Once again, my reaction to Meeker’s analysis is focused not so much on her conclusions, which are cogent and important, but in the apparent gap between technology trends and the state of corporate communications. Allowing the caveat that my perspective is totally subjective and anecdotal (based on recent first-hand experience with perhaps twenty organizations largely based in North America) I see some notable gaps.

Let me start with a snapshot of relevant trends from Meeker’s presentation:

• Globalization – More than 80% of users of the world’s top internet properties (including Facebook and Google) live outside the United States. In 3 years, China added more internet users than exist in the U.S.
• The Web is social – Social networkers around the world now outnumber internet users.
• Mobility – Mobile technology (led by 3G Smartphones and the unprecedented adoption of tablets) continues to grow at historic rates. Mobile search and access to social networks is growing rapidly. Mary suggests the mega-trend of the 21st   Century is the empowerment of people via mobile, connected devices.
• Digital content – User interfaces and digital content is moving from text and icons to a new combination of sound/touch/video. Content is now accessed, moved and altered through a simple touch on the screen.
• Content aggregation – Content is increasingly being packaged, and accessed, though sites that aggregate rather than create original content.

Now let’s compare each of these trends to what I typically see in my communication work:

• Globalization - Most companies struggle with truly global communications, and rarely make a concerted effort to ensure their content is representative and relevant across their international locations. Call it the HQ syndrome. Many don’t bother to address the most obvious challenge of foreign language in their corporate outreach; English is the default language, even in organizations with a majority of staff outside North America.
• The Web is social - Despite the tremendous growth and opportunity of social technology, many organizations still hesitate to introduce even the most basic social platforms (such as internal blogs) despite the fact most intranet platforms now come with built-in social capabilities. Even fewer encourage and train their staff to be online ambassadors or interact with customers. Some organizations have yet to introduce employee Web policies.
• Mobility - Despite the proliferation of mobile devices, only a hand-full of companies I’ve worked for/with use company-supplied or personal devices for communication purposes, and that is often limited to text digests. Even organizations with many remote staff and/or manufacturing environments where workers don’t have access to computers, mobile outreach is limited. Many companies still ban use of iPhones or other Smartphones that aren’t officially supplied.
• Digital content - Text pushed out via email is still king in corporate communications, with a surprising paucity of original video content, and even less packaged audio (though I’ve seen…or heard…some innovative programs that leverage podcasting and DVDs to train or inform staff.) The ubiquitous Powerpoint slides, which can now feature interesting visuals and compelling design, are often limited to busy, generic text. Photos are becoming more common, but there is rarely a proactive program designed to help create and share original photography. In terms of interfaces, I’ve yet to see an intranet (or many external websites) that’s anything close to the iconic, visualized interface used by many technology providers.
• Content aggregation – Too many companies still believe in the build-it-and-they-will-come come mantra, limiting their online presence to official corporate sites with dubious prospects. (The obvious exception is companies that market and sell online.) Most content on corporate sites is usually produced by the organization, and often self-serving. On the internal side the same trend applies, but with even less access to external content or feeds. Usually, a fairly rigid hierarchy of approved authors prevents staff from being active content contributors.

Even allowing for aversion to risk and cultural differences across workplaces, I’m surprised our profession appears so out of step with emerging trends. From personal experience, I know it’s difficult to go against corporate inertia, but we risk losing our credibility and relevance if we don’t counsel our clients/leaders to consider these trends and look for opportunities to innovate and improve.

• Social media is very risky for organizations…probably too risky
• It’s very difficult to regulate and monitor social media interaction

As I’ve written before in this blog over the years, I think the fears of social media are overblown and misdirected. Yes, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook allow content and commentary to spread globally quickly – whether it’s positive or critical. But a cursory review of the most celebrated social media snafus (including the one referenced above) reveals that in most cases the controversy could easily have been avoided with basic common sense: Don’t lie. Don’t use inappropriate language or content. Be nice. Play fair. I would argue these are the same guidelines employees would use with any other workplace forum or channel (including company email.) In fact, I am often amazed at how ridiculous and ill-advised these controversial posts are…causing me to ask rhetorically what were they thinking?

