatives to the expensive hardware and software sold by the industry leaders. Beyond the interesting good news/bad news duality of this story, it brings to light the schitzophrenic reaction of IT departments to Web 2.0 technology. In fairness, I totally understand why they are often defensive and even incredulous in the face of this trend - one could argue it threatens their very existence. If I can download a free corporate blog platform from the web, get tips and help through blogs and chat rooms, and even host the program externally using Google or Amazon servers, why do I need my IT department? Software, servers, applications, information and trouble-shooting tips…all these can be found on the Web at little or no cost. Furthermore, many IT departments have a troubling habit of promoting rules and products that are good for them, but not necessarily their internal clients or external customers. (Don’t even get me started on antiquated firewall or bandwidth rules that prevent employees from properly doing their jobs.) Smart CIOs  and IT teams will address these criticisms and help their companies navigate the shoals of the Web 2.o environment. Their expertise, support and counsel are critical to the long-term success of any corporate social media strategy. Otherwise, many marketing and PR professionals will simply work around the hurdles, and that’s usually not the best option.

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.

Just read an interesting post by social media guru Jeff Jarvis in which he argues that folks are unfairly piling on Facebook for various missteps related to their service and rules of engagement. As Jarvis suggests, Facebook has responded nicely to these crises - often by incorporating customer comments and suggestions. And in the long run,  many of the ideas have survived, albeit with important adjustments. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg - still in his early twenties - shouldn’t be criticized for trying new things and looking for ways to generate revenues from his service. In fact, as Jarvis states, he should be celebrated for taking risks and driving innovation in a nascent field with few guideposts or easy answers. The folks at Facebook try new things. They listen. They learn. They adjust. They even apologize and eat crow on occasion. That’s much more than most other companies - new or old.

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.

As I continue to meet new folks involved in corporate communications - or just corporate leaders beyond the world of IT - I am struck by the persistent gulf between those aware of social media trends and tools, and those who are not. Of late, I seem to be one of the few in most meetings who is even remotely familiar with popular digital media tools (think Facebook) and often the only one who has even heard of slightly more esoteric developments (think Second Life or Twitter.) This has caused me to question whether the social media movement - despite the hype and fervent following online - remains a niche in the corporate world. And if so, might this really be a fad - as some claim?

The answer, I believe, is no. This is for real. One of the reasons for my confidence in this statement is not what is happening among my peers, but what I see among the younger generations. Gen X/Y and even teenagers have long had an uncanny familiarity and facility with digital content and cell phones - in fact, they are our teachers rather than the reverse - but now there is evidence they are enjoying their own virtual social networks. Witness the boom of interactive websites like Webkinz and Club Penguin - as reported in this article in the NY Times - which go beyond the tricks of traditional websites and include many components similar to Facebook and Second Life. In an ingenious marketing twist, these sites also encourage kids to buy related merchandise in the real world they can activate in the virtual world - notably stuffed animals that come to life as characters on Webkinz. My own daughters enjoy playing with their “pets” and customizing their own virtual rooms on this site, but more importantly, they chat and play games with their friends through the Webkinz network.  More than a game or website, it’s a legitimate social network with a long list of potential activities and applications. If kids are our future, the next generations will likely be firmly rooted in the ethos of social networking and digital media tools.

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?

A recent post by David Armano on the increasing mobility of digital content convincingly captures the trend towards digital freedom, allowing us to access (or send) content anywhere, anytime and through an expanding range of tools. Still, even as Web access becomes more ubiquitous and portable through the expansion of access points (free wi-fi), portable devices (3-G phones) and evolving cultural norms (virtual workers) there is a stubborn gap in digital mobility - particularly across corporations. While one company arms its workers with the latest Blackberry or multi-purpose cameras and essentially obviates the need for permanent offices, others struggle to provide wireless access to their workers in their own facilities…and wouldn’t dream of providing mobile devices to anybody beyond their top executives. And that’s just in the larger cities of North America.

