Communicating Change: Blogger Hits The Fan

If you want to read about tracking Santa, you can read about it on the Google blog. If you want to know about blogging from YouTube, you’ll find on it on Blogger Buzz. But if you’re a blogger with a blogspot blog wondering who dramatically altered how your blog comments function, well, happy hunting.

The new rules of communication for Internet conglomerates seem to be: if you have a great idea, host a press conference. If you aren’t really sure, bite your tongue, flip a switch, and see what hits the fan. BLOGGER!

Sure, it’s a tactic most people have come to expect from Facebook, but only because it needs a mom. We saw it when Yahoo! merged MyBlogLog accounts too, but that was just being a fast company. And now Google via Blogger has joined a new school of thought that suggests passive communication is best when you just aren’t sure if what you are doing is a good idea.

How passive? Here are a few ways a blogspot bloggger might have learned about the comment changes that affect their blogs:

1. You happened to click “Known Issues” on the dashboard help section of Blogger because it's something you like to do, um, just because.
2. A group member happened to open a case study discussion thread on BlogStraightTalk.
3. Maybe you stumbled onto the discussion at BlogCatalog, where many bloggers have vowed to migrate.
4. You happened to catch it on Twitter, either mine or Dave Delaney’s followup.
5. You happened to read one of several blogs or help groups that had less than flattering things to say.
6. Someone you know, maybe your mom, happens to know someone who knows someone who reads Blogger In Draft daily, on the off chance that it is updated, which is about every three months or so.

Okay, sure, right, communicating change is never easy. But what will it take before Internet companies come to the conclusion that viral marketing is not the best way to communicate change? Flipping the switch and seeing if anything hits the fan is nothing more than non-communication.

So what happened? Blogger removed the URL field for unauthenticated comments, which is their way of aggressively supporting OpenID. OpenID is a fine idea, which allows people to "sign" your comments with your own URL while “preventing others from impersonating you.”

The tradeoff in using the new OpenID comments seems to be the steep division between the choice of allowing anonymous posts without allowing any link backs or choosing OpenID to allow the link backs to other blogs but eliminating anonymous comments. Of course, the anonymous can always create an fake Blogger/Google ID that they’ll forget about a few weeks later, which is why I decided to flip the switch on this blog’s comments for now (use the pull down menu).

However, in the interim, Google/Blogger proves once again that most communication challenges occur from the inside out. But maybe that is part of the purpose of OpenID anyway. Migration becomes easier and exodus more likely when Internet companies fail to communicate change before springing it on their members. Hmmm … now that’s something Internet folks seem to get.

Approaching Journalism: Tips For Bloggers

While listening to a panel discussion called “Being Opinionated in America” from the University of Berkeley that featured Maureen Dowd and Thomas L. Friedman (available for free download at iTunes), I noted that Friedman was particularly transparent in his approach to writing foreign affairs columns for The New York Times.

Five Points Gleaned From Thomas L. Friedman

• Writes fact-based commentaries that are reasonably objective
• Does not write to make friends and not doing so has no impact
• Consults with a brain trust of five people; reasonably transparent
• Fact checks for accuracy; seeks outside sources; no oversight
• Does not discriminate between the level of expertise and value of the insight

In drawing comparisons between his approach and that of bloggers, there seem to be some relatively minor distinctions, with most depending on the specific blogger.

Five Common Distinctions With Bloggers

• Some bloggers do write fact-based commentary, but most advocate specific ideas and share or debate points around their area of interest.
• Most bloggers do write to make friends, because nurturing these relationships can potentially increase their presence, reach, and perception of expertise.
• Some bloggers are influenced by select influencers, and the level of transparency is as varied as columnists. Some bloggers are also influenced by others who they never mention.
• Most bloggers do not fact check for accuracy or seek additional sources beyond what they can find available on the Web.
• Many bloggers do discriminate between the level of expertise and value of insights, often giving more weight to those who have a perceived expertise.

From me, these distinctions are especially important when considering the continuous debate whether bloggers can be journalists. I generally feel it truly depends on the blogger, always noting that some journalists are bloggers too (blogging is activity, not usually a professional designation). And, of course, many bloggers have no interest in becoming journalistic, which is fine too.