The issue of monitoring and managing social media outreach is also surrounded by misconceptions. Companies can use a wide range of user-friendly tools to monitor the Web and track posts, triage comments or questions and identify emerging trends. With regard to organization, many of recognized social media leaders use a small, dedicated team and simple planning process to direct their social media efforts. In other words, this doesn’t have to be that overly costly or complicated. The barriers to entry for social media are very low for individual and institutional users alike.

Rather than blaming social media channels – which are inherently neutral and provide incredible platforms for robust, real-time conversation with millions of users – company leaders should spend more time selecting and training their staff, and determining the strategic purpose of their social media activities (even if they are mostly passive and reactive.) These steps don’t have to be onerous. Many of the most successful companies actively using social media – notably Dell, IBM, Best Buy and Starbucks – have clear and simple policies and objectives. And determining if and how you want to get involved can (and should) be shaped by due diligence and strategic planning.

The fact that some have made mistakes using social media platforms is an indictment of the culprits, not the technology.

The NHL’s new head of player safety, Brendan Shanahan, has introduced an innovative “show and tell” video strategy to support the league’s aggressive campaign against dangerous hits. In past years, decisions on dirty hits and related penalties were unpredictable and delivered in opaque, often belated statements. Not surprisingly, many players and pundits complained (and presumably many referees were left equally perplexed and frustrated.) Notwithstanding the merit of their decisions, the league didn’t successfully argue their case. Shanahan entered the fray with the fearless purpose he used as a tough power forward. In the first weeks of his tenure, Shanahan assessed a number of fines and penalties and argued strongly against what he saw as dangerous, illegal hits.  But unlike his far more circumspect predecessors, Shanahan reached out directly to players and used game videos and footage of the infractions to make his case. In one video, in response to critics shouting that he’s taking the hitting out of the game, Shanahan explicitly shows a series of clean hits, and explains how those differ from others that resulted in penalties. The video campaign is supported by a healthy menu of interviews, TV appearances and fan events. It doesn’t hurt, of course, that Shanahan is a former player with a stellar pedigree as a tough, fair competitor.

The reaction of hockey fans and players, at least anecdotally, has been dramatic and positive. Players now understand the reasons for the discipline, and the nuances that justify different fines for apparently similar infractions. Some players still disagree with the fines and suspensions, of course, but there is much more clarity about the reasons behind the league actions.

The lesson here is two-fold. This is a good reminder that how you present information can make a big difference in how it’s received. Nothing new there. But the NHL also shows us you don’t have to use cutting-edge social platforms to have an impact. Straight talk. Some replay footage. A user-friendly website. A consistent message.

This article sparked some discussion among my peers about the role of communication in politics, and raised some interesting issues. This story seems to provide additional evidence that lackluster communications is a serious liability in politics, particularly when coupled with lack of personality and/or compelling policies. That seems fairly straight-forward: bad policy mixed with bad communications is bad politics. But it’s doubtful Mr. Kan could have survived even if he was a great communicator, given the intractable challenges of his situation. The tantalizing question – which is raised often in American politics – is whether great communications is enough to overcome shallow or dubious policies, or questionable activities.

I’ve long argued you can’t communicate around a bad policy or decision, but that good communication is the price of entry in politics and can make a huge difference in how people perceive things. Many critics of President Obama, to use one example, frequently criticize him for being an emperor with no clothes…a strong orator and superior communicator with little follow-through and disastrous policies (their words.) Whatever your views on President Obama or his administration, I would argue he’s given himself a fighting chance at re-election by putting the best face possible on his ideas and programs. It will be interesting to watch how the two parties argue for their political recipe and vision over the coming months.

Perhaps the best lesson here about the value of communication in politics can be found in the amazing story of President Clinton – who leveraged his strong two-way communication skills and ability to empathize to re-election and ultimately public redemption. Initially, his ill-advised personal issues and obfuscation seriously damaged his reputation and leadership, but over time his affable communication style played a big role in his rehabilitation. His greatest gift was not only the ability to share information in a way that was relevant to citizens outside the beltway, but to listen and adapt his message (and presumably his policies) for maximum resonance and impact. He also seemed to become more candid and less calculating over the years…foibles and all. Perhaps that the ultimate requirement of good communication in politics: honesty.

