Smelling Fish: The White House

As an award-winning former campaign and political reporter with experience covering the Enron scandal in 2002 turned senior campaign advisor for the Obama campaign, Linda Douglas told Media Bistro that "my intention is that I won't spin … I absolutely vow that I will tell the truth.”

Unfortunately, it seems something happened on her way to the White House.

As communications director for the administration’s Health Reform Office, Douglas seems to be employing the White House's handicapped communication channel as a means for little more than pushing back against citizen dissent. In fact, her communication team suggests taking it one step further, asking everyday citizens to tattle on their friends, family, and neighbors to the government.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov" — The White House

While the post was penned by Macon Phillips, the White House director of new media who oversees Whitehouse.gov, which nowadays is closely coordinated with Internet operations at the Democratic National Committee instead of the American people, Douglas' late response to Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn's appropriately scathing letter clearly places credit where credit is due.

"There is a lot of misinformation about health insurance reform circulating on the internet and elsewhere. Some of it is intentionally misleading,” Douglas responded in an e-mail. “We want to be sure people have the facts about health insurance reform that will lower costs, protect consumers from insurance regulations that deny them coverage and assure quality and affordable health care for all Americans. We are not compiling lists or sources of information. We may post fact checks from time to time to be sure Americans know the truth about health insurance reform.”

By fact checks, Douglas seems to be referring to sound bites like those she used in her video appearance, placing what President Obama has said over what may or may not be included in any legislation. Specifically, she cites speeches where Obama has said that "if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them."

However, that bit of misinformation has already been vetted as inaccurate by media outlets like Investor's Business Daily because "Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." Given how often employees change jobs, the likelihood you won't automatically be enrolled at some point seems painfully obvious. And, worse, once you are in the grips of it, leaving seems likely to be reminiscent of the lyrics to "Hotel California."

But all that aside, the real communication debacle that Douglas will forever regret is allowing any mention of asking citizens to collect and report "fishy" communication, which takes us all the way back to McCarthy-era politics except without the benefit of Edward R. Murrow. Someone needs to share with Douglas the lessons learned from the past, taught by journalists who didn't trade their hats for political hocus pocus.

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. [...] We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. — Edward R. Murrow, See It Now

Murrow might have been talking about a time when external threats struck fear into the hearts of the people, but they apply equally well when peddling fear seems to be quickly becoming a pastime for White House politics, a place that ought to represent its owners (the American people) over political agendas.

That's right. Elected officials merely borrow the space. They do not own it outright.

And if that idea sounds fishy to you, feel free to submit this post to be scrutinized and "fact checked" by government staffers who are paid with your tax money to support the plan you may not even want. Maybe they'll learn something, even if it is something as simple as how one heavy-handed post in social media tends to erode credibility at a faster pace.

Americans have a right to express themselves publicly and ought to retain the right to express themselves privately, without fear that mere opinions may be reported to the government. Truly, if Douglas didn't want to know the sources, she ought to have suggested people ask questions about sections they might be confused about rather than submitting "sources" so they could be corrected.

What's the difference? The difference is communication intent. One request may seek to clarify (even if that clarification is spun up by professionals) while the other smacks of collusion.

What's the cost to White House credibility? When I mentioned the White House post during a presentation in a room full of people with mixed political leanings, they all raised their hands with the hope that the government might add their names too.

Understanding Adoption: The Case Against Telephones

"Mr. Watson -- come here -- I want to see you."

And so were the first words uttered by Alexander Graham Bell on March 10, 1876, on his first successful experiment with the telephone. While most people take the innovation for granted today, the initial adoption was relatively slow and plodding.

Why wouldn't it be? According to America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940 by Claude S. Fischer, even the telephone companies didn't really understand how to sell the service, primarily because adoption meant so many different things to different people.

Some people wanted a telephone for job-related reasons. Some people wanted it for social reasons. And most people, simply wanted it for emergencies, even if that was rare. Of course, that assumes they even wanted it. Most people didn't.

In fact, even as late as 1926, The Knights of Columbus Adult Education Committee conducted a study to determine whether the telephone weakened character, made people lazy, broke up home life, and reduced visiting among friends. And, by the Great Depression, many people dropped the service all together, either for financial reasons or simply because they considered it a bad habit. Do you see any similarities?

"Mr. Watson -- whatever you do -- don't call back."

As hard as it might be to believe, the same case being made against online communication is the same case that was being made against telephones almost 100 years ago.

Granted, Mike Trap, who authored a post at Scalable Intimacy, was only conveying the argument against social marketing as he was told by others. He's right in that social media advocates might listen to the complaints, concerns, and cynicism. However, it still makes for an amusing assessment if we apply these arguments as they might have been applied in the 1920s.

1. Telephones don’t make sense for 'our' business.

If your business is intensely regulated, requires personal presence, or targets a defined niche, then telephones aren't really for you.

After all, a regulated company requires only a select few who actually speak for the company; a personal service provider like a tailor obviously cannot serve customers over a telephone; and a proximity-based businesses (those serving people within a five-mile radius), clearly do not need a telephone when customers merely have to walk a few blocks to have their questions answered.

Furthermore, telephones are especially ridiculous because it allows someone to call and learn more about a company whenever they want. It's a distraction at best.

2. Telephone calls are “hard to measure,” meaning there’s no proof it works.

A savvy detractor could quickly dismiss the notion of having telephones, citing that not every call results in a sale. Besides, if people buy a product in a store, what else is there to talk about after the sale? Or, even more perplexing, why call the manufacturer when they can ask questions in the store with the product right in front of them.

While they may be interesting, the telephone presents no compelling logic to alter the status quo. Oh sure, there are anecdotes, but they always revolve around those few companies that already have telephones. Baloney.

3. Telephones lack reach to move numbers we care about.

Telephones are generally one-to-one communication. So how many people would you have to call in order to convince them to run out to your store for a sales bump?

That's so not scalable and it's almost silly. Obviously, having a telephone is a nice-to-have, not a must-have.

4. It's labor intensive, and excess capacity is hard to come by these days.

Let's put this in perspective. To use a telephone, you have it physically installed, join a service, hang around for awhile, give people an idea of what they might have to say, ANSWER the darn thing when customers call, talk to them, answer their questions, etc. Add it up and you'll quickly see that nobody will get any work done doing all that.

Next thing you know, you might even have to hire a receptionist to answer the phone or outsource part of the service to someone else. What a joke.

5. Brand development requires consistency of voice, not cacophony of “participation.”

Imagine the disaster that could be the result allowing just anyone who isn't the brand manager to answer the phone? One rogue employee having a bad day could destroy an entire customer experience. Bam, they are gone, just like that.

Nope, it's much better to have select people visit customers in person. It's much more controlled to interrupt them with a sale item in hand then it is to let them learn about our company whenever they want.

"Mr. Watson -- stay there -- and I'll put up a post for you."

