Category Archive

One of the most interesting developments of the Web 2.0 revolution is the explosion of freeware on the intranet - free applications, software, games, sites and programs available to all for little more than the time for easy registration of approval of simple legal disclaimers. The latest example - as detailed in this post by Andy Sernovitz - is Adobe’s free web-based version of Photoshop. As Sernovitz mentions, Adobe likely had no short-term economic imperative for introducing this free software - in fact, they could probably make more money by continuing to charge for this essential and popular application. But in the new Web environment - with a proliferation of free applications online, collaborative product development and higher expectations by customers - the old business rules aren’t necessarily the right ones. Customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth may get more of a boost by opening the door wider, rather than squeezing every opportunity for revenue. Needless to say, this concept is anathema to Wall Street priorities and valuation.

I’ve seen essentially four reactions to this development. Some (including a surprising amount of folks involved in IT) are basically unaware of the trend and have no idea of the incredible range of free online products and services. They’ve never heard of Google Docs, WordPress or even LinkedIn. Others are both cynical and skeptical, and doubt that any smart company would actually provide worthwhile applications online at no cost. “It just doesn’t make any sense” they claim, or go on to suggest the software or applications are probably of dubious quality. Some just seem to be more comfortable with the tried-and-true; they’d rather pay onerous licensing fees and stick to the well known companies rather than take a chance on upstarts. Finally, there is a group (in which I include myself) that is thrilled to find so many free or cheap choices online. It didn’t take long for me to be convinced of the value of this trend - I am using a free platform to publish this blog.

Can this new economic model be sustained? Well, I suppose we can observe Google as an example of success - at least in the short term. They provide a wide menu of services for free and leverage advertising as their main source of income. Presumably, this approach fosters strong brand loyalty and repeat visits to their plethora of products and business explorations. Whatever the rationale or outcome, I am very glad they gave it a try. Call me one of the new breed of customers.

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.

If you needed more evidence that the hard sell on the Web is the wrong approach, check out this article in the Harvard Business Review. (Sorry but you need to buy the article. I found an excerpt in the Dallas Morning News of April 6th.) The article, by Andreas Eisingerich and Tobias Kretschmer, suggests Web retailers are thinking too narrowly - hewing closely to the traditional approach focusing on price and product - and seeing disappointing sales as a result. The suggested prescription to increase sales: try for more engagement rather than more hard selling.

According to the authors, many retailers are unhappy with their online sales and see online customers as disloyal and unwilling to spend. But the article argues these disgruntled web retailers are paying the price for having sites that focus - almost exclusively - on information about products and services for sale. Many marketing managers apparently believe that anything that diverts the consumer from an easy purchase is negative, and should be avoided. This article, along with other studies, suggests just the opposite.

From what I’ve observed - and based on my personal experience - consumers often take a circuitous path to purchase and are sometimes interested in information and services related to the core product that can help them select solutions based on their needs. That’s where contextual information and user rankings and recommendations come in. Though studies repeatedly show that consumers put peer rankings or references at the top of their decision-making criteria, many retailers are still fearful of allowing this user scorecard on their sites. (This may be a naive stance since the reviews exist on other sites anyway.) What consumers are looking for, according to these authors, is information, advice and ideas that help them think of how products can bring add value to their lives. This soft-sell approach in turn wins their loyalty and entices them to buy…sooner or later. All of this describes the concept of consumer engagement: listen to consumers, provide them with valuable information and resources, provide a forum for dialogue and sell them the products and services they want…when they want to buy.  

The research quoted in the article found that only 17 percent of e-commerce managers planned to change their sites to improve sales despite the fact almost 60 percent were disappointed with online sales. Most believed that price was the only (and best) way to attract online customers. That’s a disappointing reflection of the obstinate, insular stance of some marketing leaders. The customers that were polled, meanwhile, said they cared most about the following (in order of importance): personalized shopping; clear categorization; order tracking; in-depth products or service-related information; and, customer engagement through information on related products and services. The authors site Ralph Lauren’s website as an example of a smart, engaging online presence. Not surprisingly, sales for the RL site are strong.

Plenty of good food for thought. Let’s hope marketing executives start paying attention to all these studies and trends.  

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.  

