Workforce 2.0 Still Work in Progress

Judging by what I’m seeing and reading, an increasing number of companies are considering how they should leverage social media to communicate with their customers,  influential journalists or even critics. Many are engaged in outreach programs using some of the available applications and tools. But surprisingly fewer companies seem to be applying the same diligence and effort to their internal audiences beyond ensuring their employees are somehow informed or involved – in some capacity – with their external programs.

A cursory look at the available research and some case studies provides some hints on the reasons for this ambivalence.  A Watson Wyatt report suggests social media can improve internal communication and employee engagement…but also confirms many companies focus on potential risks and inhibit access to tools. A survey by Avanade (a global IT consulting firm) found more than half of the 500 top executives surveyed resist the adoption of social media out of fear it would sap worker productivity. A survey by IABC/Buck found 4/5 of respondents use social media frequently to drive productivity & engage employees – but 56% of executives are not using social media.

There is ample anecdotal and empirical evidence, however, that supports the premise that providing a robust forum for internal dialogue and collaboration should pay rich dividends for organizations and drive employee engagement. MIT research shows 40% of creative teams’ productivity is directly explained by the amount of communication they have with others to discover, gather, and internalize information. Other MIT research shows employees with the most extensive digital networks are 7% more productive than their colleagues, and those with the most cohesive face-to-face networks are 30% more productive.

With this background, I would make the following arguments:

1.The best social media strategy is proactively integrated across audiences, objectives and platforms

2.Your internal audience should not be an add-on – your employees are potentially your biggest fans & best advocates…or biggest critics

3.Every company should provide a robust forum for employee conversation & collaboration

I would further advocate that all companies should strive to develop their own Workforce 2.0 culture – defined as an organization shares information/content freely – allowing employees to help create and share content – and provides employees with platforms/tools to engage in candid conversation, work together, solve problems and contribute to the evolution and success of the organization. This 2.0 culture entails four key attributes – transparency, trust, empowerment and innovation. Perhaps it is these philosophical and cultural requirements that are the stumbling block for many companies, rather than technology or myopia.

I’m certainly not suggesting that all companies should follow the same social media strategy or dive in without careful diligence and planning. The formula need not be complex or expensive, but it should be smart and driven by business objectives. But organizations that don’t address this issue are missing a huge opportunity…and risk becoming increasingly irrelevant in the marketplace.

Twitter Shows Real Value and Promise

There’s been plenty of articles and discussion in recent weeks that confirm the fact that Twitter has gained kudos and gravitas as a valuable – if not indispensable – communication platform. The tweets on the demonstrations in Iran are only the latest example of the unexpected value of the networking platform. Clearly, few would still designate Twitter as a silly, trivial fad (though it can be both). Probably the best article I’ve seen on the topic is the recent Time story, which has been making the rounds in recent weeks (via Twitter I might add). The Time article details the unexpected depth of Twitter and focuses on the value of the social networking elements – the ongoing conversations and updates which blend personal updates, guerrilla news, chain discussions and recommendations.

In the early discussions on the value of Twitter, some questioned how it could be monetized or give birth to the killer business application. They were missing the point. Though Twitter has certainly shown its value as an immediate and informal news network, it also provides for a social interaction platform that provides intangible but unique and important benefits to its users. Call it human contact…but in a virtual setting. The author calls this having ambient awareness about developments across your social network. It’s proved particularly useful as a communication platform around events or conferences, as noted by Time, where conversation can be captured, shared and dissected instantly by a fluid community of users. This human element – shaped by millions of users both near and far in a shifting sea or followers and friends – is one of the strongest assets of Twitter.

The article also points to the emerging power of the search function on Twitter – which allows users to jump on any topic and has fostered the rapid spread of “super fresh” news (blending informal updates and personal captions) on major global events – and use of links, which opens the door to sharing much more than the original 140 characters.  There are also accounts of how users have helped to shape the evolution of the platform – yet another example of the amazing wisdom of crowds. The article also raises very interesting questions about the eclectic definition of news and advertising on Twitter. But buried at the end of the article is perhaps one of the most important lessons about Twitters’s emergence – that Twitter reflects the incredible social innovation and creativity that fuels social media and related technology. That is the most lasting value rather than the platform itself, which will doubtless continue to evolve and morph.