The big takeaway from this study is that data suggests there is huge demand for a more social, interactive relationship with brands online. Almost half of active internet users – who collectively visit social networks 1.5 billion times every day – are joining brand communities. This is occurring despite a steady decline of users visiting “official” company websites and the prominence of peer-to-peer brand recommendations. In short, consumers increasingly want to engage with brands in social media, but on the right terms. The key, according to the report authors, is to identify the kind of relationship users want with brands, and to create corresponding social media programs. Put another way, companies must understand the needs and motivations of consumers as a critical first step in their social media planning. The catch is that these needs differ widely by country, topic (or category) and audience – so brands should seek granular information on their target consumers to detail their habits and preferences. This approach means selecting the platform or network comes last, not first. And that doesn’t mean returning to the hard sell, which still remains anathema to many internet consumers.

Here are other highlights of the survey:

• Social networks have become more embedded in our everyday lives as the range of online activities and frequency of usage continues to increase;
• Social media use varies widely depending on geography and user demographics;
• Users have a wide range of motives for accessing web platforms, and select different platforms for different purposes. (Again these motives vary widely by geography.)
• Though penetration among 16-24 year olds remains highest, the 25-34 age bracket has seen the biggest jump in usage (from 52% to 70% in 3 years);
• Social networks have become the main forum for social interaction, even bypassing face-to-face contact;
• Content sharing continues to be popular, though it’s now occurring on a wider range of platforms;
• Personal blogs and forums are losing some traction, but are also becoming more specialized and targeted. Micro-blogging, on the other hand, has quickly grown into a mass market activity;
• There’s been a significant shift to accessing social media through mobile devices and applications;
• On the brand front, primary reasons for joining brand communities (usually on social networks) include learning about the brand/product, getting advance news on products, and gaining access to free content.

Brian Solis, a thought leader with Altimeter Group, recently published a helpful checklist of best practices for brand building in social media.  Beyond the useful tips, Solis highlights some of the common challenges – and shortcomings – of social media activities in the marketplace. Perhaps most notable is the stubborn focus on marketing – impulsively building branded properties across social channels primarily to promote the brand and spur sales – at the expense of relevant content and sustained engagement. This myopic approach fails to consider the ultimate litmus test for any social media strategy: is the activity/channel providing relevant, long-term value to targeted consumers? Not surprisingly, there is still a strong “push” reflex to many of the social media programs.

But lack of strategic focus and self-serving outreach are not the only problems. In my experience, the biggest and most surprising shortcoming is the lack of originality and innovation in the social media activities of many organizations. Many programs are tentative forays (branded Facebook pages) using obvious, safe paint-by-number templates. But for those who are interested, and motivated, there are plenty of successful, smart programs that go beyond the ordinary and manage to break through the noise. As one example, check out Secret’s anti-bullying campaign – Mean Stinks. As noted in this AdAge article, while many of the ingredients (channels) in the campaign are fairly typical, the recipe of multi-media tactics and content is original and fresh (no pun intended.)  Included in the mix are a “good graffiti” app, referral info for counseling centers, a donation tie-in and the ability to upload personal video apologies or complaints. The result has been rapid growth in fans/friends, strong repeat traffic and a notable boost in Secret deodorant sales. (The program included links to purchase P&G products – a reminder that an appropriate link to sales platforms can be part of the mix.)

So what can we learn from this? While many organizations need to spend the time developing robust, focused social media plans, they can’t forget to add the pixie dust of creativity. That will help ensure they break through the noise and truly engage with their customers and fans. Smart, memorable marketing apparently never goes out of fashion.