You know, I'm fairly certain that given the comparatively slow adoption rate, many companies resisted buying a telephone for all the same reasons that some companies refuse to adopt social media on any level today. So rather than ask what holds them back, it might be more worthwhile to ask them where all those companies without telephones are today?

Perhaps we can hazard a guess. Those companies might be in the same place that 10 percent of all companies went when they told their customers to either visit in person or send telegrams. They became part of history.

Rebranding Blunder: Tropicana Orange Juice

Watching Peter Arnell, founder and chief creative officer of Arnell Group, explain the rationale behind the branding change of Pepscio's Tropicana package redesign is almost painful to watch. The clip from a press conference held five weeks ago is now archived at AdvertisingAge.

"Emotionally, it was very, very difficult, and it still remains difficult, for everyone to grasp the importance of that change because it so dramatic," said Arnell. "Of course, historically, we always showed the outside of the orange. Um, what was fascinating was that we had never shown the product called the juice."

Does he mean like EVERYBODY else?

Arnell, who suffers his own brand paradox, seems to have made a fatal mistake. Perhaps swept up by the bizarre sea of change occurring at PepsiCo, the redesign scheme for Tropicana Orange Juice was doomed from the start. Why? Because the concept was driven by an introspective redesign.

As consumers pointed out to The New York Times, the new packaging was “ugly” or “stupid,” resembling “a generic bargain brand” or a “store brand.” In fact, even after hearing Arnell's explanation, it's difficult to understand the logic behind a redesign that makes the product look like everybody else because the company had never tried that before.

Change For The Sake Of Change Is Naughty.

This isn't the first time marketers and consumers have questioned agency recommendations to embrace identity redesigns that don't hinge on the five best reasons to consider change. It won't be the last either. You see, the reality is that rebranding, especially when it's built on some guy's imagination without significant consideration of the external market, is an easy way to own an organization while the rebranding occurs and squeeze out some extra billing too.

During those relatively rare occurrences when rebranding makes sense, it's important to factor in what changes have occurred in the marketplace over what the company has done before. In other words, redesigning away from existing identity doesn't make any sense whatsoever if the creative only delivers a contrast to past creative instead of a contrast to competing products.

In the case of Tropicana, PepsiCo is now bowing to public demand and scrapping the changes and sticking the straw back in the orange, an image that was smart because it stuck with the consumer. While some might argue that the publicity might pad the price tag of the redesign, I disagree. The last impression you want attached to your brand is "stupid." Ironically, Tropicana orange juice will retain the "squeeze cap" concept, which makes you work a little bit harder to enjoy the product and makes me happy that my daughter prefers apple juice.

The bottom line: when agencies "sell" rebranding concepts, make sure the rebranding is market driven and not agency "sales" driven. Otherwise, the only thing your company will be stuck with is the bill.

Unconditioning Fear: Change The Communication

"What Would You Do If You Weren't Afraid?" — Haw

The quote, of course, comes from New York Times business bestseller Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life by Spencer Johnson. It's a good question to ask nowadays, especially with so many people settling into the notion that there is no more new cheese so we all have to protect the cheese we've got.

In fact, most people, including business managers and government officials, seem to be sitting around waiting for new cheese to magically turn up. Some people, like many economists, are saying we're going to run lower, and perhaps out, of the little cheese we have left. And President Obama seems to think that nobody has any cheese so we all better panic.

“The federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life,” he said.

"What Would You Do If You Weren't Afraid?" — Haw

In the parable, Haw realizes that it's better to start looking for new cheese than to worry about the cheese that dwindled away. And eventually, Haw begins to slowly lose his fear as he finds little bits of cheese here and there. The more often he succeeds, the more he learns "when you move beyond your fear, you feel free," until he finds bigger and bigger supplies.

But what if Haw had a strong influencer? What if Hem, who was Haw's friend, did more than stick to his victimized mindset and stay behind? What if every time Haw tried to leave in search of new cheese, Hem shocked him with a cattle prod? ZAP!

We already know what would happen. We know that the fear of a negative reinforcement, such as an electric shock, can condition people like Haw, in order to avoid the electric shock, do whatever Hem wants. And if Hem decides he doesn't want Haw to do anything, then he could simply shock Haw frequently and unpredictably until Haw didn't move at all.

It's called learned helplessness. It comes from constant and unpredictable jolts. It comes in the form of fear communication.

"What Would You Do If You Weren't Afraid?" — Haw

Sure, fear can be a powerful motivator in developing awareness. For example, we used the fear of losing a child to develop awareness about pool safety in 2004.

Two years ago, we reworked a billboard originally developed for the United Way of Southern Nevada as a banner for a Bloggers Unite campaign. It used the fear of child abuse to raise awareness.

However, there is a down side to developing fear-based communication. Much like a cattle prod, too much can convince the public that the problem is TOO BIG to do anything about it. When that happens to a cause, people will stop trying to help. Learned helplessness.

So in 1999, we helped the United Way of Southern Nevada change the communication. Instead of fear, we focused on hope. "Great Results Start With U. United Way." Although it was later changed to simply "Great results start with you", it became the longest running, most successful campaign theme in the history of the organization (about seven years).

It worked because we changed the communication. We presented problems, but we also presented solutions made possible by the generous donations of people who supported the campaign. When we managed the campaign, the content usually presented how many people needed a particular service and how much supporters had already contributed to meet that need. Doing so placed goals within reach, motivating people to dig a little deeper and give a little more. We found the cheese.

"What Would You Do If You Weren't Afraid?" — Haw

If you want real change, you need hope over helplessness. And that begins with changing the communication. Otherwise, worst-case scenarios like the one fictionalized by David Brooks with The New York Times could be proven true. And none of us wants that.

It doesn't really matter how you want to apply the message. As an individual or organization, business or industry, community or county, it all works. If you want better outcomes, change the communication. People want something to believe in, not something that reinforces this ridiculous notion that there is no more cheese.

Of course there is cheese to be found. Ignore the dudes with the cattle prods. And then move forward and find it.

Related reading:

NIH Public Access: Habituation of unconditioned fear can be attenuated by the presence of a safe stimulus

National Geographic News: Brain Region for Overcoming Fear, Anxiety Found

Breakthrough Blog: Overcoming fear in foreign policy

Utne Reader: Overcoming fear culture and fear itself

Dispelling Myths: Online Authority

In between some satire, there always seems to be some seriousness in conversations about online authority. Some social media participants want to measure this stuff, even if it for the sole purpose of vanity or perhaps selling snake oil.

There is enough of it that Jennifer Leggio lent a near perfect expose entitled "Twitter popularity does not equal business acumen" on ZDNet. The article mentions several reasons that online popularity doesn't equal much of anything. Her hope was to dissuade executives from considering popularity as a measure.

"My point that [the number of followers] should be a very, very small consideration for enterprises still stands," she concluded.