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (which I can’t link to due to their arcane online search function) provides an interesting analysis of Ford’s recent advertising struggles, and their Sisyphean quest to find a campaign that can revive both their lagging business and their tired brand. The latest candidate: “Ford. Drive One.” Other than the obvious call to action, this is about as memorable - or distinctive - as their last few slogans: “No Boundaries”, “American Innovation” and “Bold Moves.” What are the chances this new campaign will catch on? Not very good, I would suggest. Here’s why.

Absent some smart ads from Volkswagon over the years and perhaps the Zeppelin-fueled Cadillac campaign, automobile advertising is hopelessly formulaic, shallow, dubious and - the worse crime of all - boring. Campaigns are introduced with great fanfare but often dropped several months later, fostering consumer confusion and inattention. The stubborn lack of imagination of typical car marketing - car driving down scenic roads, endless 3/4 shots of the gleaming metal, superficial appeal to stereotypical hooks (macho & flag imagery for trucks, quirky and green for hybrids) - makes it virtually impossible to differentiate what ad is for what car. Witness the recent blizzard of boring ads related to President’s Day in the United States. I was more bored and insulted by the insistence and vapidity of the ads than anything else (perhaps because I’m Canadian and the appeal to Americana had no relevance to me.) Too often the ads are trying hard to convince consumers of the inherent value or the latest model, a brave aspiration but one which has to be based on realistic assumptions of what consumers will believe. And to make matters worse - as the article points out - these global campaigns often have no linkage to local marketing driven by the dealers. So the result is often a confusing stew of loud, repetitive claims (which appear to me like desperate pleas), mechanical minutae, financial incentives and contradictory local campaigns. Yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, many auto companies continue to spend hundreds of millions on these clarion calls in the hopes of rehabilitating their brands and driving sales.    

Like too many other campaigns - for automobiles or otherwise - this latest effort by Ford has little chance of getting their cars under”consideration” by consumers, or providing a cogent, clear image of their brand. To their credit, Ford apparently worked hard with the dealers to ensure they would help reaffirm the campaign and become local advocates. And they obviously did a fair amount of research on the brand positioning of Ford and its peers. But I don’t give the campaign a big chance of getting any traction, let alone changing the minds of consumers. The article claims the inspiration for the campaign was Nike’s legendary “Just do it” tagline, one of the most memorable advertising slogans in history. But there are so many ways Ford cannot hope to replicate the impact of Nike’s efforts. For one thing, Nike can leverage a rich, credible heritage that supports their smart, innovative marketing which conveys a consistent, positive brand experience across advertising, local marketing, online platforms, retail experience and the products themselves. And yes, the product does matter.

Ford’s new CMO apparently wants this latest campaign to help position Ford as the “smart, green, quality and safe” choice. Sound a bit ambitious? Notwithstanding the merit of trying to latch on to themes like safety - which has essentially been owned by Volvo for years - this new brand identity is diffuse and hopelessly aspirational, rather than grounded in Ford’s resonant attibutes and values. In short, it may be too much of a stretch. You’ve got to give the Ford team plenty of credit for trying and they are doing some things right, but I suspect they will be back to the drawing board within a year. I wish them well…nobody said marketing was easy.  

The folks at Dell continue to push the envelope in the area of social media and recently came out with their perspective - or manifesto of guiding principles - on supporting an increasingly mobile workforce. Check out the post here. [Full disclosure: Until several months ago, I worked at Dell in the social media team and was involved in defining and implementing the company's social media strategy.] Dell’s ideas are insightful and provide a good roadmap for any organization trying to address the ubiquity of mobile devices, digital content and peripatetic workers. Perhaps their smartest move is to look at the issue from the perspective of the end-user, rather than the IT geeks or corporate leaders.

What really hit home after reading this post is how far some companies are lagging in this race for relevance and connectivity with workers. While some companies are juggling which multimedia device or platform to use (iPhone or 3G phone?) others are simply trying to get their workforce connected to the internet…or even intranet…through clunky old computer terminals. The idea of cell phones for their workforce is still years away. There are many reasons for this digital divide - culture, cost, geography - but the biggest may simply be awareness. Keeping up with the Web 2.0 revolution is a challenge - even for IT departments - and many organizations are hard-pressed to keep updated on trends and developments, let alone try to explain them to their leaders. The saving grace of the rapid progress is that it may be possible to skip some steps in the race to get workers connected - the solution today (PDAs) may be replaced by a better one tomorrow (the next version of iPhone.) The biggest mistake, however, would be to just give up.