Though a part of this lag is likely due to the economics of obtaining and implementing new technology, I suspect the larger reason is cultural. Companies sticking closer to the chained-to-the-desk, firewall mentality seem more concerned about what employees will do with their new-found freedom than about costs. We’ve all heard the typical concerns:

- “What if employees start leaking information… or surfing bad sites?”

- “Won’t some employees  say bad things about the company?”

- “What if they spend all their time going to Facebook or YouTube?”

 These concerns reflect a paranoia which is misplaced, and also a touch of executive arrogance. Trying to stall technology to keep workers in line totally misses the point of the huge advantages inherent in the new mobile technology, and of the futility of trying to bury or avoid digital conversations. What these companies need is not a new CIO, but a cultural overhaul.

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.   

The latest developments at Facebook - recently captured in this New York Times article - are just the latest and most prominent example of the awkward evolution of the internet. Apparently, Facebook has given in - at least to some extent - to the vociferous critics of its new advertising program, which sends details on personal web surfing to your Facebook “friends.” There will now be an individual opt-out function available to users before any emails are sent to any friends  - though it will have to be repeated every time. But beyond the details of this marketing dust-up, it’s interesting  to note the salience of several recurring themes in the protean Web 2.0 environment:

• It’s easy enough to create a popular website, network or application…but another thing altogether to figure out a way to make money on a sustained basis. Facebook’s introduction of the Beacon advertising tool is an attempt to “monetize” its huge user group. The jury is still out.
• Though evidence suggests peer-to-peer references are paramount in individual purchase decisions, they need to be transparent and credible to have any traction. Facebook’s twisted version of a friendly referral - your friends are alerted if you frequent a website… likely assuming you are tipping them off to a great bargain, yet all it means is that you visited said website - does not pass the sniff test for most users.  
• The will of the community - the millions of users on websites or networks - continues to be a driving force in shaping the rules and format of web properties. It’s clear companies cannot afford to ignore user input or suggestions, but Facebook has shown you can survive with some compromise and without abdicating to user demands. That said, they are playing a dangerous game and could be losing valuable brand equity and buzz with their hard-ball tactics.

 This will be an interesting issue to watch in the months ahead. Web companies and networks would be well advised to play close attention…there may be important clues to where web strategy and etiquette goes from here.   

 UPDATE: As many expected, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has given in to the will of the digital masses and will allow members to permanently shut off Beacon, his controversial new advertising feature. Check out the mea culpa by Zuckerberg on the Facebook blog. See one of several articles on the subject here. Does anybody need further proof of the increasing power of the online customer?

An article in the venerable Globe & Mail provides one of many anecdotes of how companies are struggling to adapt their marketing to social networking - in this case Molson (of beer fame) creating a dubious photo contest on Facebook. Apparently the campaign raised the ire of self-appointed critics by implicitly encouraging drinking. Really?!? There are several lessons here - some old and some new. On the old front, we can see companies are still not completly getting the Web 2.0 environment, so to speak. The Molson marketing folks quoted in the story seem intent on talking ”with” their customers on Facebook, but it’s clear they want to do most of the talking and have spent little or no time listening to their customers. They want to sell beer and came up with this thinly-veiled “cool” contest to generate buzz and make their  product seem hip. Smart companies will one day realize that some (most?) forays into social media should have absolutely no marketing purpose - explicit or otherwise. None. Heresy? Maybe….They can provide info, tools, contests and perks, but not push product or badly disguised advertising (such as user-created videos.) The key to marketing online is to pick the right time and place to market…and to be totally transparent about the purpose and benefits of the program. Too often marketers fail to do this, clumsily creating websites or campaigns on social networks that are totally out of sync with informal rules of engagement and have little chance of attracting a sustained audience.

The new lesson in this story, if I can be a contrarian, is that the marketers didn’t listen to the right audience when they decided to pull the campaign. From what I can determine, the chorus of complaints came from pundits and government officials, not the folks on Facebook. It’s not clear if the students on Facebook - the target audience - had any complaints at all about the campaign. The lesson here: figure out who matters and who you are trying to please. If I were on Facebook, I would think Molson is not only clueless, but timid. 