She's right. Equating online popularity to influence or so-called authority is much like equating real-life popularity to influence or authority. Online, some participants seem to forget that Jerry Seinfeld might make a fun spokesperson for Microsoft, but Bill Gates didn't place him in charge of R&D.

Eric Peterson, a web analytics expert, also poked some fun at the topic, pointing to Twinfluence, which measures velocity, social capital, and centralization. But then asks if “influence” is the best measure of success in social media. Or should people pay closer attention to something like the Twitter Ratio as a measure?

The answer is neither. Social media measures generally consider reach. And reach is, well, reach.

Influence cannot really be measured online because it suggests something that online measures do not account for — changes in behavior or actions that produce outcomes (sometimes offline). Simply having a large number of readers or friends or followers doesn't mean you have influence over them. And even if you did, that influence may be limited in scope.

There are other challenges too. As Shel Israel once pointed out: if someone has three followers, then who those followers are might make all the difference. Or, turning to one example I like to use, there are several social network owners who have less friends than other participants.

This simple fact touches on why authority cannot really be measured online either. Most professionals have friends who are experts in their field that have yet to be concerned with developing an online presence. And, if they were participants in one of a thousand social networks, they may or may not ever be popular. Yet, there is no denying their authority.

What can be measured online is reach. But sometimes, having ample reach isn't all it's cracked up to be. The wrong message communicated to tens of thousands of people instead of a few hundred is still the wrong message.

Slashing PR: Dennis Howlett

He may have been a few weeks too late to match the launch date of the perfect sequel to Chris Anderson's original Halloween: The Night He Banned PR Flacks, but Dennis Howlett, who has provided comment and analysis for publications such as CFO Magazine, The Economist, and Information Week, still promises to cut a few to the bone. BOO! YOU’RE DEAD TO ME!

And who can blame him? Sure, there are plenty of good public relations professionals out there. But as industry growth seems to outpace industry education, one might wonder how many journalists it will take before the entire profession becomes ignored.

"In any one day I field up to 20 PR requests. I can guarantee that 90+% of them have done zero research to find out what I’m interested in," writes Howlett. "In the worst cases they won’t have done a basic Google search to find out who I am or where my interests lay. In 2008, that’s beyond unacceptable, it’s criminal."

It's also not public relations. It's media relations. But it's not really media relations. It's message placement services. In fact, it might even be message placement 2.0. And, right now, for a limited time, the hottest thing on the table seems to be that message placement 2.0 is looking past media to target the untapped masses of renewable social media participants as opposed to the shrinking pool of objective journalists. Do you still wonder why Howlett thinks the industry is regressing? He continues...

"In the 1990’s, good PRs could write a half reasonable press release that would at least be engaging. You would have thought that with the tsunami of material about social media that in 2008 the situation would have moved on. Sadly, no. If anything, the industry has regressed."

You see, Dennis, today's message placement 2.0 professionals already know it's all about the math. By following each other to inflate rankings, they can very easily demonstrate to an unsuspecting client just how successfully they can reach a greater readership online than the total combined circulation of the top five newspapers, with more "hits" to boot. Cool, eh?

How do they do it? Easy! Message placement 2.0 doesn't require any story writing skills whatsoever. Just replace journalists with other public relations pals and followers. After all, if everyone in your echo chamber is an ally, then you may never have to worry about the surprisingly few pros who sometimes serve as industry foils:

• PR Watch
• SpinThicket
• Valley Wag
• Bad Pitch Blog
• Collateral Damage

Sure, I know what some might be thinking. Message placement 2.0 doesn't do a thing for clients if flacks are simply passing pitches around to other flacks. However, let's face facts. It's a whole lot of fun to hang out with friends for $2,000 to $10,000 a month. The client will be even happier living in ignorant bliss. And the latest mantra "just be, online" can thrive as the advice du jour. Scared yet?

You will be. Come back tomorrow for a "no chills, just trauma" take on Matt Bacak!

Writing With Ego: For Jason Falls

Most people like Jason Falls, who pens the Social Media Explorer, and I count myself among them. Recently, he wrote a post inspired by his friend who hosts a blog on MySpace. The post was interesting on the front end, but lost a little steam with the traffic building tactics that have become increasingly pervasive among social media experts. Traffic is easy, but without traction it's meaningless.

Still, traffic tips didn't stop me as much as reading that "blogging is an inherently ego-driven activity." He continued...

"You don’t have a blog if you don’t think your writing is important enough to be heard. As you start to build traffic, you’ll get a little swagger about you. It makes you feel good. It makes you feel important. But the moment you start acting important to your readers is the minute they walk away. I was once a big fan boy of one significant social media blogger. But, in ever-so-subtle ways, he started big-timing folks. I don’t even read his stuff anymore, as good as it might be. So, as good as you are, don’t get cocky thinking you’re some big shot writer person. Continue to participate with the community. That genuine person is what makes people click on your links without hesitation." — Jason Falls

A column called Why write? by Thomas Mitchell, editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, immediately came to mind. Mitchell outlined four primary reasons that people write as it was once defined by George Orwell. It applies well to blogging too:

• Sheer egoism.
• Aesthetic enthusiasm.
• Historical impulse.
• Political purpose.

So Falls is likely right in that some people do blog for sheer egoism, especially as it seems to run rampant among certain echo chambers. But there are certainly other motivations that don't require egoism to drive good content. In fact, in addition to those offered by Mitchell, I might suggest a few more that other bloggers have suggested to me over the years:

• Monetization.
• Peer participation.
• Educational intent.
• Altruistic intention.
• Business and/or product marketing.
• Making interest-related connections (eg. hobbies).

Of course, it might be important to note that the vast majority of bloggers don't really know why they start blogs. Most develop some sense of purpose as they go. As I offered up in a comment on Mitchell's column (truncated and paraphrased) ...

Originally, I started this blog in 2005 (I had another, briefly, in 2004) for the simple purpose of augmenting educational instruction since the class I teach is served up in a truncated 10-week format, which is not enough time to consider the changes taking place within the field of communication. Eventually, it evolved from educational intent (instructional) to experimentation (learning how to apply specific technologies to business for client blogs) and engagement (having conversations to lend some principles of strategic communication to social media).

That's not to say any bloggers are exempt from being bitten by the ego bug as Falls points out, even me. There certainly was a little swagger in my step the first time a single post drew 10,000 hits in one day. However, that little brush with a blog rush wasn't a feel good moment as much as it was a warning not all that dissimilar to winning industry awards.

The first few feel amazing, but then you realize that awards are best left as the sequel to great results. As soon as you forget that they make a poor pilot, you suddenly run the risk of becoming a slave to the pursuit of them. The same holds true for blog traffic. Some of my favorites still remain unpopular and that's fine with me. Not all posts here are written for everyone nor were they egoism driven as described by Orwell...

“Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen — in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. … Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.” — George Orwell

Perhaps I was more serious when I was younger, but nowadays I'm more interested in finding the truth. Besides that, the Internet has no place for permanence as my friends and colleagues perceive.

It's fair, of course, for Falls to disagree with me. We do that from time to time, which is why I value the friendship. Yet, while ego can be part of the equation, and there is nothing wrong with that, none of us can really guess at the motivations behind the men and women who blog. It's better when we ask them. At least I think so.

Breaking Relationships: When PR Is To Blame

While the definitions vary, public relations is basically the practice of managing information between an organization and its publics. If you think like me, it is public relations' job to serve both the organization and the public interest, which is intended to facilitate better relations with various publics, including but not limited to the media. But it's not always so.

Accuracy Matters

When Nevada District Judge Donald Mosley issued a statement through a public relations firm about his son's involvement in a fatal crash, the statement said, "My heart goes out to the William's family." The problem was that no one named William was involved. The public relations firm got the name wrong. But even more telling, Mosley didn't have a hand in the statement.

Relationships Matter

When I was arranging interviews for a business article I was working on, one of the public relations professionals cc'ed all of our e-mail correspondence to the editor of the publication. When I asked why she would do that, her answer was "I have a relationship with them. You are working for them aren't you?" Yes, but I have relationships with people too, including her boss. I sometimes string for national publications too.

Client Relations Matter

When I was working on another story, the public relations professional referred me to the head of the department. But unfortunately, the head of the department was only interested in dissuading me from interviewing them. The entire process took one week to set up and one minute to shoot down because the public relations professional didn't educate the client as to why they wanted to be part of the story.

Efficiency Matters

I received a news release yesterday for inclusion in a publication I owned and managed, um, five years ago. Not surprisingly, the release didn't even consider the publication's readership, which was hospitality executives and professional concierge. They wasted their client's money, and I briefly considered running the release as a bad communication example.

Deadlines Matter

Another public relations professional recently took two days to respond to me, which was forgivable because he was on vacation (although I still don't understand why his office referred me to him while he was on vacation). He was very prompt in setting up the interviews with the appropriate people, er, one of whom was on vacation.

All of these gaffes will be included in my Writing For Public Relations class at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas next spring. The students will chuckle about them, and I will too. But for all the good humor, there is one lesson — when public relations professionals do not serve both the organization and the public interest, they generally aren't serving either one.

Gaming Perception: Don't Mind The Masses

It wasn't long after TechCrunch reported that the Google SearchWiki would employ a "Digg-like voting feature to search results (which also changes the ranking) as well as user comments" that there was a need to clarify that the SearchWiki would allow members to customize search results when they are signed in to their Google accounts (like bookmarking) but that would not influence the greater search engine. Good.

“I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses.” — Johannes Kepler

But what if it did? There seems to be plenty of people who would celebrate the day despite that the following month would come with a hangover. For all the celebration of groundswell, the masses are sometimes susceptible to becoming entranced by deliberately gamed popularity.

It's also becoming an increasingly contentious concern for companies applying social media to their communication plans. In an effort to be more responsive to customers, some may fall victim to following the advice of the so-called masses while actually following only a few who have the ability to mesmerize a majority.

"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.” — Adolf Hitler

Just prior to Apple announcing native applications to the iPhone, Web-based applications and games were all the rage. One of the first html-based multiple-player games, KingdomGame, was an immediate hit. It was fast, fun, and engaging enough that small pockets of forum-based communities began to evolve.

Today, the traffic has tapered off to a fraction of what it once was as the developer began infusing a few beta tester ideas — beta testers who were backed by their perceived popularity among the masses. By listening to them, the average play time has grown from five minutes per session to more than an hour, with the most engaged players signing in three, four, or more times a day. The actual majority, on the other hand, were either driven away by the diatribe of the few or quietly quit as the game became too time-intensive for the average iPhone user. In other words, the buzz did not support the outcome.

The phenomenon is not limited to games of chance and entertainment. Social media elite sometimes knowingly and sometimes unwittingly back the masses without so much as a second thought. For most, it makes sense. For some, they establish a "tribe" of followers who will help push some of the most preposterous ideas in exchange for a little attention from the most popular person they know.

It's not limited to the social media elite either. Many companies, from small startups to the Fortune 500, are running an increased risk of fooling themselves into listening to the echo chambers they create. They toss out ideas to their readership or extended networks, and those "tribes" almost overwhelmingly support the predetermined direction already established by a few within the company or the few who invest enough time in the network or group to hold sway over the rest. It's surprisingly easy to do.

“A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.” — Henry David Thoreau

None of this is meant to discount the validity of social media, but only to remind companies engaging in social media that the pursuit of popularity and the outcomes of popularity will not always meet. Sure, there are valid benefits to social media when it is applied strategically, but diving right in without a plan or becoming too entangled in what the presumed masses might be saying can kill a company just like most hit-or-miss work-by-committee outcomes might produce.

Or, in other words, while the masses might be right sometimes, they can also be very wrong, especially when they are led by a few favored personalities. When you look at history, the masses are usually well-suited to expressing a need. But it still takes individuals who can innovate solutions and balance the needs of the many with the virtues of the few (and I don't mean those few who claim credibility has been redefined to mean the he or she with the biggest tribe).

Or, in other words, if Google ever did flip yet another switch and make voted search results public, which one day it might (because you know it can), we can all expect that the entire infrastructure of content will be gamed from the start, perhaps with one persistent 12-year-old stealing a Shakespeare sonnet to promote a personal haiku or, more seriously, a presidential candidate staffing hundreds to vote down an underfunded opponent. Heh. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Bucking The Conversation: Ted McConnell

"I have a reaction to that as a consumer advocate and an advertiser. What in heaven's name made you think you could monetize the real estate in which somebody is breaking up with their girlfriend?" — Ted McConnell

That's right. McConnell, general manager-interactive marketing and innovation at Procter & Gamble Co., is bucking the social media conversation, especially as it pertains to social networks like Facebook. According to AdAge, he doesn't want to invest in advertising dollars where people are trying to talk to someone, saying "we hijack their conversations, their own thoughts and feelings, and try to monetize it.”

He's mostly right. Companies that push and prod their way into personal spaces can be annoying (it became the death knell for AOL chat for those who remember), especially when the intent is to overtly or covertly steal them away to see a sales pitch.

Most don't mind the overt promoters so much (as long as they can be unfollowed on Twitter or assigned to junk mail). It's the covert operations, shrouded in idealism, that makes some people wonder.

Where McConnell might be right.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read between the lines. More than one social media expert has caused a raised eyebrow after offering up a few runaway comments and quips.

"The critics don't pay my bills."

"By elevating my personal brand, more people will read my blog when I write about my client."

"I engage them in conversations with the hope they click on my signature, which takes them to my client."

"They probably won’t answer you, but that’s okay. All you want to do is appear like you have a relationship with them to enhance your credibility."