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.

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.

I’ve been watching with interest the growing debate about whether the theories behind Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point hold water. Check out this post about the polemic. I’m not sure at this point whether these new questions about the clout of so-called influentials hold water (Gladwell’s premise is that a small but highly influential group of people can spark a marketing trend more quickly and effectively than traditional mass advertising techniques) but it raises some interesting questions. For one thing, what are those of us working in employee communications to do? There’s long been an attempt to identify and harness those employees who may be highly influential in driving messages or themes across the organization, but I’ve never seen a clear cut case of how we’re supposed to identify them in the first place - let alone get them on board. This latest controversy suggests our efforts may have been misplaced, since those few movers and shakers (however we define them) may not have as much pull as we thought. Furthermore, they may change depending on the issue or campaign…making idenfication and mobilizing even more challenging. One lesson I think still holds water is that influence has little to do with formal roles or seniority. Like in the online world, credibility and influence is a nebulous and fragile thing that must be earned.

OK. I’m sitting here in a quaint coffee-shop a few minutes from Harvard Square in Cambridge this morning minding my own business - and with no intention of thinking of anything as complex or profound as employee engagement - but I can’t help myself. The trigger was this short but cogent post by David Ferrabee of Hill & Knowlton’s Change & Employee Engagement team. I agree with David’s points and think he hits the nail on the head with the obvious answer - do whatever you can to get and keep people who love their work…who believe they have a real purpose and impact. All the other criteria - distinctive culture, core values, two-way communication, progressive HR policies -they all matter, but not as much.

One of the most striking illustrations of this argument I’ve seen in my career occured at Amazon.com. My agency did a consulting gig with them a few years back during some pro-union rumblings and I remember thinking that though they worked in a typically cool, caffeinated Seattle environment (a renovated old hospital) their workplace was anything but easy or comfortable. In fact, they worked like dogs in what seemed like constant chaos, cell phones going off every minute and employees literally jogging from one meeting to the next. But they seemed to love it. Why? Not the funky cafeteria, or the brick walls or even their dynamic leader Jeff Bezos and his incredible laugh - though those all mattered - but because they believe they were creating something special…making retail history. And years later they were proven right.
Companies trying to find the magic potion for engagement should certainly try to do all the obvious things to make their workplace a positive, nurturing and productive place to work… but the real pay-off will come when they are able to generate real passion among their employees. Easier said than done.

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.  

I had to chuckle when I read Google’s belly-aching about Microsoft’s proposal to buy Yahoo a couple of weeks ago. According to Google’s legal counsel, the bid raised “troubling questions.”  What’s interesting here is not the merit of Google’s arguments – or the irony that since they initially aired their concerns they’ve hinted they may jump into the process as a white knight – but the dissonance of their stance with their brand. Is this not the company that proudly proclaimed they would do no harm – certainly one of the most bold and original corporate mantras in history. At first Google acted as though their mission – and brand positioning – was more than a paper tiger. I’ll admit it, I applied for a couple of jobs there and was keen to join such an innovative and progressive company. And they have provided users with a huge array of free tools and programs. But in the past year or so, the brand veneer is becoming seriously scuffed. First they made a dubious deal with the Chinese government which went against the core principles of free speech. As they’ve grown bigger and more dominant, they’ve increasingly acted more like the cocky millionaire producer rather than the scruffy tech nerd.  And now, in the latest twist…the giant complains when their main rival (with its own famous hubris) takes steps to contest their domination in the field of online advertising. As far as I’m concerned, this puts the nail in the coffin of the old Google. I still love their attitude and their products, but I no longer consider them special or cool. In fact, they may even be a bully - going from do no harm to take no prisoners. Hardly the inherent message in their brand positioning.

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.

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.   

OK, this post really isn’t about PR. But it is about how Web 2.0 technology and values are getting traction well beyond the fields of marketing and communications - the ostensible focus of this little blog. Witness the agenda of the upcoming World Economic Forum in Davos, as outlined in this BusinessWeek article: collaborative innovation. Sound familiar? None other than  Wikinomics guru Don Wapscott will regale the world’s intelligentsia and moguls about topics like collaborative marketing and radical transparency. So if the global business elite can discuss this, why is it still so hard to get through the door at your friendly company around the corner?  