Is Google Search Dominance Threatened?

As I immerse myself in my feeds and try to catch up on social media news and trends – after relative isolation behind corporate firewalls – one of the most interesting stories I’ve seen relates to the shift in search to social platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Check out this blog post by Steve Rubel on the topic, which documents the huge growth in search on Twitter. I’ve actually seen evidence of this trend in my own surfing habits…as I find increasingly find myself searching on whatever platform I’m on – whether it be LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook – rather than jumping out to search on Google. Part of the reason this is possible is the expanded traffic for these platforms and the fact many of my “friends” or contacts are reachable through the social networks, but I’ve also found even general results can be more relevant and intuitive than the regimented data from Google.

Could this be the tip of the iceberg for the end of Google’s dominance as the world’s default search engine? Google itself seems to be aware of this trend, as per this article on CNET, though they define this trend as “social discovery” and posit that friends will increasingly help us find information or sites. It will be interesting to watch as this issue unfolds.

Unions Jumping on New Media Bandwagon

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

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

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

Twitter Affirming Its Relevance

I have to admit that like many others I was initially skeptical of Twitter when I started using it a couple of years ago. It wasn’t clear to me how it fit into my tool-kit of social media applications – largely because I was already in the process of trying to narrow down my options  to retain my sanity. Truth be told, I’m still not a frequent user – though I have used it to keep in touch with friends and events. But putting aside my personal preferences I see increasing evidence that Twitter has become more than just a trival fad.

In just the past two weeks, I’ve seen several examples of how Twitter’s growing popularity, immediacy and reach has increased its relevance and value well beyond a virtual gossip cooler. Last week there was ample news coverage on the update tweets from “Astro Mike” from the space shuttle Atlantis. (Even though it appears Mike was actually forwarding his so-called tweets to NASA via email and the updates were not real-time, his content was unedited and the recipients were on Twitter.) Just today in the USA Today an enterprising reporter asked CEOs on Twitter to provide quick diagnoses on the economy via Twitter responses – sort of a social media version of quick sound bites. And there are many examples of Twitter buzz beating formal outlets or news organizations to the punch; a couple of weeks ago in Boston I heard about a subway stoppage – in real time via Twitter updates – well before the official announcement via the web. As Twitter becomes more integrated into other platforms and networks – such as Facebook – it should only increase in relevance and popularity. Check out a good summary of the Twitter hype – and the meat behind the hype – in this article. 

One of the lessons I see here is that it’s difficult to predict what social media tools will evolve into major platforms and which will fade into obscurity. I initially saw Twitter as the latter, but I now believe I erred in my assessment. Watching how these tools evolve – and perhaps even become profitable – is one of the most interesting elements of the Web 2.0 revolution.

PR Still Out of Sync with Social Media

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

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

Clinton Promotes More Candid Diplomacy

Only in the protocol-heavy, choreographed world of global diplomacy does basic candor create controversy. In her first global excursions new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has created waves across diplomatic circles with her “blunt and unadorned” style. Check out this article for a good summary of the commotion.

In addition to being direct and openly voicing policies that are usually inferred or shared only behind closed doors, Clinton showed a willingness to reach out directly to local news media and citizens, rather than just official channels. Critics  have complained that Clinton crossed “taboo lines” and broached the traditional etiquette that directs the careful tap dance of innuendo and jargon common to diplomacy. Others aren’t happy that Clinton has taken a clear stance on controversial issues (such as pushing for human rights in China) that doesn’t favor their position. (Presumably they were more comfortable with a non-committal.)

Clinton should be commended for her direct and expedient approach. It’s true that diplomacy must be modulated and tactful, but surely we are all better served if organizations and leaders spend less time crafting vague and inoffensive statements and more time addressing the real issues and disagreements. In the age of social media and transparency, diplomatic obfuscation is becoming an anachronism and obstacle to progress. Welcome to Diplomacy 2.0.