I don’t want to be too hard on Molson, since there are often no easy answers. But they are more likely to find them by spending more time online - where their customers are - and less time brainstorming over Red Bull.  

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.

This BusinessWeek article is one of many that documents the backlash against Facebook in the wake of its decision to introduce so-called social advertising on the network - personalized ads based not only on individual surfing habits and preferences but also, in theory, on the habits and recommendations of your Facebook “friends.” Author Rob Hof sees the uproar (which he admits could be a vocal minority) as an indictment of the apparent arrogance of the Facebook team,  but I see this incident as just another example of the delicate and dangerous tapdance of companies trying to market - and make money - on the Internet. The informal rules of engagement are sometimes obvious, but too often they are murky and implicit. And as with Facebook, the etiquette of a particular network can evolve as the platform grows. Despite the confusion it remains clear most online users are very protective when it comes to marketing - it’s ok to sell or pitch to them, but you’d better pick the right platform and occasion or there will be hell to pay…and ideally the ad should be personalized… and loaded with incentives. Of course, these same people occasionally cry foul when they realize their personal surfing habits are being mined and sold for marketing purposes. In short, the line in the sand is hard to find. I personally think Facebook is on the right track here - they want to find a way to make money in a way that’s relevant and tactful without alienating their users. We’ll see how it plays out.  

A recent BusinessWeek article does a good job of capturing the debate and developments around the issue of building social networks for employees. The article highlights two of the central questions related to this topic:

• One is whether to build an employee network - or even to allow employees to access existing corporate networks outside the firewall (e.g. virtually every major company has a Facebook network…though many are not sponsored or supervised)
• Assuming you want to proceed, a central question becomes whether to leverage the existing external networks, to create a new network on the internet or to build a network within the firewall

On the first question, I would argue that denying employee access to Facebook and/or ignoring the trend towards networking is akin to sticking a finger in a massive dike…the decision is short-sighted and unrealistic.

On the latter question, there is merit to all three options, but also distinctive challenges. For those companies who fear breaches of confidentiality or have a workforce that is grumpy and likely to be highly critical, it may make more sense to initially create an in-house network. For others - particularly companies whose employees are likely to be advocates and already have a high profile on the net, it probably makes sense to create an external site.

But the important point here is to recognize that employees are already active on networks, and that there are already conversations going on about the company. So the question becomes whether there is benefit in harnessing that employee networking for the company’s benefit. Furthermore, the tools that make social networks so attractive can be leveraged to drive collaboration and alignment across an organization. With that background, it seems like keeping the digital door shut tight is an exercise in futility, and probably bad for business.  

I was not surprised to see the reports today - including this one in USA Today - that Apple (or more specifically Steve Jobs) has decided to loosen the reins on the iPhone and will now allow third-party applications. (Apple will still stick with AT&T as the exclusive broadband/phone partner, however.) This change was all but inevitable. I’ve never met Steve Jobs but he appears to be a very smart guy, so he must have realized a few valuable lessons in the wake of several marketing missteps involving the iPhone:

• The collective insight and innovation of the crowd is invaluable…and difficult to silence or ignore
• Fans can be ardent supporters or fierce critics - depending on how you treat them
• There is nobody more critical than a (product) lover scorned
• Opening up the door to third-party applications can dramatically improve the quality and popularity of your products (see Facebook as example)
• Collaboration and transparency rule - rigid restrictions and insularity are out

 It will be interesting to see how the iPhone evolves now that the doors have been opened a little wider.  

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.

Steve Rubel always has some interesting information and arguments to share. Recently, he opined in this post that the big portals - Yahoo, Google, AOL and such - would come out ahead in the long-run despite the blaring hype about social networks and cool websites. Anecdotally, based on my own use I would have to agree. Even as I enter into new networks or add new websites as favorites, I seem to put more importance on portals like Google. For me, Google helps me in many ways - as an aggregator (Google Reader), a centralized search tool, a free email system to complement my home one and a source of countless applications - such as Picasa, Google Earth and Google Docs. As the Web becomes more crowded and complicated, any system (or portal) that can help us to organize and streamline our activities will be relevant and popular.