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.

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.

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.

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.   

With all the buzz about the latest hot topics related to employee engagement - namely how to leverage social media tools with internal audiences - one fundamental requirement for effective employee communications is often forgotten: the need for alignment across all “touch points” that reach employees. My friend David Kippen, who specializes in employment brand strategy at TMP Worldwide, discussed this point at a recent Conference Board workshop…talking about how various iterations of the company’s positioning as an employer was too often inconsistent, and even contradictory.

Thinking about my own career, I can think of several instances where the external employment (or recruitment) brand was totally different from my interviewing experience, and even more so from the initial orientation and on-boarding. So either the corporate brand was misrepresented, or it was not effectively conveyed to prospects and/or hew hires. And that doesn’t even touch on the messages and positioning that are shared with established employees - which are too often aspirational cheer-leading rather than a reflection of reality or cogent strategy. Furthermore, the actual work experience (an ocean of cubicles?) and HR programs (such as benefits or performance evaluations) sometimes don’t jibe with the company’s stated identity or culture. Add in typically woeful efforts to reach out to alumni, who are potential recruits and brand ambassadors, and you have a very disjointed employee experience. And we wonder why most employee campaigns are met with skepticism and are dead on arrival. Needless to say, it’s difficult if not impossible to have a clear, compelling external image as an employer if the situation is as sclerotic as described above.

Enlightened companies should put much more effort into defining and promoting a consistent brand positioning with prospects, new hires, employees and alumni. This will by necessity need to involve folks from various teams and agencies, and it may take some hard work to define the employment brand - both real and desired. But it’s work well worth doing. Otherwise, employees and prospects will continue to view corporate positioning efforts with cynicism and scorn.

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.

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.

One of the most interesting lessons from the Citibank debacle and recent firing of CEO Charles Prince is the importance of culture as a make-or-break factor in business success. As noted in this WSJ cover story, Prince and his leadership team were never able to unite the disparate fiefdoms in the sprawling Citibank empire, and as a result could not hope to achieve the strategic goal of providing a one-stop shop of financial services. The article mentions defiant Citigroup bond traders still answering their phones as “Salomon” years after the brand was ostensibly retired, and also highlights the dysfunctional and even antagonistic relationship between the various business segments and brands. It’s interesting to note that Citi apparently put considerable energy behind an internal branding campaign promoting “One Citi”, but as in many similar exercises this apparently was more an empty (and aspirational) slogan than a robust, change management effort. By all accounts there was no such thing as a coherent Citi culture, so there was nothing cultivated to replace the various cultures left over from the Travellers & Citibank merger. Companies that seek to promote a unified culture need to remember a few golden rules:

- You can’t artifically create a culture out of a vacuum, but should rather build on existing norms and values

- Employees need an incentive to embrace or support a culture, with clear “benefits of membership” rather than just platitudes

- Talk and slogans are often not enough to encourage alignment and drive cultural change - usually the effort must include personal incentives (or “sticks”) to change behaviors, structural and strategic adjustments, new orientation and training programs, and so on

- Much like consumers shape the external brand through their perceptions and opinions, employees ultimately own the corporate identity

The ultimate lesson is that any CEO trying to impose or promote a culture without considerable due diligence and follow-through is doomed to failure. Yet another reminder that a strategy is nothing without people.

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.  

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.

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.  

Like many others, my professional role requires that I try to figure out how the Web will continue to evolve. The question on my whiteboard is: “What is coming six months down the road…and what should we do about it?” Check out this post from bub.blicio.us detailing some of the latest theories about how things will turn out. I’m not enough of a tech geek to decipher which idea has the most merit, but I am intrigued by the concept of a more semantic Web - where computers and artificial intelligence would play a bigger role in the search and aggregation of content. Looking ahead, I have concerns about the nefarious impact of persistent (or worsening?) problems like spam, “Black Hat” search techniques and vitriolic personal attacks that seem to plague the Internet. Whatever the future looks like there will need to be improvements that allow users to find and use relevant information in an ever-expanding sea of content. Another important factor not mentioned prominently in the blog discussion is commerce - what tools and channels will manage to be viable businesses, and which innovative technologies will attract funding? Ultimately, however, I go back to the people rather than the technology or the markets. What are the emerging consumer trends? How are online habits changing? What products and services will be most critical in the years ahead? Starting from that point should keep me relatively close to the next iteration of the Web - I hope.