Social Media – Use With Caution…But Don’t Avoid It

The latest polemic about the perils of on-line communication – in this case the unfortunate Twitter comments by a Ketchum executive – provides more fodder for those who fear to tread in social media. Check out the summary of the developments on this AdAge post.  Certainly, there  is a lesson here (if we needed another one) that what you post on-line - no matter where it is or how innocuous it appears – can rapidly spark a domino effect of unintentional consequences. In this case, the Twitter post (with unflattering comments about Memphis) was discovered by FedEx employees, who in turn turned up the volume by sending their response to a broad swatch of FedEx executives. Once the executive was identified (he was in Memphis to present to FedEx as a social media expert) Ketchum was forced to do some predictable mea culpas.   

But I tend to agree with this AdAge columnist that the original tweet wasn’t much of a smoking gun, and that the tension increased largely because of the agency-client dynamic. So if there is a secondary lesson it’s that when you post on your own behalf – even through an alias on Twitter – you always need to consider how the content will reflect on your role as a PR professional, or agency representative. The line between personal and professional is nebulous and quickly forgotten when comments are lifted out of context or – as in this case – the content straddles the line.

Already, this small dust up is being leveraged by those who like to focus on the risks and uncertainties of social media. The incident has been mentioned to me several times within the context of “see what can happen…” with the unspoken suggestion that it may be better to avoid the whole messy thing altogether.  Few would deny the dynamics of social media – the global reach, the permanent legacy, the nasty vitriol, the shifting etiquette – require caution and thought. But the fact a pseudo scandal can spread quickly and unpredictably is no reason to avoid the Web.

PR Barking Up the Wrong Tree

Influential blogger Jeff Jarvis continues to make provocative arguments on why and how journalism is evolving in the face of social media and technological advances. In this recent article, Jarvis posits that the foundation, or best source, for relevant news coverage is no longer the article, but rather the topic itself. In his argument Jarvis suggests that articles are inherently incomplete, isolated, repetitive and temporary and cannot adequately present information.

Just think about it…how many times have you been fully satisfied in a search by finding one article on a specific story or topic? Typically my searches cover a wide range of sources (via specific searches and/or aggregators) and a fair amount of digging to get a complete picture. If I’m lazy, I’ll settle on the more comprehensive and authoritative sources (e.g. WSJ or CNN.com.) But even these sources are insular. As Jarvis suggests, news items need to be dynamic and linked to other sources to be truly relevant and complete. Increasingly, I’ll go to Wikipedia or be lucky enough to find a good social media release, which will provide me with a good sample of material…and a number of links to dig for more. 

The interesting twist on this argument is what it means for those trying to influence the media process - namely PR professionals. As I’ve said before on this blog, I find far too many practitioners are woefully ignorant of social media trends and continue to pitch like back in the 90’s…or even 80’s. As Jarvis suggests, this modus operandi is in danger of becoming even more irrelevant, and ineffective. The smart agencies and companies have recognized the evolving needs and preferences of users and are making it easier for news-hungry consumers to get a rich and balanced perspective. (Check out this social media release by Cisco as one example.) It will be interesting to revisit this issue in a few months to see if and how things have changed.

Learning to Listen

A recent post on PR Squared on the difference between “active” and “actionable” listening has some valuable lessons for PR professionals. Though the post focuses on the merits of listening to the blogosphere - and taking tangible actions in response to the input - the same logic applies to PR teams and executives struggling to listen to their employees. Much like on the external side of the house, too many companies still do a paltry or half-hearted job of listening to their employees. I’m not talking about the all-but-required annual survey – which often sits on the shelf gathering  dust balls soon after it’s completed - but having channels and mechanisms in place to track and process informal and formal employee feedback. Organizations who take this information and actually respond - through answers or actions – are even more rare. A select few even go to the extent of using crowd-sourcing, using their employees to guide their product development or strategic direction. 

Actionable listening, as PR Squared calls it, takes effort and commitment. Indeed, listening is an art that takes time to acquire. It starts with a leap of faith that listening to employees does not mean – despite the fears of some executives – that leaders have to agree with everything their staff say or do everything they want. But it does mean you have to take the input seriously and be genuinely open to taking  action in response to the information. Otherwise, the conversation will die on the vine.