However, I do believe that bloggers can strengthen their content by adopting some journalistic approaches as outlined by Friedman.

• Never be afraid to seek offline sources to enhance the quality of the content; it’s often refreshing to read blogs that bring in ideas from non-bloggers.
• Never underestimate the value of any insight, regardless of the perceived level of expertise. Experts have an equal opportunity to be wrong.
• Authenticity is more important than transparency; meaning that disclosure is most warranted when it is relevant or directly influences the piece.
• And always be careful in pursuing online friendships for popularity so that these relationships do not hinder your ability to be honest with yourself and your readers.

The last point is often the most difficult for bloggers. For example, I generally encourage disagreement and debate while discouraging the shouting down of opposing viewpoints or diatribe, as sometimes happens when people support popularity over purpose.

I appreciate it sometimes sizes me up as someone who doesn’t much care what people think. At least that is what one of my friends told me last week. But that isn’t exactly so. I care wholeheartedly what people think; I just don’t always care a whole lot about what they might think of me for a certain point of view or working to remain objective.

There’s a big difference. In fact, it provides columnists like Dowd and Friedman the voice they need to make people think through issues without polarizing them along party platforms. Sometimes, this comes at the expense of their own popularity, if not, likeability. And personally, it’s something I hope to see more of in new media.

After all, the true test of any relationship is never when we agree, but when we disagree. Yes, we need some more of that in social media.

Overlooking Stories: Social Media Successes

Sometimes the greatest social media stories go overlooked.

Most people have heard how fans banded together and convinced CBS to reverse its decision to cancel Jericho, a post nuclear terrorist attack survival drama, with 20 tons of nuts (among other things). Many know that Jericho is now set to be highlighted in 2008 as one of the few shows with any episodes for the new season.

Much fewer know that fans have since raised funds to support Greensburg, Kansas, after it was hit by devastating tornados and later created an effort to support the troops. They’ve also been increasingly active in supporting the writers strike. (It makes one wonder if CBS appreciates the fans it has for a show the network under supports.)

But this story isn’t as big as all that. And perhaps for that reason, it shines twice as bright.

On Mon., Nov. 26, popular Jericho blogger and dedicated fan Jane Sweat put out a plea to fellow fans that she was desperate and needed help. Her 11-month-old retriever, Boo, had been housed at a shelter, waiting to be adopted after Sweat had moved from her home with plans to sell it.

But when no one adopted Boo, Sweat had no choice but to retrieve her beautiful labrador retriever/beagle despite not being able to provide a home. On Tues., in less than 24 hours, fans not only created a campaign to find Boo a home, but one of them also volunteered to become a foster parent. Other fans donated money to help offset the cost of transportation. By Friday, the new foster family for Boo had driven from Indiana to Alabama to save Sweat’s beloved dog.

You can read Sweat's heartfelt thank you to them as Monster Fans of the Week here. (Their avatar names include: Kestral, Maybei, Terocious, Briairpatch, Lisibee, DBlacer, K4ist, Flutterby, Welcome2CHO, and perhaps others.)

“I believe they created a miracle and that miracle has changed my life as well as me,” Jane wrote in a comment to me on her blog. “I'm not the person I was when this journey started. At the end, though, I'm a much better person.”

Not so, Jane — like many people, you were always a "better person," perhaps just in need of a place to share it. This has been obvious to me for some time.

You know, I sometimes hear social media opponents claim that the general public need not be on the Web without controls because they don’t have anything substantial to lend, share, or say. One of them even labeled me as one head of a mythical hydra because I supposedly sometimes instill a false sense of hope in people that they might make a difference as equal to any so-called expert.

What will they lend, share, or say? This single story of kindness seems to go a long way, at least for me. Social media can be astounding; you just need to look in the least likely but right places — like a Jericho blog where you can find the story of someone, recently displaced from her home, making the effort to save her best friend, and the fans who made it possible. Amazing.