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.

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.  

One of my latest projects at work is helping to define and drive a search strategy for the organization. Given that I was something of a neophyte in this arcane field, it’s been a huge learning curve the past couple of weeks - organic vs. paid, “white hat” vs “black hat”, link farms, spamdexing…it’s a whole new lexicon to a strategy geek like me. I’ve read a bunch of interesting posts from the recent SEO Conference in San Diego, including this one on buying links. The most striking lesson for me is how critical search technology, and related tactics, have become in this Web environment. I sort of knew it was important, but had little understanding of the level of activity (and angst!) below the surface. And the landscape keeps on shifting, as search companies like Google tweak their secret algorithms, SEO consultants hype their evolving models and content continues to proliferate. For PR practitioners, understanding how to make materials “search friendly” has become a prerequisite rather than a nice-to-have skill.  Marketers eager to pump the profile of their websites or videos need to put as much thought into tags and linkage tactics as the actual content. And of course, there is no shortage of folks with dubious credentials eager to sell magic formulas to those seeking an edge. Add this to the long list of topics marcom professionals will need to learn as part of the Web 2.0 curriculum, if they haven’t already.

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.  

I just finished an energizing two-day event with my employer which featured most of the leading marketing/communications agencies in the world sharing their insights about how to drive positive word-of-mouth in the digital world. I can’t really get into any details or names to retain the confidentiality of the meeting - which was aimed at the global marketing team - but I thought it would be useful to share some of my observations. [Full disclosure: I helped organize the session.]

First, though there is still great variance between companies and agencies with regard to their awareness and adoption of Web 2.0 technology, there seems to be consensus among marcom professionals that the digital world opens up incredible new possibilities for marketers. Sounds like a truism, but it’s good to see that fewer professionals are fighting the tide and trying to avoid the inevitable reality of change.

Second, companies need to focus on their “happy” customers as much or more than they do on the naysayers and complainers. Too many companies make it difficult to be a fan and fail to fully leverage their greatest potential advocates.

Third, to be successful companies need to integrate word-of-mouth or digital tactics into their broader marketing and advertising programs - which can include traditional paid-media. One-off tricks or disparate, unlinked efforts will not succeed in tangible change in consumer opinions.

Fourth, companies that are serious about jumping into word-of-mouth need to have a global perspective. Customers will obviously have different habits, interests and preferences depending on their location, but it was clear to me that agencies from various parts of the world also bring their distinctive expertise and viewpoints. Just one example - the highly advanced state of mobile marketing on cellphones in parts of Europe and Asia.

Finally, it’s as important as ever to develop relevant metrics and analystics to help define and track success. While many observers acknowledge some of this work requires a leap of faith - trying to find the perfect ROI justification is likely a kiss of death - measurement is critical if these efforts are to gain traction and attract serious marketing funds.  

Judging from what I heard, two other areas that will have a strong impact on future developments in this area include: ubiquitous mobility and evolving search technology.  In both cases, marketers are faced with expanding opportunities (hello iPhone) but also increasing complexity.

All in all, a very interesting and thought-provoking exercise. Things seem just a bit different now that I’m back at my desk - and that’s likely a good thing.

Just read several accounts on IBM’s new guidelines for the “virtual conduct” of its employees in the online environment. Though the rules appear to focus on Second Life, they apply to any of the myriad online communities. (See this post on how the rules apply to employee blogs.) IBM is not the first to develop new guidelines for roaming the Web 2.0 world (I’ve helped develop the same in my own company) but from what I’ve seen they strike a good balance between common sense and critical legal protections. On several occasions, I’ve had discussions with corporate execs who are paralyzed with angst at the prospect of developing new internet rules for their employees. They are over-thinking this. Many of the basic regulations should parallel what companies already have in place (e.g. confidentiality of information, inappropriate language) and more specific Web guidelines should be fairly obvious to anybody familiar with the emerging websites and technology. (And there are plenty of great examples out there that companies can draw from - that’s one of the best things about the Web.) Ultimately, company guidelines need to encourage and direct candor and transparency - that’s the price of entry in the Web 2.0 world. Any rules that stifle timely and forthright conversation will be counter-productive and limit the credibility of the outreach.     

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 f