Keep in mind, these are the same folks who claim it's not about the money. They generally promote authenticity and transparency, state that their purpose is to shape social media for no other intent than to move their industry forward, and encourage that everyone should engage in social media just like they do.

Yet, if you read between the lines, you learn that the only reason critics (not trolls, mind you) are shunned is because they might hurt the bottom line. Whereas critical review tends to be more welcome in academics because the pursuit is about truth and knowledge over personal brand.

Or, you might learn some public relations professionals are pushing press releases as posts. Or, that online conversationalists really want you to buy a duck. Or, that someone's popularity was contrived from the very start.

This isn't the only area where McConnell may be right. He seems to be right that the infinitely thin targeting is creepy; limitless inventory will dampen publisher profits (until value finally beats reach, assuming it ever does); and that just because it moves, doesn't mean you have to monetize it. Don't misunderstand him. For all the criticisms, Procter & Gamble won't leave Facebook all together, because he does see value in social media. He just seems to see that the value is being applied to the wrong places.

Where McConnell might be wrong.

For all his good points, McConnell questions whether social media is media. Yet, it is a medium, even if it is different from other mediums.

Where he seems most mistaken is that it's not the participation that makes it media as much as it is the platform where that participation occurs. You also can't discount that tremendous number of voyeurs who treat the participation of others as their preferred consumption. And, in order to support these public platforms, someone has to make a nickel sooner or later (people generally accept this, especially when they have the choice of ad supported or premium ad-free services).

Besides, we've monetized almost everything anyway. Take a walk outside sometime and you can see it. People break up under billboards that line our horizon all the time. However, other than that small discrepancy, McConnell seems to touch on a subject that needs to be touched on. You see, while people might break up under billboards, those billboards don't generally shout down that they can help.

Online, they certainly seem to, especially when a marriage counselor, divorce attorney, fashion consultant, and dating service all become part of the break-up conversation between two people. Is that what people really want? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not.

Playing With Puppets: Coppola And Scion

Scion, created by Toyota to target Generation Y consumers, is about to enter into a living case study that may help answer the question: is Internet buzz enough? The answer is all but predetermined.

While Adrian Si, interactive manager for Scion, told AdvertisingAge that Roman Coppola’s kung-fu-fighting puppets will "resonate with our audience and stay true to the culture of the brand," it’s much more likely the guerrilla marketing-only campaign will be exactly what it sounds like — the “fist of oblivion.” Emphasis on “oblivion.”

As much as brand entertainment might be a boon in the future, Scion has an uphill battle. Its sales are down almost 40 percent in October, compared to the 32 percent plummet across the entire industry. It’s difficult to think that kung-fu puppets, devoid of any value proposition, can change that trend.

It also demonstrates one of the money pitfalls associated with Internet marketing, advertainment, and social media as Scion seems to be promoting a show instead of its product. (I thought we already learned that lesson with Bud.tv, but it seems more people want to learn the hard way.)

The Scion Challenge

According to the article, Jesse Toprak, executive director of industry analysis for Edmunds.com, empty-niche syndrome is the biggest problem. He told AdAge the “fundamental issue facing Scion is that it is perceived as a niche brand, not a household name." While he is partly right, he's also wrong.

The fundamental problem with Scion is that it is devoid of promoting its unique selling point (even though it has several) and something much worse. Toyota dealerships are reluctant to back the brand.

I know because I was commissioned on a work on a Toyota dealership when Scion was first coming onto the scene in 2003. After presenting an 80-20 budget split, the dealership owner developed a twitch.

“We’re a Toyota dealership,” he told us. “Why on earth would we want to dilute our local marketing budget with another brand, especially one without national brand backing? No, no, if they [consumers] happen to come in looking for one, we’ll sell them one ... but only if we can't covert them to a Toyota.”

Never mind that it was our job to introduce Scion to the local market, much like we introduced the Convertible Beetle and Touareg for Volkswagen. Looking back, I personally thought the local campaign budget needed to be flipped, at least on the front end introduction.

Saturating the local market with Scion advertising would have broken through while the national Toyota campaigns could have taken care of that brand. It wasn't all that different from the model we employed for Volkswagen: push the Convertible Beetle and Touareg because Jetta and Passat buyers were already coming in to buy.

Then again, why bother with logic when you can present kung-fu puppets by Coppola? Why bother when you can force consumers to sit through one full minute introduction only to discover that the puppets don’t even drive Scions? They drive motorcycles.

Add it all up and this campaign may generate a little bit of buzz about the advertainment series and perhaps the overproduced Web site that is a little harder to navigate and sports the same droning car descriptions that you can find from any dealer on the planet. But sell a car? Um, we'll see.

Applying Twitter: How It Works For Business

Twitter — an online presence application that has been called anything and everything from microblog and social network to the ultimate time waster — describes itself a "real-time short messaging service that works over multiple networks and devices." The latter is about right.

Of course, I've also likened this presence application to non-linear chat (in that you can respond to people in real-time or several hours after the fact) across multiple networks. It's not the perfect definition. But as Web producer Eric Berlin, frames it up better: "the 'best thing' about twitter is that there are a lot of best things, remarkably flexible service."

Is it so flexible that it translates into a business communication tactic?

Hmmm ... it depends. It can, because it already does. But if you simply use it to as a tool to inflate the illusion of popularity as Guy Kawasaki of all people recently advised, you'll likely end up spinning your wheels and wasting your time. (Pretend to have relationships with people you don't know? Come on Guy ... that suggestion truly flies in the face of operating with authenticity).

Aaron Uhrmacher does a much better job keeping it real. Twitter can be applied as a tactic to the communication strategy of a business, depending on the company and whether or not the people it wants to reach exist there. While there are other ways to use it, including for real time reporting, there seems to be six prevailing external communication approaches.

1. Individual Participation. The most common participation is simple enough: an individual from an organization, but not necessarily representing the organization, happens to participate on Twitter. People like Geoff Livingston, Ike Pigott, Bill Sledzik, Christy Season, myself, and many others, would all fall into this category. If there is any business benefit, it's accidental and ancillary to another intent. For businesses, it's always smart to have some semblance of a social media policy when employees are engaged online.

2. Representative Participation. The second most common participation is similar to the first: an individual from an organization, who is present and primarily represents the organization. Allan Sabo, Shashi Bellamkonda, Ann Handley, David Meerman Scott, and Robert Scoble might fall into this category. While some participate just like individuals, they also represent their companies or themselves as authors and consultants. For businesses beyond the individual professional or personality, representatives are best chosen much like spokespeople — with extreme care.

3. Group Participation. While there are many examples, Zappos, Forrester, and Cisco have all established a company hub with several representative participants, each with their own voice. For some businesses, it seems to work. However, organizations that employ group participation (many employee accounts) need to remember that it only works when the tactic is backed by a strong internal communication plan. Without one, the company could dilute its message or even contradict its position.