Being Left Behind: The U.S. Online

The United States may have created the Internet but Chinese youth are catching up and will outpace American youth online, according to a study released by the IAC, which is an interactive conglomerate operating more than 60 diversified brands in sectors being transformed by the Internet, and JWT, the largest advertising agency brand in the United States and the fourth-largest full-service network in the world.

Currently, China’s online population, at an estimated 137 million, is now second only to the United States, estimated to be between 165 and 201 million, according to Pew Internet & American Life Project. But it is attitude more than the numbers that distinguishes American and Chinese youth, with the latter being more expressive online.

While a large majority of youth in both countries feel dependent on digital technology, the attitude is especially pronounced in China. As many as 80 percent of Chinese respondents agreed that "Digital technology is an essential part of how I live" compared with 68 percent of Americans.

"The Chinese people seem to be way ahead of Americans in living a digital life," noted IAC Chairman and CEO Barry Diller today in Beijing, where he spoke to more than 350 Chinese students at Peking University. "More activity online means a more connected and a more evolved workforce - just what China needs as it makes its move from being the workshop of the world, to a developed economy in its own right."

"Like many other areas in comparing Americans to the energy and progress elsewhere in the world, China's speedy evolution in its use of the Internet is fast eclipsing that of the US. I think this is great for China, not so great for us," he added.

One of the most striking differences was that fewer than half of Americans (43 percent) agreed that "I often use the Internet to find the opinions of others or to share my opinions." By contrast, China's culture and political environment place less emphasis on personal views and almost three-quarters (73 percent) of Chinese respondents said they go online to share opinions.

The study pinpointed one difference as to how Chinese view anonymity online. Chinese respondents were almost twice as likely as Americans to agree that it's good to be able to express honest opinions anonymously online (79 percent vs. 42 percent) and to agree that online they are free to do and say things they would not do or say offline (73 percent vs. 32 percent).

What’s interesting to note about this is as Americans grapple with and abuse anonymity while preaching transparency and content controls, these issues may not be a global view nor even the view of the Internet’s majority in a few short years. As one pointed YouTube video reminds us, things change.

Parading Biegel: Creatively Naked

Lawsuits are odd things nowadays, sometimes serving as smear campaigns rather than the pursuit of justice for which they are intended. The case of Biegel vs. Denstu, as amended and made available by Ad Age, is one where it becomes very unclear which category it belongs.

Part of the reason is that the Biegel’s revisions further muddle events and allegations while placing even more aim on Toyo Shigeta, CEO of Dentsu Holdings USA as well as another senior executive at Dentsu. The new complaint even includes the web address of the now famous brothel (pictured) where it all went down.

Biegel’s revised complaint now reveals he wasn’t just motivated to stand up just because he was subjected to two years of repeated lewd and sexually harassing behavior, which included forcing him to engage prostitutes, view photographs of crotches, and get naked to “parade” in front of the accused at a Japanese bathhouse. No, Biegel was motivated because another employee was scheduled to take a business trip with Shigeta about two years later.

So Biegel confronted his employer on the presumption that this employee would also be subjected to the same humiliating and sexually degrading experience that Biegel had allegedly endured for years. This was also the time that Biegel chose to disclose that he ought to have reported the bathhouse incident (not necessarily the brothel incident) to human resources.

According to the suit, Shigeta’s attitude toward Biegel changed from positive to negative after that, with Shigeta virtually cutting off all communication between them. (Ya think?) And this is why Biegel now claims he was not only fired because of complaining about sexual harassment, but also because he is Jewish. Huh?

Is there a connection here or is this something out of pulp fiction? In any case, religious discrimination and defamation are added to the case. The latter is presumably because Dentsu denied the charges, which made Biegel look bad. Ho hum.

Meanwhile, Dentsu is standing firm in insisting that the allegations are patently false, and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Biegel, they say, ignored formal procedures for making grievances about sexual harassment by lodging claims more than a year after the alleged incidents took place.

Applying Ethics Against Harassment

While I can make no assumptions that any of this occurred or did not occur, I can share what might have occurred had Biegel applied ethics.

• Biegel could have warned Shigeta that he was offended immediately upon being taken to a brothel and took action to leave the brothel, especially after receiving “orders” to participate with prostitutes.

