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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Those of you who read my blog know I’m not a fan of most auto advertising. Even in recent months most of the material coming out of Detroit – in particular – has been trite, disingenuous and ultimately irrelevant (judging by the plummeting sales numbers.) It’s as if they believe they can fool us into ignoring all the bad news, as well as their uneven product, with hype and flash. So I’ve got to hand it GM for taking a stab at a fresh start – both in terms of its business future and its marketing. 

As outlined in this BusinessWeek article, the marketing campaign is refreshingly candid about GM’s troubles and essentially positions GM as a new company…asking for a second chance. Instead of trying to rehabilitate or avoid its recent debacles, the campaign seeks to accept blame and move beyond them. The storyline reads something like…we screwed up very badly, but we learned our lessons and are paying the price. We intend to move forward as a smarter, leaner company that builds products that you want. Really. Complementary campaigns for the surviving GM brands are set to begin in the coming weeks. This report in the NY Times is a good read on the marketing plan.

GM still has some old marketing habits it needs to break – witness the irrelevant patriotic filler in the ads – but this is good progress that will increase the relevance and credibility of the campaign. To its credit, GM is also investing a nice chunk of its marketing budget in social media, and will encourage new GM buyers to share their experiences on Twitter and Facebook. I’ll be watching to see what comments get through…that will be the ultimate test of GMs openness to customer feedback.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

If we ever needed more evidence of the dramatic shift in clout and relevance in journalism in North America witness the public excoriation of CNBC’s Mad Money host Jim Cramer by Jon Stewart last month. After being taken to task for hyping financial companies that soon imploded as part of the economic meltdown, Cramer embarked on a strange, ill-advised PR effort that threw napalm on the initial feud and ultimately left Cramer as the bruised, admonished loser.

A column in the USA Today by Robert Bianco suggests there are three lessons one can take from this media tussle:

1. Choose your friends wisely: Cramer sought support from blustery, ultra-conservative pundits like Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough and dubious public figures like Martha Stewart;

2. Know your enemy: Cramer initially dismissed Stewart as a comedian of little depth or consequence;

3. Know when to shut up: Cramer’s initial denials and attacks on Stewart were disingenuous, ill-advised and totally backfired.

To his credit, Cramer eventually saw the light and admitted he erred in a humiliating dressing-down by Jon Stewart himself. This was a worse beating than the one suffered by Ross Perot in the infamous debate with Al Gore on Larry King years ago. But by admitting his mistake and promising to do better Cramer at least staunched the bleeding and opened the door to public redemption. Though his credibility (whatever it was) has been severely damaged, he has shown he can learn from his mistakes…if belatedly.

There are two fundamental lessons from this episode, beyond the ones offered above. One, do not assume who has inherent credibility or clout based on their job or self-assigned credentials. Despite his defined role as a comedian, Stewart easily out-punched Cramer and his cohorts and showed himself (once again) to be a smart, credible and very influential commentator on issues of national importance. Two, know when to go quietly and avoid the spotlight. As noted by the USA Today, all publicity is not good publicity.