The larger question in all this is at what point the system will become overloaded. How many new applications, networks or websites can be added to the mix before traffic (and revenue) start to contract and we have more losers than winners? Whatever happens, the winners will be determined by the online community, and that’s the way it should be.

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.

This past week I’ve been working on defining a potential strategy to leverage Twitter - the hot micro-blog application that seems to polarize online users into love or hate camps. This planning process is emblamatic of the challenges - and endless opportunities - inherent in trying to remain relevant and competitive in the evolving online environment. Whether it’s Twitter or Jaiku or another application altogether, marcom professionals need to constantly evaluate if and how they should use the myriad new tools and applications emerging on the Net. Twitter is an interesting example. There is no clear consensus on the value or ideal use for the tool, but it certainly presents another channel to engage in conversations - or rather micro-conversations - with consumers, peers or friends. One of its best advantages is that it can be accessed on mobile devices. The drawback: limiting the posts to 150 words or so almost ensures a level of triviality. Can it be used as a marketing device? Should it be an extension of richer conversation on a blog or website? Is it destined to remain a novelty and glorified chat room? It’s too early to answer these questions but there have certainly been some success stories around Twitter. There’s still chatter here in Austin of how Twitter became the main communication channel for bar-hopping enthusiasts during the last SXSW festival. I know plenty of folks who use it as a global IM network. And companies like Amazon.com are making good use of the application to spread the word about sales and specials. Many individuals swear by Twitter - see posts by Robert Scoble and Steve Rubel on how they use the tool.

As a communication professional, trying to figure out the future can be both exhilirating and dismaying. I am typically in the former camp. I personally like the fact there are no obvious answers or precedents. I’d rather try to define the future than repeat the past.  

Just read this post by David Armano on his Logic & Emotion blog. In the post David outlines the theme of a pending conference in Chicago that focuses on what it means to be “beta.” As outlined in the conference primer:

“Innovation isn’t limited to R+D rooms anymore. The Web 2.0 movement—powered by scrappy start-ups such as Twitter, Malhalo and even YouTube have proven that innovation often happens in iterations. Build, launch, tweak, measure, and repeat.  Techniques like Mash-ups enable faster development and more experimentation with a range of tools from mapping to community to data feeds.  Digital experiences seem to be “always in beta”—learning and evolving along the way.”

This post really hit home with me since being in beta mode, from my perspective, perfectly captures the essence of the new Web 2.0 environment - flexible, creative, striving to provide value, responsive to consumer input and willing to try things before they are guaranteed to succeed. It also acknowledges the truism that nothing is ever final or perfect - at least in the protean world of human conversation - and continuous improvement and adaptation is the price of survival on the Web. I’ve seen several digital programs launched first hand in the past year, and each of them went through a beta period - planned or otherwise - and all benefited greatly from user input. And they continue to adapt based on feedback, user habits and evolving objectives. Seems like this beta mentality could be a good model for any organization seeking to be relevant in the age of digital content and social networks. The ultimate lesson: don’t waste time trying to find perfection behind closed doors.

For those cynical (or frightened) about the emergence of social networks and ubiquitous digital content, take a look at slideshare, a very cool beta website that perfectly captures the value and potential of the Web 2.0 universe. The construct of the site is simple - it’s a huge storehouse of slide presentations and photos. You can view and download at your leisure. The site allows you to join groups focusing on specific themes of topics (e.g. Brand Thinktank), view featured and most popular presentations, provide commentary and questions, search via tag…all the bells and whistles that have become common on many progressive websites.

This site symbolizes everything that is good about the Web. For professionals like me - and presumably every college student in the world - this site provides an unbelievable resource for ideas and content. And it’s all totally free for the taking (there is a quick log-in process.) And as befits the collective talent of the millions of folks online, there is plenty of fantastic material on the site. Somebody could quickly and easily build a superb presentation that would literally be the product of a virtual global team. Is all the information accurate? Not necessarily. And are all the presentations relevant or polished. Certainly not. But with a little digging you can find more than you’ll ever need to impress the clients or boss.

