I attended an industry event this week that reinforced that a massive gap in awareness, understanding and adoption of social media persists in the communication industry. I don’t claim my event was a representative sample - the participants were from 8 of the major corporations in the New England region - but I suspect the outcome would be replicated in most other regions of North America. Here were the highlights:

• Most participants are still trying to figure out the terminology, mechanics and possibilities of social media…hence their attendance at this event
• Excluding my situation…one of the groups had established an external blog (that didn’t allow comments or questions) and a couple of others were considering internal blogs. Only one company had what could be considered a full menu of social media applications - blogs, collaboration wikis, etc.
• Virtually all participants claimed the executives in their companies were hesitant and uninformed about Web 2.0, and the communication folks said they were struggling with how to explain and justify the benefits of social media
• The battle to retain control over the communication process - which I would argue is an illusiory and counter-productive exercise - is alive and well in the profession: a couple of the participants professed to be concerned they could no longer “control the message” and were not willing to take the chance of negative comments
• There was much angst about managing the risks related to engaging in social media, though those were never clearly laid out beyond mention of potential disclosure issues or lawsuits. I heard much less about the merits and potential benefits of engaging in conversations, addressing customers directly and driving more transparency and credibility.
• Surprisingly, the biggest internal barrier to engaging in social media was not the Legal departments, but the IT folks…a trend I’ve seen repeated in my career
• The focus of the discussion was on basic applications like blogs or wikis…and very little discussion of the wide range of marketing forays in social media

What’s the lesson here? Clearly, social media is still a work in progress for many in the communication industry. Those that are involved are typically way ahead of the others, and the gap does not appear to be closing. There is a lot of focus on clearly defining the purpose of engaging in social media - which I endorse - but also much debate and distraction on the obstacles and potential risks. Many companies have figured out solutions to the arguments typically raised by opponents or laggards, and most of it is really just common sense. The challenges of getting executives and CTOs on side is clearly a problem, but it’s also an opportunity: Who wouldn’t want to be in a position to be the expert and driving force on the most important communication trend of the past decade? If IT, the CEO or even marketing are wondering what to do, why not the PR or communication leader? Isn’t this what communication professionals have been asking for: a seat at the table?  

Chalk up yet another example of the wide reach and lasting impact of the Internet on traditional marketing. This report on the annual advertising purchasing by the major American TV networks has two main headlines: the ratings continue to plummet, and the participants continue to look for alternatives to the typical TV advertising blitz. More marketers are purchasing advertising “bundles” that go beyond the 30-second ad to include other media and placements. The new buzzword is apparently integration - buy a few ads, stream the show on select websites, place the product in the program or script, etc. Just to make things more exciting, the companies and networks are also trying to figure out how to measure the popularity of their programs - and the related advertising - in the new world of streaming (both free and pirated), iPhones and Tivo. Welcome to the brave new world.

For me, one of the most fascinating elements of the Web 2.0 revolution is the proliferation of free or almost free applications and services available on the internet. I know my last post was on this topic, but bear with me….I haven’t really heard a clear and convincing explanation of the phenomenon until I read this article in the Globe & Mail (a plug for Canada’s best newspaper) featuring an interview with Wired editor Chris Anderson.

Anderson argues that the new economics of the Web - where it is very cheap (and becoming cheaper every day) for anybody to establish sites and reach millions and bandwidth, storage and processing power are increasingly affordable - has fostered a new age of free economics. Anderson suggests that the obsession with finding a way to “monetize” online services and applications may be misguided, and is not a pre-ordained outcome for all companies on the Internet. He posits that the new model is a “freemium” where less than 1% of heavy users can subsidize free use for the other 99%.

I’m not an economist, but I found this discussion really compelling. And from what I’ve experienced, this trend is a definite reality and it’s had a very positive impact on the reach and impact of the Web. The implications for personal users are mind-boggling, but this is also relevant to professional communicators. The move towards freeware provides huge opportunities for those of us trying to build blogs or create and distribute digital content, but as I’ve argued before the concept is anathema to most IT departments, which are inherently risk-averse and susprisingly unfamiliar (from my experience) with social media. It will be interesting to watch when this trend towards free services enters the realm of corporate IT…if ever.

