Seeing Better: How Flipboard Enhances Twitter

As of a few days ago, Twitter had every right to boast about its 175 million registered users, up from 145 million in early September and 105 million in April. According to Ronny Kerr, Twitter could be seeing as many as 15 million new members each and every month (minus 1 million for people with multiple accounts).

What is interesting about the Kerr post is that he points out that Twitter has seen three major growth spurts in the last couple years and each can be directly assigned to individually significant site developments. What does he claim they are?

The first was in mid-2009, a direct result of widespread media coverage of the site because of Ashton Kutcher. The next surge was in its smart phone offerings, with the launch of official iPhone, Android, and BlackBerry apps, that new registrations would flow like a flood again. And the newest surge, he says, has to do with site design.

I don't think so. The new two-column platform detracts from the user experience, squishing the conversation to one side. It seems more likely the influx of new people is related to the adoption of companies, organizations, and promotion by media.

The reason could be that the entire interface is flawed, something that never occurred to me until viewing Twitter on Flipboard.

How Flipboard, despite some shortcomings, is intuitive.

Legal questions aside, while Flipboard is not suited to dialogue between people (beyond a one comment quip), it does help sort the valuable content from the chaff because it ports in the first few graphs of any link. And, after experimenting with it for a few days, it saves me considerable time and adds value for two reasons.

• Flipboard allows me to immediately see what is behind any link, beyond the 140-character pitch.
• Flipboard helps me find valuable content without relying on other factors like trust and frequency.

In other words, it levels the playing field for everyone I have weaker relationships with while vetting the content being shared by people I have stronger relationships with. And, it does this effectively enough that unless Flipboard disappears, there is no better way to consume content (noting that as I already mentioned, you cannot engage in a two-way dialogue).

The concept was originally developed as an alternative to the various applications that some publications are putting out, but some of the real value comes from social network streams like Facebook and Twitter. Interestingly enough, the Facebook experience on Flipboard is neutral because Facebook never adopted the truncated communication model.

Sure, it would be even better if you could import one blog or feed or web address as opposed to a Twitter stream, but Flipboard works well enough for now. Likewise, if little chat bubbles could accompany the one-time comment option (much like Echo Phone allows), it would change from a content delivery option to a dialogue option.

But more importantly, and the point of this post, it really demonstrates the inherent weakness of Twitter's communication model. As an interface, I've become more fond of Fried Eggs and Facebook for this reason. Both encourage shorter communication without the lockdown on those occasions when you want a longer dialogue.

Don't get me wrong. I still value Twitter because of my connections there. Or, perhaps, I ought to say I value my connections so much, I'm willing to put up with Twitter. However, long term, I wonder how Twitter will fare unless it can develop interfaces that break away from its original, ever more confining quip of 140 characters or less. How about you?

Antiplanning And Disaster: A Real Communication Weakness

Two weeks ago, Valeria Maltoni shared insights that ought to make some businesses nervous. A new study from Smart Brief reveals that as many as 86 percent of all people don't know that planning is the first step toward effective communication.

Even more concerning was the size of the study. Smart Brief did not survey a handful of people online. Instead, it surveyed 6,000 business people to uncover eight themes as they pertain to social media. However, the most compelling portion of the study suggested that business people, communicators especially, are all but abandoning communication planning.

What are businesses doing instead of planning communication?

In relation to communication, it seems that advertisers, marketers, and public relations firms are adopting tools but leaving tried and true strategies behind. Instead of drafting strategic communication plans, they are picking social networks and technologies that are currently popular and then adopting a string of "tactical" components to inflate the meaningless measurements.

Ergo, the only "outcome" is to drive more traffic and attract more followers. The approach can be likened to yelling on a street corner or, in some cases, right in the middle of the road, blocking traffic. In fact, yelling on the street corner might even be more effective, considering most agencies don't even bother to check the ZIP codes or business proximity before they put on the costumes.

Is it any wonder most firms lack social media confidence?

Maltoni's post goes on to reveal that while many firms are selling social media services, only 14.2 percent of businesses find their social media strategies to be very effective and only 7.3 percent consider them “revenue generating.” While I might argue that not all social media campaign need to place revenue as a top-tier primary outcome, the very notion that companies are paying for services with no measurable merits is concerning.

The reason there is no confidence in social media has nothing to do with the value of social media. What it has to do with is that social media is being implemented as a line-item service without any real consideration for the overall communication plan. Why not? Well, from what I read here, it's because no communication plan exists.

Smacking Freshness: Fresh Content Project

Sometimes as communicators and marketers and developers, we see topics we don't want to see. Twitter doesn't read about its shortcomings. Marketers don't want to give things away for free (unless there is high consistent conversation). Social media experts don't want to discover they weren't as good as they thought they were in 18 months. And the list goes on.

This is a great opportunity to toss that thinking out the window. The truth is: marketers and communicators ought to be happy about every valid criticism. It provides you an opportunity to change rather than keeping your head buried in the sand, believing in your own bubble. Sure, you can for awhile. But sooner or later someone holds a mid-term election and you're out of office.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of October 25

• Twitter Issues New Guidelines For The Tweet Trademark..
Audrey Watters provides a rundown on the new rules associated with the Twitter trademark. While we later discovered that many of the rules are relatively the same, it could cause real problems with developers like Tweetdeck, Twitpic, and other services that effectively showed Twitter how to do its job better. More worrisome is that Twitter has entered a protectionism posture, which makes some people wonder what the new management is thinking.