The fact that this site exists and is totally free is amazing enough. But it’s one of thousands of similar sites that provide value and content. All of these are testament to the incredible power and potential of the Web in the era of social networks. Happy digging.

A special report in the latest BusinessWeek details a trend among online players to add social networking features to their sites - in effect creating their own versions of Facebook of MySpace. The impetus is obvious - these companies (notably Yahoo, eBay and Playboy) want to attract users and keep them on their sites as long as possible. And the way to do that is to foster online communities - where like-minded people with specific interests can create identities, share and create content and meet or make friends. In short, they can come to socialize, rather than just browse or shop. As BusinessWeek points out, this trend is not new - numerous sites have introduced message boards for example - but the scale and speed of adoption is unprecedented.

What interested me about this article is not just the evolving competitive landscape among web giants, but the obvious implications for companies trying to engage their employees. Taking the trend in-house, so to speak. Presumably, one can assume many employees - particularly those under 30 - are looking for some interaction and personalization from their company intranet. They want more than static headlines and stilted messaging. The problem is they can rarely find that. Companies that learn from the Web and internalize some of these networking tools should benefit through increased traffic and their site should become more sticky and relevant. After all, many of these employees are likely already on social network sites outside the firewalls, so why not let them engage in conversation on their own website?

Fortune’s David Kirkpatrick recently wrote a column on MySpace striking back at the growing challenge by Facebook - the latest “next big thing” in social networking. What I found interesting about this article is not the competitive barbs traded by the competing giants or the under-reported achievements of MySpace - still the largest social network in the world and increasingly profitable. More salient was Kirkpatrick’s argument that maybe comparing MySpace and Facebook is misguided because they are the proverbial apple and orange - two different applications aimed at different audiences for different reasons.

I’ve got some serious beefs with MySpace (notably the deluge of spam and fake friends) but I’ve never seen it as a direct competitor of Facebook. The former is chaotic, loud and prone to abuses of all kind (privacy, graphic, language) but a heck of lot of fun for folks looking for the latest music hit or new friends. Numerous organizations, bands, artists and even fictional characters have their own profile. Though you can’t download many applications, there’s plenty of leeway to customize (or pimp) your site via graphics, music, photos and video to express your inner mojo. Facebook - for me at least - is a far more sedate and limited network where I can trade barbs and play games (e.g. “Where I’ve Been”)  with friends who really are friends. Advertising is much more limited and restrained and there is nary a sound to be heard. Think of it as your first appartment, rather than your college dormroom - the walls are cleaner and you’re more discriminating about who you invite. (To extend this comparison further, I use Linked-In as a tool for serious networking - the digital version of a rolodex.) So for me all this talk of a battle of behemoths misses the point - there is plenty of room for variations and it’s entirely possible to have profiles in several social networks. That said, all these networks will need to work hard to keep our attention and sustain their relevance - easy to join and easy to leave. The biggest challenge for any website or network is to stand out with all the choices and noise. For me, MySpace is too messy and commercialized and I like the efficiency of Linked-In and the easy dialogue on Facebook. Then again, it may just be that I’m getting older.

It’s been interesting to follow the ongoing dust-up between companies banning use of Facebook (and other social networking sites) and web advocates saying the practice is outdated and irrational. Shel Holtz has a great post that questions statistics suggesting Americans waste countless hours (and billions of dollars) surfing the net while at work. A recent U.N. report claiming Americans work longer and produce more capital per person than any other country would seem to back Shel’s argument.

But the issue of banning Facebook or other sites is a symptom of a bigger problem - organizations that still equate the internet (particularly social network or video sites) with “personal” use or fun. Based on my personal experience, I don’t buy it. At work, I constantly go back and forth between my company site and external tools - including Linked-in, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and a long list of favorite blogs and aggregators. Much of what I do on these sites can be considered productive, whether it be doing research, catching up on news or posts, chatting with ”friends” about new products or best practices or viewing viral videos. There is no clear delineation for me - and probably for many others - between internal and external tools or programs. With Linked-In and Facebook in particular, I use the networks to keep up with an expanding range of contacts to share tips, answer questions and generally ”network” - much as folks have done over a beer or on the golf course for years.  And to Shel’s point, even if some of my time online is not directly useful for work - I have to admit some of the surfing is pure fun - I’m sure to catch up later. It’s about doing the work, not doing it between 9 and 5. Companies that install firewalls to prevent access to social websites are keeping their employees from accessing a treasure trove of information, connecting with peers and taking part in the online conversation. I just don’t see how that is productive.