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

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

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

This recent account of Korn/Ferry’s rebranding efforts - which seem to be thoughtful and totally integrated across internal and external audiences - raises the question of why something so fundamental and logical as internal branding campaigns seem such a tough sell in many companies. Indeed, while many executives embrace the marketing principles behind the idea of promoting and celebrating a distinctive brand identity to customers, they often balk at applying the same logic with their own workforce. Why do we need to talk about our brand with employees? Don’t they already know who we are? Does this really help drive the business? Isn’t this just empty cheerleading? And what is the ROI of any internal brand campaign?

These are all appropriate questions, but they ignore the reality that ensuring employees understand, accept and deliver the brand promise is critical to a company’s success. And this is true whether the company sells directly to consumers or is more of a B2B operation. At the basic level, employees need to know what they must to do to deliver on the brand promise. Even better if they actually want to do their jobs well. On a higher level - perhaps harder to articulate and quantify - employees need to “live” the values and personality inherent in the brand. Ultimately, they have to be advocates of the brand across both personal and professional situations. None of this happens through osmosis or simply reheating marketing materials intended for customers.

All makes sense, right? So why is it so difficult to secure the funds for internal campaigns designed to educate employees about the brand and corporate identity, illustrate the brand attributes through examples or best practices or even celebrate the brand to generate enthusiasm and discretionary effort? It may be that executives are looking at all activities that fall under the umbrella of marketing and advertising - whether internal or external - with a more skeptical and cautious perspective these days. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, given the dubious track record and flawed logic of many marketing mantras (e.g. Super Bowl commercials are worth the cost.) Or it may be that in difficult economic times anything beyond basic communication about the nuts and bolts of the business seems superfluous.

Whatever the reasons, executives who ignore the internal profile and resonance of their brand do so at their own peril. Employees want to know who they work for and what their company stands for - not just how to do their job. And most employees want to feel proud about their company’s distinctive heritage, achievements and/or identity.   

Throughout the Microsoft-Yahoo merger dance, it’s been fascinating to try and detect how these companies were managing their internal communication strategy. There have been tantalizing hints provided through leaked memos and insider comments.

Yahoo appears to be doing things right - at least judging from this initial memo to employees (assuming it’s legitimate.) That means treating your employees like a critical audience on par with potential partners and sharholders and making sure they are informed and supportive of your position. Given the sorry track record of mergers and acquisitions - many of which are derailed due to cultural factors and lack of employee support - this would seem like a prerequisite.  The messages of Yahoo’s leadership team - pushing alternatives to Microsoft, appealing to cultural pride and suggesting Yahoo still has a promising outlook and sound strategy - are likely to be resonant among its employees. Despite Yahoo’s well documented troubles with Wall Street, it appears Yahoo employees appreciate their working environment and want to safeguard their culture.

Microsoft, on the other hand, may be fighting an uphill battle trying to convince its own workforce that the deal is worth fighting for. According to several reports, including this one and a recent expose in the Wall Street Journal (can’t read this one unless you have a subscription) there is strong opposition within Microsoft and employees are unhappy internal updates have dried up since the initial announcement. It’s difficult to tell whether this will be a critical factor in Ballmer’s decision making, but it should be.

Whether or not these insider accounts are accurate I don’t know. But the lesson here is that companies would be wise to treat their employees as a critical audience before, during and after any merger process. Is pre-merger employee anxiety to be expected? Do companies sometimes have to make tough decisions that entail difficult change in order to sustain their growth? Is dramatic change always a difficult sell? Yes, yes and yes. But executives shouldn’t ignore the comments and questions of their employees, who are often well positioned to understand the potential gains and pitfalls of any merger or acquisition. After all, they are the ones who have to make it happen.

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.

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

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

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

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

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