• Upon further insistence or threat, Biegel could have immediately told Shigeta that he would be reporting the incident to human resources.

• Upon further insistence or threat or inaction by human resources, Biegel could have filed a lawsuit.

Had any of this happened, there would have likely been no other occurrences either because Shigeta would have either understood the point or may have been terminated. But then again, there wouldn’t be $1 million lawsuit several years after the fact either.

As I wrote in post yesterday, fearlessness can serve people in business — being “forced” to parade naked in front of your boss would certainly qualify as the time to apply it.

Searching For Courage: The Recruiting Animal

The Recruiting Animal recently wondered whether there are some psychological tests that measure courage. It seems to make sense, given that courage is frequently cited as an important trait among leaders.

UMSC General Charles C. Krulak includes it among his fourteen basic traits of effective leadership, distinguishing two forms: physical and moral. U.S. Senator John McCain cited its importance as an enforcing virtue for five other virtues common among exceptional leaders a few years ago. And Ben Dean, Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote an interesting piece to define courage as well, citing a great C.S. Lewis quote that it is “not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point."

However, before considering which tests may or may not measure courage, I can’t help but wonder if fearlessness might be the better measure for business leaders. You see, the two terms — courage and fearlessness — are not the same.

Author Dr. Thomas Hora once pointed out that courage relies on the willful resistance to fear whereas fearlessness, based on a higher understanding, is effortless. While courage can be rooted in anger; fearlessness is rooted in clarity of vision. While courageous acts can be performed by frightened people; those who are fearless remain focused on sense of purpose rather than self-concern.

In fact, I often infuse the concept of fearlessness while teaching or coaching public relations professionals, advertising copywriters, spokespeople, and politicians. It’s in my lessons, just not overtly so.

Three examples of fearlessness in communication.

• It comes up when I challenge public relations students (many of them working professionals) with ethical dilemmas such as their supervisor asking them to misrepresent information.

Most students, fearful of retaliation and damage to their careers, chose to say nothing. A few courageous students suggest reporting the incident. Usually no more than one will suggest speaking with the supervisor first, which requires fearlessness.

• It comes up when I teach advertising. While I always suggest that the first rule of advertising is that there are no rules, I always give them ten. The tenth is allowing for the freedom to fail. That’s fearlessness.

While courageous copywriters will stand by their convictions and push their ideas forward, sometimes out of fear of being wrong; fearless copywriters, those who aren't afraid to fail, keep the client in mind.

• It comes up while coaching spokespeople and politicians on surviving aggressive interviewers. The most common challenge is working past their fears — forgetting a valid point, being wrong, sounding silly, etc.

While courageous spokespeople might take on an aggressive interviewer, it won’t mask their inability to respond to tough questions. Unless they are fearless, they are likely to become defensive, aggressive, or even angry (one client once took a swing at me during a mock media interview session).

The fearless spokesperson or politician, even when they don’t know the answer, remains composed, calm, and confident because they know their message and remain poised enough to deliver.

Can we really test for courage and do we want to?

While I was unsuccessful in finding a proven psychological test this morning (though firefighters are sometimes tested for courage), I did find an article by Pat Weisner about employee interviewing techniques.

Weisner suggests the test is simple enough: place the applicant on uncomfortable ground with questions like “’I don't think you have the experience to handle this job.’ Or ‘You haven't done anything to demonstrate how you would get into the mind of our customers (or the people you might manage) because you haven't done anything to find out what I'm thinking.’”

These two questions, not surprisingly, mirror those asked by “overly aggressive” interviewers. You can catch questions that are framed up just like this on the news; these, in particular, are called needling.

While needling and other aggressive questions do not often get at the truth, they sometimes test the interviewee on their confidence in the subject matter and own sense of self worth. Given this, an aggressive mock media interview could possibly reveal a candidate’s level of fearlessness, but each would have to be customized to be effective.

To test for courage, on the other hand, you might be better off asking them to apply for Fear Factor. But even so, since fearlessness and courage can be taught, why bother? Maybe we need to teach it more; there seems to be ample fear around and about social media.