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.

I’ve been on the road most of the past week in  the US and UK and have watched with fascination as the Beijing Olympic Torch relay unfolds. Though the coverage across the various global media channels varied - I got info from everything from the BBC to USA Today to Le Monde - the story was fairly consistent. China’s attempt to burnish it’s reputation as a country and global leader through the Olympics is in shambles - at least so far. By any measure - save perhaps the assessment by the Chinese government officials - the relay has turned into a PR fiasco of historic proportions. After the carefully planned relay devolved into brawling and demonstrations - all captured by the global media TV cameras - Chinese officials tried to control the message by staging surreal non-events - such as the relay in India which banned any spectators and involved the runners going around an enclosed stadium dozens of times. They also added about 15,000 police for good measure. Subsequent stops were similar - heavy-handed security, private events and stitled celebrations with forced smiles all around. Beyond the politics of this development, what are the lessons here for communication professionals? Here are a few suggestions:

• In the digital era where global media -and citizen journalists - provide 24-day massive coverage of most events instantly, the stage-managed style of PR favored by countries like China is becoming more disingenuous and less effective. The only place where China can successfully control their message is in China, due to draconian censorship and state controlled media. China is learning that their propaganda productions don’t work so well in the real world. Welcome to the Web 2.0 world!
• There’s probably a lesson here how powerful the Internet has become as a news source and force for social movement and debate. Based on what I saw the Web served as an important platform in the planning, promotion, discussion and coverage of the torch demonstrations. Conversely, China seems able to control much of the internal national discussion through their tight censorship of the Web - though they are happy to loosen the reins when their citizens jump with nationalist frenzy with cries to boycott Carrefour stores.
• If anybody needed another reminder, companies that align their marketing with famous stars or countries with dubious track records do so at their own peril. Just yesterday Coca-Cola announced it was ”adjusting” its marketing plans for the remainder of the torch relay. Whether any of the countries can benefit from the Olympic Games themselves probably depends on whether China can turn the PR tides and stem the loud global criticism and avoid major boycotts. Either way, I suspect Lenovo will come out as the biggest loser. As a Chinese company, this is their global coming out party. Bad timing.
• Issues blend and overlap into a messy public relations morass where the public dictates the communication agenda, not corporations or governments. China clearly thought it could segment (or ignore) geo-political issues like Darfur, Tibet, tainted medicine and food and the environment and keep these distasteful issues from the Olympic Games. No such luck. Many saw the Games as precisely the right time to lump all these together into a loud proclamation for change by China. It will be interesting  to see whether China will try to defuse any of these issues (probably behind the scenes) or just continue to plow forward.
• Finally, I note that China’s main crisis-management strategy seems to be to paint demonstrators - and the Dalai Lama - as dangerous malcontents with a nefarious agenda. (Strange how Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe did the same thing this week, accusing critics of trying to re-colonialize his country.) In other words, when in trouble go on the attack. The track record of this tactic seems to be very bad, and I doubt it will work this time.

This is PR on a broad world stage. Let’s watch and see what happens. It’s shaping up to be an interesting summer.

Read an interesting post by my fellow Canadian at Buzz Canuck that does a good job of capturing the paradox that as online blog quantity grows blog quality appears to be going downhill. It does seem increasingly difficult to find good blogs that contribute original, insightful commentary rather than diatribes or just a digest from the usual aggregators. But another point that hit home for me, as a blogger, is the ongoing challenge to keep posts current, relevant and fresh. Like many others, I’ve cut down on the number of posts I write but strive to pack more punch (nutrition?) when I do post. That’s not always easy. I have as much trouble as anybody finding the time to write, let alone the content. And I probably don’t do a good enough job of engaging in conversations with fellow bloggers (commenting on their sites) rather than just using their posts as thought starters. But despite the warts, the blogosphere remains a vital part of my personal and professional development. The greatest value for me is that it forces me to listen, learn and think.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