4. Brand Characters. Not all characters are always representative of the organization, but some are, like Ms. Green. Others have been assumed by loosely related sites like Captain Picard and, perhaps, Mia Cross. While it might be an entertaining way to establish presence, it's hard to imagine someone developing a real relationship with a fictional character or every company developing a fictional spokesperson to represent the organization.

5. Brand Presence. The media was one of the first to adopt a push communication model on Twitter, with The New York Times and CNN being among the first. Primarily, news organizations feed headlines and breaking news, sometimes with links, which does add value for people who want an easy way to track the news. Some organizations do it too, including Woot, Engadget, and the Los Angeles Fire Department.

While the model dispels the myth that all social media is about a conversation, brand presence works well enough, provided the organization is large enough to have its own following (or maybe open to internal communication made public).

6. Brand Participation. Other companies and organizations attempt to blend representative participation and brand presence like Jet Blue, Q1Labs, GM, and Starbucks. While it works, it's also kind of weird. The basic concept is that the company brand is monitored by any number of faceless online team members who push communication and engage the community.

Weirder, some social media "experts" praise companies for the practice because it proves to them that companies take Twitter seriously despite the fact that these same "experts" denounce the concept daily with theoretical rhetoric that everyone needs to be genuine online. (I'm not speaking against the brand participation idea. I'm just pointing out one of the growing number of irritating inconsistencies among some "experts.")

So what it the bottom line for business on Twitter?

Like all social media tools, it's best to put the communication strategy before the tactics. Assuming a social media tool like Twitter has some value to the business, organizations are best served when they balance their objectives with an ability to lend valuable insights or information to conversations that are already taking place on that service. A real estate agent or broker with inside industry or market knowledge, for example, fits the bill.

In most cases however, it starts with an individual or company blog and then expands to include any number of social networks where the people they want to reach already participate. For example, Twitter participants drink Starbucks coffee so it makes sense for Starbucks to be there. While my communication colleagues sometimes cringe when I mention business objectives and outcomes, there has to be some tactical measure or the company will simply be investing time and money that is best spent elsewhere like within the communities they operate. Seriously, a shotgun "join every social network" approach will fail.

Here are some other voices on the subject of Twitter for business. Just be careful not to drink not the "Kool-Aid," or "Cool-Aid" as I like to call it.

• Twitter With A Testimonial From 37 Signals
• Twitter: The Next Small Thing for Business?
• 11 Reasons To Use Twitter For Business

Forgetting Image: Reputation Beats Rock Star

When Don King first decided to tease his hair up to make a crown fitting for his infectious smile, booming laugh, and inimitable vocabulary, he quickly became globally recognizable as a universal boxing promoter. But while his flamboyant style is the stuff of legend, he never forgot that he came from a hardcore Cleveland ghetto nor did he mistake his larger-than-life-image for anything other than a recognizable badge that symbolized his personal brand and reputation.

"Nothing makes me happier than to promote a fight card with boxers from 10 different countries: the fighters, the corner men, the media, the business people-all of them," says King. "The thrill comes when these people, who would never normally come into contact with one another, work together on an event. They learn that no matter what color, race, religion or whatever you are, underneath the skin we are all the same on the inside."

It's a lesson that can be easily applied to social media participants. Somewhere along the way, some so-called social media elite seem to be forgetting that it takes more than a flash-in-the-pan rock star image to establish a reputation. And those who covet these sometimes larger-than-life online images wonder how they too might establish a network of fans and followers.

There are no fans or followers. There are only people.

When I first heard Geoff Livingston decided to take on personal branding, I thought we might disagree because personal branding can be important.

However, in reading his post, it quickly became all too clear that while our definitions are different — as I view personal branding as the relationship between the person and other people — we're on the same page about image promotion. The role of the communicator is not about building ego-based images that eclipse the companies and clients they work for.

Social media consultants rely on personal brands,” Livingston writes. "Communicators rely on building value between organizations and their stakeholders.”

I'll go a step further. Consultants who rely on personal image promotion over organization value propositions drive wedges between the organization and stakeholders to such a degree that the organization risks considerable long-term damage despite any short-term gains. Rock star images and other personalities aren't establishing a relationship between organizations and stakeholders; they only establish relationships between the organization's stakeholders and themselves.

Twitter adds to the confusion of people vs. business presence.

During and after yesterday's webinar and the IABC/Las Vegas post discussion, I learned more from the participants than they learned from me as is often the case. Enough so that the material covered deserves its own post next week, but I would be remiss not to mention one point as it relates to this topic.

There seems to be considerable misinterpretation being made when people learn about applying social media, especially presence applications such as Twitter. It isn't what either Aaron Uhrmacher presented during the session and what I discussed with participants in Las Vegas after the webinar or what social media experts tell their clients every day. Rather, it stems from the simple observation that social media lessons are easy to misinterpret.

When session participants hear that the number of followers adds value to Twitter, some translate that into pursuing followers. While the statement is true, the translation is not. In fact, it is such translations that reinforce the notion that there is a "Twitter strategy" with the goal being to get to the top of some list, which reinforces the need to be a rock star.

Yet, when the objective of social media merely becomes presence inflation, it distracts from any communication objective.

Such translation issues are not exclusive to social media. The same misinterpretation occurs in public relations when public relations professionals tell clients that all press is good; therefore the objective becomes pursing press and the measure becomes column inches. It is not true in public relations nor is it true in social media. The measure is not how much press or social media presence can be earned, but rather how capable the company is in communicating a message that reinforces its strategic objectives through various distribution channels such as the press or engagement channels such as social media.

The measure is not how many followers it takes to be an "influencer" but rather the consistent quality of content and the relationships established based upon those conversations that result in real engagement. For example, when Ryan Anderson lost his wallet in Las Vegas, we didn't just have a conversation about it. We did something about it. And, when he learned that we were raising money for the Arthritis Foundation, he did something about it.

All the followers in the world could not provide a more suitable solution. Hmmm ... still don't get it? Although he was talking about being charitable, you could swap out "a truly charitable gesture" for "strategic communication" from the king of image promotion and it might just drive the point home. That's right. Say what you will about Don King but he gets it.

"If you do something just to get noticed, then it is not a truly charitable gesture." — Don King

Revealing Substance: Bad Communication

The quickest way to kill a good company is bad communication. And if the company is already struggling, you'll kill it twice as fast. Some recent comments on several posts reinforce the fact that spin only provides a short-term win, assuming it does at all.

Steorn

In August 2006, all the buzz was about an Ireland-based company called Steorn after it used an advertisement in The Economist to invite the world's scientists to test what basically amounted to the latest redesign of Tesla's Coil, which would lead us to the creation and production of free energy. Cool? Here is the latest news coverage about Steorn (or at least the last posted on its site). Otherwise, the concept only seems big on YouTube.