This reaction, though understandable, is rash and misguided. For one thing, it fails to consider that social media was also used by citizens to organize clean-up efforts and counter-demonstrations in support of order and civility. Video reports gathered by police and observers also greatly facilitated the identification of the rioters and spurred thousands of arrests. But most importantly, this focus on technology is a losing game, since those with initiative and evil intent (rioters, hackers and the like) will quickly find another channel or tool to plan their activities.

This scenario of social media as both spark and balm during civil unrest is being repeated on a regular basis. A few months ago the city of Vancouver was shocked and disgusted by urban violence and looting during the Stanley Cup finals – some of which was coordinated and fueled by social media. But again citizens of Vancouver used the same technology to plan a massive clean-up effort and to open a widespread public dialogue on the identity and values of the community. In a different context, we’ve seen how social media helped those involved in the so-called Spring Uprising in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. More recently, transit officials in San Francisco arbitrarily cut-off underground cellphone service for several hours to – in their words – prevent a disruptive protest by citizens upset by a recent shooting.

It’s clear that social media technology provides unprecedented benefits – allowing for instant, fluid communication with global reach. And it’s equally clear that this same technology can be used for evil purposes – whether it be pedophiles trolling on Facebook or anarchists using networking platforms to engage and direct supporters. The way to address these abuses is not to ban or censor the channels, but to develop relevant rules of engagement – and laws – that are designed specifically to prevent such abuses. If an individual breaks the rules or uses the networks for criminal activities, then he/she should be punished and/or banned. The response should be targeted and specific, and based on activity rather than speculation. The alternative is blunt, arbitrary shutdowns that punish many for the abuses of the few. As suggested by Jeff Jarvis in this commentary, any social media ban – even if targeted against convicted rioters – sets a dangerous precedent and raises questions about who decides what to censor. This is a valid and important debate, but it requires a balanced, measured approach that acknowledges the positive impact of social media – even in the worst situations of rioting or war.

Indeed, a recent article by McKinsey provides another layer of accumulating empirical evidence that global consumers are increasingly communicating and conducting business through digital devices. This study mirrors a recent report by Forrester (presented at SXSW 2011) that suggested employees – most of them wired, social networkers – were increasingly using their technology within the workplace, firewalls and rules be damned. [FYI: both these articles may have restricted access and require registration.]

Here are some highlights of the McKinsey study:

• Nearly 50 percent of US online consumers are now advanced users of smartphones, social networks, and other emerging tools—up from 32 percent in 2008;
• Social networks, particularly Facebook, are emerging as the dominant digital-communications channels. For people aged 34 and under, they already are the preferred channel (by minutes of use per day), displacing e-mail, texting, and phone calls. Social-network use, growing swiftly among all segments of our survey population, has doubled among those over 55;
• As the usage and processing power of smartphones increase in tandem with the rising speed of 3G and 4G data networks, mobile devices are invading the domains of single-purpose gear such as game consoles and portable media players, as well as PCs. Smartphones are also becoming the device of choice for e-mail, Web browsing, and product research;
• As digital platforms multiply, consumer video-viewing habits continue to change. Among our survey respondents, 69 percent now view videos on their PCs and 33 percent on their smartphones;
• Only 24% of respondents are considered “traditionalists”, or consumers who are less interested in internet browsing and social networking and are more likely to read print newspapers.

Given this data, there seems little doubt that discussions on communication or marketing strategy, and more specifically social media planning, can start from the premise that the majority of our audience are digital natives, or largely wired and fluent in social media. And that cuts across geography, job and income level – though there are still important variations based on these demographic variables. In a sense, the conversation should now shift from if to how or what we need to do differently.

Of course, this has important repercussions for communication professionals, whether the focus is PR or internal communications. At minimum, we need to plan based on this new reality, and ideally take advantage of the emerging opportunities to use fresh, original strategies. I like the approach proposed in another recent McKinsey article that argued that in this digital age we are all marketers. As the headline puts it: “engaging customers today requires commitment from an entire organization – and a redefined marketing organization.” Here’s an excerpt:

For the past decade, marketers have been adjusting to a new era of deep customer engagement. They’ve tacked on new functions, such as social-media management; altered processes to better integrate advertising campaigns online, on television, and in print; and added staff with Web expertise to manage the explosion of digital customer data. Yet in our experience, that’s not enough. To truly engage customers for whom “push” advertising is increasingly irrelevant, companies must do more outside the confines of the traditional marketing organization. At the end of the day, customers no longer separate marketing from the product—it is the product. They don’t separate marketing from their in-store or online experience—it is the experience. In the era of engagement, marketing is the company.