 Do’s 

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

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

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

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

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

Dont’s 

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I’ve spent the past two weeks or so in Tanzania (to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro) and was curious to see how much this part of the world - considered a developing region despite the strong tourism presence - was participating in the digital revolution. My verdict, though perhaps anecdotal, is that even in this relatively poor, developing part of East Africa the digital revolution is a daily reality. Consider these snapshots:

- I am writing this post from one of several internet cafes in Moshi, which are typically crammed with locals and ex-pats catching up on email, checking their Facebook profiles or even using Skype to call home

- It’s possible to use a cell phone (or Blackberry) on virtually the entire Kilimanjaro mountain, and even to make a cell phone call from the summit - courtesy of a Chinese cellular network

- Cell phones are ubiquitous among the population of Moshi and the Kili guides. In fact, our guide used his phone (via text messages and calls) to coordinate his team and direct supplies across the various base camps

- By far the biggest marketing presence in the town and surrounding villages is for cell phone providers - Cell Tell and Vodaphone being the most prominent

- Schools designed to train locals in computer and internet technology are fairly common, and appear to be quite popular

Despite these positives, there are still drawbacks. On the internet side the vast majority of connections are via modem, and virtually useless for any type of rich content. Wi-fi hotspots are non-existent. Most hotels do not provide any sort of internet access (we had to borrow the reception desk at our hotel to send a few emails.) And both electrical power and mobile coverage can be spotty in some areas. But overall, with limited effort one can plug into the Web and use cell phones for both personal and business needs. I see all this as encouraging sign that the digital divide is becoming a relic of the past.

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

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

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

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

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

I read two articles over the weekend that both relate to challenges of measuring the popularity and impact of marketing activities online.

A recent New York Times report on the annual conference of the Association of National Advertisers - apparently a very big shindig for the ad community in the U.S. - notes that the topic du jour was consumer behavior as the guiding star of effective marketing. There was violent agreement among speakers, apparently, that basing marketing pitches on consumer behaviors - as opposed to attitudes or perceptions - was the right approach. Behaviorial targeting is in, and demographic pitches and opinion surveys are out. Of course, one of the inherent advantages of the Web is the ability to track consumer behavior online in minute detail - all the way down to individual customer purchase history and site visits. So companies left and right are now trying to read the data to make their marketing pitch more immediate and relevant. That’s good news for consumers, I would think. The more you know me the better chance you have of being relevant and credible.

For a different twist on the same topic, check out this post by the Bivings Report on a recent PR conference on measurement. Now I’m the first to admit I am quite cynical about PR conferences in general and read their output with a grain (rock?) of salt the size of a small car - largely for their propensity to solve all the PR world’s problems in 3-step plans or magic bullets…for a small fee. But what caught my eye here is the discussion on how to measure the impact of blogs and other consumer-generated media. The consensus: there is no definitive formula (yet) that will provide hard evidence of impact. But at least they are talking about it. I think Chuck Fitzpatrick of the Bivings Group hits the nail on the head when he says “the whole point of social media is the conversations it creates, which are hard to measure at all.” Bingo! At some point, we need to acknowledge that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to capture the nebulous impact of thousands of online discussions and individual contacts. But hasn’t that always been the case with off-line efforts? How much is it worth for a company employee to defuse a weekend BBQ debate on faulty customer service? Or for service reps to smile at folks when they enter the store? Or to provide exemplary service over the phone? At some point we need to accept on the basis of logic and faith there is a strong relationship between how a company acts with its customers and partners (individually and collectively, online and in person) and the popularity and success of that company. I’ve witnessed some pretty effective tracking that can measure the scope and tonality of online posts, tabulate a company’s outreach efforts and ultimately try to link that back to an increase in brand reputation and product sales. But it’s not a perfect science, and likely never will be. That should not stop companies from doing the right thing - one customer at a time.

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

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

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

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

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