Royal Spring Water

Last March, I received a "special report" from Texas-based Royal Spring Water, under the auspices of American Water Stocks, that claimed two billion people will soon be in dire need of drinking water and that is why you should bank on a water stock with potential gains of 220 percent. Pink Sheets, an inter-dealer electronic quotation and trading system in the over-the-counter (OTC) securities market, recently posted a warning on the stock.

Rare Method

It's probably not fair to include this one with the other two, but after they demonstrated a public relations fumble (with the exception of Brian Clegg, who was amazingly sharp and has since moved on) over some mysterious numbers, I couldn't help notice that their financial communication is clear as mud. The current Rare Method "achieves record year" news header carries some questionable subtext: "We experienced a decline in revenues, gross income and EBITDA in Q4 2008 compared to Q4 2007 of 8.6%, 22% and 120%, respectively, as a result of reduced U.S. revenues from $1,076,888 to $596,627 due to postponed marketing programs as our U.S. clients monitor the economic crisis." They also "adjusted our staffing levels to control costs."

Please don't mistake the follow up as anything more than what it is. I'd love to read that Steorn solved the world's energy crisis, Royal Spring Water stocks soared, and Rare Method is to have a record year. But you know, it just isn't so.

Avoiding Echoes: Beware The Bubble

"My idea is fabulous!"

"Your idea is fabulous!"

"He said her idea is fabulous!"

"She said he said her idea is fabulous!"

"See ... they all said my idea is fabulous!"

Yes, yes, but what if it's not? What if the idea isn't so fabulous as is often the case in politics, public relations, public perception, and social media?

After all, echo chambers sometimes promote the silliest of notions, especially when it starts from its central most people, without much thought to what is said or where those messages might go or how they might be interpreted. It's not just social media. It's everywhere.

The messages, both good and bad, bounce around from one "influencer" to another with no real consideration for the customer, client, intended audience, or outcome. However, some of them are heavily promoted with that sometimes unspoken/spoken rule to "always elevate our peers," as if the world really works according to Warren Buffett.

While sometimes it is easy to miss in the world of social media, we all know it exists. Anyone who has served on a professional or non-profit board can tell you that the world works differently when echo chambers take hold. It goes something like this:

The lead influencer proposes that the organization's luncheon (or whatever) be changed to breakfast, based on a successful case study conducted by another organization about 400 miles away. Once proposed, two or three enablers will quickly support the idea simply because of who proposed it.

Sometimes, there might be one lone dissenter; someone who suggests there is no evidence to support a breakfast will be better attended. The criticism is then quickly slapped down by another influencer, who suddenly and casually proclaims they will be the first to reserve a seat after the meeting, which prompts the remaining six board members to look up from their phones and hypnotically nod in agreement. Meeting adjourned.

Two weeks later, just days before the actual event, the organization learns the horrible truth. Only three people reserved seats: the speaker, the initial influencer, and the dissenter.

Sometimes it happens just like that. In fact, for all we know, echoes might have led Edelman to select 25 bloggers to debut Pepsi’s new can design. It makes sense because Edleman, like many social media experts, tends to overstate the role of influencers (probably because they are one). Yet, for all the limited buzz about the Pepsi identity change, it just doesn't strike me like the real thing.

Conversations have outcomes, but outcomes are not conversations.

Greg Ippolito recently wrote an article for Adweek about something similar. He called it "the psychology of sameness" among creative professionals who start to convince themselves to be part of the herd. The end result is a whole lot of non-thinking that he illustrated with this quick two quote story:

"OK," I started, "explain to me why our customers should go to their dealerships for service. Why would that be good for them?"

The AE stared at me with a deer-in-headlights look. "Bee-cause ... " she searched her brain for an answer, "our clients are looking to increase their parts and service revenue?"

Ho hum.

Look, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with peer participation (assuming you save time for client industry-specific associations), but it never pays to operate exclusively in any industry bubble or you might get stuck in the rut.

And then, before you even know it, your desire to become a "thought leader" leads you to become a "cheer leader" for someone else who is only guessing at echoes too. That would be too bad. The best innovations occur outside the bubbles.

Astroturfing: Las Vegas Police Protective Association

In one of the most fierce and costly state senate races in the history of Nevada, dishonesty has reached epic proportions as The Las Vegas Police Protective Agency (LVPPA) risks losing all credibility as an endorser.

In the LVPPA's latest mailing to discredit Sen. Bob Beers, the association calls the state senator's law enforcement endorsement false, even though it is undeniably true. Sen. Bob Beers posted a copy of the endorsement letter from the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN) on his Web site.

It's not the first erroneous attack by the LVPPA, but it does demonstrate why one local retired police sergeant, David A. Freeman, was prompted to write a letter:

"During my 30 years with the Las Vegas Protective Police Association, I can't remember a time when they ever polled members and asked for their opinions; most decisions were made by a select few who never sought the approval or disapproval from the men and women who guard and defend our communities," he said.

Given that fact, it seems to me that this might be a good time for rank and file officers to review the charter. When organizational leaders resort to mailing blatantly false accusations, they do more to damage the credibility of the people they serve than anyone else. But that tends to be the way it is with short-term smear campaigns and emboldened rhetoric: Any short-term gains tend to have long-term consequences.

The same holds true in the national races. I've seen several bloggers jump the shark this election cycle, never appreciating that their short-term fervor for one candidate or another could have long-term consequences in how people perceive them. And from a communication standpoint, that is always something to think about.

Allowing Anonymous: Communicators Divided

Ragan recently released the results of a poll that asked a series of questions regarding anonymous comments. More than 1,000 communicators responded.

Highlights: How Organizations View Anonymous Comments

• 46 percent of their organizations do not allow anonymous comments.
• 46 percent of their organizations do not allow comments of any kind.
• 14 percent of their organizations do allow anonymous comments.

Highlights: How Communicators See Anonymous Comments

• 37 percent were undecided whether anonymous comments should be allowed.
• 31 percent said anonymous comments on blogs and article should not be allowed.
• 32 percent believe anon anonymous comments on blogs and articles should be allowed.

“Our company does not appreciate feedback of any kind from employees, not even on a person-to-person basis. Management is averse to following anything to be made publicly available without executive review.” — Anonymous

How Companies Might Come To Cope With Anonymous Comments

Social media — blogs, forums, Internets — is not a cookie cutter operation, internally or externally. And the decision to allow or disallow anonymous comments might be made with that in mind. Take a look around the Internet and you'll see a great variety of conclusions on the subject to guide you.

This blog, for example, allows anonymous comments. The only comments that are ever deleted are spam ads. We made this decision because we wanted a place where people could engage in open, candid discussions about communication.

However, I also believe that there are only two ways that anonymous posters demonstrate credibility: the quality of the comment, which means whether the post provides insights over insults. And, how or if we respond to the comment.

Why Companies Might Consider Moderated Comments

We manage several other blogs that are much more heavily moderated. The National Business Community Blog is not well-suited for unmoderated comments.