I’ve read a number of stories and posts recently about the evolving definition of “friends” online, with the proliferation of social networks and tools that facilitate (if not require) building a network of personal friends. As Steve Rubel points out, the race by some to accumulate friends with no screeing or criteria has altered - and possibly devalued - the meaning of friendship. Maybe the answer is to enforce more screening - like Facebook - and to stay away from the MySpace model, which opens the door to virtually anybody, resulting in a flood of spam and weirdos.

While I concede that many of the folks on my Linked-In or Facebook accounts are not all friends per se - folks that I regularly stay in touch with and share some level of intimacy with - they are legitimate acquiantances or professional contacts. And the networks make it much easier for me to find these folks (in some cases after years or being out of touch) and communicate with them. They are an instantly accessible extended personal network that can provide wisdom, support, leads and/or ideas. And yes, it can also just be fun to share where we’ve lived or answer group questions. So despite the huge potential for abuse, I find these friend networks to be a very positive development. It will be interesting to track if and how I stay in touch with my new expanding online family.

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.

BusinessWeek continues to impress me with comprehensive, timely articles on issues related to technology. Their latest cover story (supported by a range of secondary articles) focuses on the “future of work.” The feature article argues that increasing connectivity is changing how and where we work - no real surprise there - but also makes a strong case that these changes are redefining the very concepts of employer and employee. And the article suggests more profound changes are coming.

It’s already clear that increased computer power, expanding wireless capability and ubiquitous mobility - not to mention generational schisms - are combining to alter how companies and employees collaborate. Companies now interact with their customers in Second Life. Virtual employees communicate with their global teams through futuristic “telepresence” videoconferencing systems and BlackBerry ping-pong. Teams collaborate using online crowd-sourcing tools like wikis and blogs. And some companies, like Amazon, are creating a new on-demand workforce by farming out quick and temporary tasks to online freelancers. BW describes this trend as an emerging global supply chain of talent that can carry out micro jobs on demand.

All of these changes are rewriting the traditional workforce relationships and the employment “contract.” More importantly, it reflects the unprecedented shift of power into the hands of employees.  I’ve already discussed the dramatic shift in how information is produced and accessed - with the traditional command-and-control media world going the way of the dinosaur. This article suggests the same tectonic shift is occuring in the workforce.

This week USA Today had a cover story on the striking lack of civility and vitriolic commentaries that populate the Web. This is not a new story, but it gained well-deserved attention when Kathy Sierra shut down her blog (and speaking engagements) in the face of anonymous threats and vicious insults on her popular blog. The issue has also gained prominence due to angst about the prevalence of sexual predators on social networks like MySpace. I think the debate is good because it forces all of us on the Web to help define a collective code of conduct. What are the rules of the Web, if any? For what it’s worth, here is my take on this issue:

- I love the free-wheeling atmosphere of the Web, but that doesn’t mean anything goes. Just like in real world conversation, pointless insults or more dangerous threats and attacks should be prevented or removed. Most online users seem to agree that reasonable rules of conduct do not infringe on healthy debate and don’t constitute unnecessary censorship.

- Anonymous comments should be banned altogether. Most of the nonsense on the Net is left by anonymous users - it’s far too easy to write senseless online rants when you don’t share your identity and can’t be tracked. Also, not attributing comments  goes against at least two of the central tenets of internet etiquette, namely transparency and attribution.

- Websites and bloggers should be able to define whatever rules they want for their sites - as many have - without incurring shrill cries of censorship. That said, they should also make those rules very clear to users and make every effort to consider the views and preferences of their users (or community) when drafting those rules. If users don’t like the rules, they don’t have to visit the site. That’s called freedom of choice.

T