This bold, innovative approach is a useful model for communication professionals. We must avoid falling into old patterns and timid ideas and instead develop new programs that are resonant and relevant to this population of digital natives. In short, we need to change. And we need to help our clients change. With the overwhelming evidence of the increasing reach and impact of new technology on consumers (including our employees and peers), there’s really no excuse for inertia.

This argument has been a mainstay of frustrated politicians, executives and artists for generations when they receive less than positive media coverage or public reaction. And it’s an absolute waste of time. Yes, it true that networking platforms like Twitter and Facebook have become super highways for word-of-mouth – good or bad. And yes, its true that news media can sometimes sensationalize, focus on soundbites at the expense of context, pile on and…gasp…even inject some of their own bias in their reporting. But in the vast majority of communication snafus – resulting in a negative coverage and/or word-of-mouth – the driving force behind public reaction lies in the original statement, policy or product rather than the channel through which information or opinion is disseminated. Communication channels can help to amplify or influence public reaction, but they have no inherent bias or purpose in themselves.

So instead of blaming a platform like Twitter – which is merely an extremely convenient channel for sharing comments and ideas and provides a voice to millions of global users – folks like Taylor and Gingrich should focus on their own role in the communication process, and probe the reasons behind the mixed public reaction and commentary. In fact, implicit in these complaints about evil media messengers (or social platforms) is that the public reaction they reflect (and generate) is somehow unfair, or even misguided. This reflects a certain arrogance and tin ear, a trait that has caused the downfall of many public figures. A better approach is to accept the verdict of the public or fans and learn from the feedback.

The lesson for communication professionals – and for executives and artists seeking to promote their message or craft their public image, is that there is nowhere to hide in this era of real-time, 24/7 news coverage and social networking. News and commentary will travel fast and wide, and not all of it will be positive or even logical. There is still room to manage the public discussion and promote your agenda or argument, but don’t blame the messenger, or the customer, if things don’t work out the way you wanted. Instead take a look in the mirror.

My friend Jeff Hunt of PulsePoint Group, for example, recently argued in this post that too much emphasis on collaboration – without clear rules of engagement – can stifle innovation. In a similar vein, a recent client worried that introducing new internal networking platforms would encourage staff to indulge in aimless discussion and prevent objective, quick decisions. The question of efficiency almost seems contradictory, given the immediacy and ubiquity of social media platforms…where developments are measured in minutes rather than days.

From my perspective, the answer to this rhetorical question is…yes: Collaboration and conversation can slow decision-making and hamper execution if you don’t support your social media efforts with streamlined processes and clear guidelines. If you want to introduce new crowd-sourcing tools – either with customers or employees – introduce a streamlined process to evaluate entries and decide which ideas get implemented. If you want major decisions to be reached through dialogue and consensus, set clear time and participation limits and confirm who makes the final call. If you have something to communicate that doesn’t require widespread participation and rumination, try meeting in small groups or – gasp – make a phone call. Collaboration and conversation will by its nature be somewhat messy and unpredictable, but it can and should be directed and managed by simple, clear rules.

Most importantly, perhaps, leaders should recognize that not all decisions should be left to group-think or need to be curated by teams. Getting input on a new shoe design or naming an intranet are not in the same category as planning a time-sensitive product launch or making organization changes that require surgical, timely decisions. In other words, pick your spots. Know when to listen, to invite comment, to encourage ideas, to foster debate…and when to just act.

This discussion is yet another illustration that social media is neither a panacea for business salvation nor a productivity-destroying albatross. New technology provides incredible capabilities to foster virtual, multi-media conversation and collaboration with a global audience. But it doesn’t replace the need for focused, deliberate management and robust planning to ensure things get done right and on time.