It only has one purpose: to share stories about companies that do good. Every now and again, one example or best practice comes from a company with known dissenters and we become privileged to receive a deluge of negative comments about it.

None of these comments are ever published because we feel strongly that it distracts from our intent. Every now and again, people like to visit a blog void of discussion or drama. We do read the comments though, and on one occasion removed the post.

Why Companies Might Consider No Comments At All

The intent is myopic, like using a blog to publish new releases, white papers, and feature stories about the company. Many social media experts disagree with me on this point, but my feeling is that the long tail of social media need not wag the company dog. If a company doesn't want to benefit from any dialogue from employees, customers, and any other stakeholders, then there is no need for us to force them to.

The only other reason I can think of is that the company representatives, whether a CEO or communicator, are not well skilled in dealing with the occasional criticism, call out, or attack. It takes a balanced hand to respond, which is important to consider since most crisis communication situations have very little to do with what happens and everything to do with how we respond.

What I Teach Students About Being Anonymous

There is no black or white and yes or no answer. Each company, hopefully with input from their communication team, can make the right choice.

However, and I cannot stress this enough, I do advise communicators and public relations professionals to never make anonymous comments or, if they do, they need to be prepared to answer for such posts in a world where no communication is really private. Not anymore.

Pushing Print Down: Gloomy Headlines

The Newspaper Association of America (NNA) says newspaper advertising is going to drop another 11 percent this year. Even more troublesome is that the NNA isn't so bullish on online ad revenue growth for newspapers this year, which it sees as low as 1.8 percent. Maybe next year will better, the report says.

Part of the challenge goes beyond the migration pains of moving print to an increasingly digital world. The recession is slowing down local media markets. According to American Express' Open Small Business Monitor as reported by AdvertisingAge, concerns about cash flow have risen since and capital-investment plans are among the lowest since the study first began. Just under half of small-business owners plan to cut back or delay marketing expenditures.

Such cutbacks go much further than impacting newspapers. Local radio and television stations are feeling the pinch. And, along with them, so are the agencies paid to produce the work. Public relations doesn't seem to be exempt, but the idea it owns social media is tenuous at best.

Now everyone wants a piece of any space showing the slightest signs of growth. But trying to crowd ten "social media experts" in a boat built for two seems pretty risky, especially if the pitch sounds even more snake oil than every other Tuesday.

So who will fare well in the communication industry? Like always, companies with diversified interests and relatively few cash cows tend to fare better. Local retail is still very strong and necessary services (like plumbing and electrical) are outpacing others. It's also the reason that some agencies are, so far, content to offer messages of strength.

Why? It's not rocket science. When economic times seem tough, you tend to want to work with those who seem largely unaffected.

You know what I mean? It's hard to buy a newspaper ad when everyone seems to think their money is best spent elsewhere and the industry's decline shows few signs of flattening any time soon. I don't think that's a good thing, but it will not change until newspapers stop forecasting their own demise.

Melting Credibility: Bigfoot Hunters

So Matt Whitton and his friend Rick Dyer, a former Georgia corrections officer, supposedly chanced onto the remains of Bigfoot and decided to share their story on YouTube. More recently, they held a press conference.

"It's not a human, it's not an ape," Whitton, a Georgia police officer, told the media.

Whitton was right about that. It wasn’t human or an ape, but a rubber suit designed to drive traffic to their Web site and, presumably, to an online store where you can purchase a shirt or spend upwards of $5,000 (currently) to be taken to the site where they found, er, planted their phony evidence.

The Bigfoot hunters are probably not laughing now. The police department intends to fire Whitton; they will likely be charged with fraud; and the messages filling up their guest book are less than sympathetic.

While Whitton and Dyer reportedly admitted it to be a hoax after being confronted, they have since fled. And most people, it seems, consider Tom Biscardi, who was allegedly defrauded for $50,000 or more, in on the hoax.

Perhaps most disappointed of all was Jeffrey Turner, chief of police in Clayton County, Georgia. He had granted Whitton medical leave after the officer was shot while attempting to stop a robbery.

“This turn of events from hero to someone who defrauds a nation is just baffling. I don’t know how he got from one point to the other,” Turner told the reporters. “For someone to do a complete three-sixty like that, I can't explain it."

Hmmm … maybe those Bigfoot hunters were led to believe that “all publicity is good publicity.”

Flattening Writers: Dave Fleet

Dave Fleet is a communications professional based in Toronto with a self described passion for social media. I was recently reintroduced to his blog via The Buzz Bin after Mike Nelson included it among the posts selected for “Great Blogs of Fire!”

Dave Fleet has a good blog, no question. But the highlighted post? It’s only close.

How Might Friedman’s Flat World Affect The Public Relations Industry?

Fleet takes journalist Thomas Friedman’s sixth chapter and applies it to public relations and other communication fields, establishing that public relations can stay ahead an increasingly competitive global market by anchoring and becoming really adaptable.

The second point, adaptability, has always been part of the communication equation and has very little to do with flattening. Public relations, along with communication, is one giant exercise in staying ahead of the curve.

But the first point, anchoring, can easily be misinterpreted. It deserves some check and balance. While there is some truth that anchoring (knowing your market) provides some advantages, it can also diminish your competitive value on the global stage and tie you, sometimes fatally, to one market.

For example, although I would not classify my company as a public relations firm, our out-of-market and international assignments are expanding, not retracting. In other words, it’s working in reverse. And it suggests to me that communication remains wide open, requiring companies to expand in both directions — local presence and international market penetration.

Knowing this also leads me to the other portion of his post that caught my attention. Despite the prevalence of English overseas, writing is not so at risk.

Sure, it’s possible. As the editor of an international trade publication several years ago, I worked with more than 40 writers located all over the world. We still tap the best of them on select assignments from time to time.

However, after contracting overseas writers during that five years, I learned to appreciate that the prevalence of English and the quality of English writers does not necessarily go hand in hand. In fact, often times, some of the best assignments came from English and Canadian writers living abroad in places like India and Hong Kong. Don’t get me wrong, we worked with Indian and Chinese freelancers too. Nationality wasn’t an indicator of a great writer, which is why I think Fleet might be upside down in placing writers at risk.

Still, there are distinctions. For example, there is a significant difference between a correspondent who can write a decent article and a copywriter who understands how to fuse strategic communication, key contrast points, demographics, and psychographics into advertising copy well enough that it doesn’t read like one-way communication.

More to the point, I think what Fleet touches on is that there are many businesses out there, especially public relations firms, that entrust too much communication — releases and correspondence — to unseasoned professionals and interns without enough oversight by senior writers.

When you consider the impact that communication can have on a brand over the long term, I think it would be a mistake to hire writers based on nothing more than the number of dictionaries they happen to own and a price point. So no, writers are not at risk as long as companies continue to understand that the ability to write and the ability to generate results with words are not the same thing.