• Capturing the Value of What You Create.
Valeria Maltoni nails something that many marketers are still struggling with as a concept. The reason you want to provide free content is because the exchange rate comes with visibility. I might also add it includes credibility too. Sometimes when you put ideas out for the public to consider, it might surprise them to find out how right you are about a certain idea. Other times, they might tell you when you are wrong. And even that can be equally valuable. I might not be keen on the content is king saying, but there is no doubt that good content is the commodity online.

• When Will the Social Media Losers Emerge?
At first blush, I didn't like Jay Baer's link bait headline or the cliche picture. But trust played a role in continuing to read past it all. He nails it in his first sentence. "Today," he writes. "Social media is like a soccer league for seven-year-olds: everyone gets a trophy." It's easy. You start a social media program and zip ... sooner or later you find a few hundred people who want to listen. But what about when everyone in your industry starts a social media program? Consumers don't have time for everyone.

• Pretty. Functional. Frail. My Macbook Air Hinges Fail..
At a glance, Louis Gray's write-up on the MacBook Air might seem like another unhappy consumer story. But it popped up as a fresh pick for a very different reason. It's a great example of why social media works. He can run down a list of problems, research other perspectives, and make a case for change. A few years ago, he would only have one option. He could write the company. Or, he could call the media and hope enough other people had the same problem for them to consider covering it. Instead, we get a concerned loyalist who just wants to see the hinges improved.

• Survey: 86 Percent of All People Don't Know the Plan Comes First.
This post by Valeria Maltoni was compelling enough to include as a fresh pick and write a secondary, repurposed post as well. It represents the spirit of why I started this experiment in the first place. It might not be the most most popular post of the day, but it does represent what industry insiders need to hear. She didn't say it, but I will. While you might not have the budget to produce an entire report for your employer or client, communication without planning is throwing money out the window. And, if you receive compensation for wasting cash, you really are not much better than a con. Planning comes first.

Branding Runs Deep: USC Marshall Cracks Connections

Although one recent Edleman study (cited earlier this week) argues that purpose is more powerful than a brand, another study recently conducted by the Marshall School of Business (USC) suggests the opposite. A well constructed brand relationship can run so deep that consumers will experience separation anxiety if they are forced to buy a competing brand.

In fact, the new study suggests that a bond between a product and a consumer can be so strong, they will be willing to sacrifice time, money, energy, and reputation to maintain their attachment. The reasoning fits well within the conversation presented last week, proving that brand attachment isn't consumption based but rather the consumer seeing the brand as an extension of themselves.

The power behind the study is that it is not a survey.

Social media has made it all too easy to do spontaneous crowd sourcing. And while I maintain that information is useful, it does not always mean it is accurate. People lie, even when they don't mean to.

So, when the Edleman survey asks whether people will give up a brand if another brand is willing to do more good, their sensibilities take a holiday and say "yes." The reality is that most would not, with exception to extreme cases where the brand has done something that makes it impossible to identify it as an extension of themselves.

Without relying on what people say, the USC study indicates that traditional measurements such as brand attitude and strength do not adequately explain consumers' intense loyalties to the brands they love. Specifically, consumers fall in love with brands because they literally capture their hearts and minds. The entire study is available at USC Marshall.

Reflecting back on the Edleman study, it seems more likely that as people see brands as an extension of themselves they want those brands to share the same values. And lately, people are more interested in doing good. And that is a very good thing.

Honoring Veterans Day: Every Day

Every year, the United States honors all of its men and women who have served in the Armed Forces. And every year, we feel it is especially important to share this space in their honor even as the real work often takes place somewhere else.

Last year, my team was especially grateful to work on a campaign that honored our servicemen and women. Many of those programs that benefited our veterans can still use your help today. Please consider making a donation.

However, I might add that even when I am not working on campaigns or writing speeches or serving our state or sharing a moment of silence, I often pause to think about the brave men and women who serve our country. After all, their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good never rests. Ours need not either.


In addition to honoring our servicemen and women and supporting organizations that provide them with services, we might also reflect on commitment as an example of selflessness in our country and the original intent of November 11. All around the world today, many other countries are celebrating November 11 as Armistice Day or Remembrance Day, as this date commemorates the Armistice that ended World War I.

In most countries, the celebration is marked with poppies. The significance being that poppies bloomed across some of the worst battlefields of Flanders in World War I. Their red color remains a symbol for the bloodshed of warfare. A small number of people also wear white poppies as a symbol of peace. We might hope.

Integrating PR: How Media Relations Has Changed

A few days ago, one of the local restaurants we work with was reviewed by the area's most critical reviewer at the largest area daily. The review was a pleasant surprise. While the general manager sends out news releases from time to time, he hadn't lately.

There was no release. There was no pitch. Instead, what prompted the reviewer to visit was the consistent stream of direct-to-public communication across the restaurant's social media program. There was no other communication, which made me think about how media relations has changed.

Traditional Media Relations For Restaurants.

A public relations firm would prepare all the necessary content for the restaurant, sometimes in the form of a media kit. And then, depending on the retainer, it would either pitch or send press releases to area dailies to secure a review. Sometimes it would over communicate the need, especially if it counted column inches as justification for the retainer.

Eventually, the reviewer (hopefully not aggravated by the constant contact), would visit the restaurant on one unspoken condition. Once they entered the restaurant, all claims of being influenced by the relationship were off. Only the quality of the food, decor, and service would remain.

If the restaurant was having a good day, the review would be positive and the public relations firm would claim credit. If the restaurant was having a bad day, the review would be negative and the public relations firm would wash its hand of responsibility while counting those negative impressions as having the same value as positive impressions.

Regardless of the positive or negative nature of the review, the public relations firm would also be charged with making sure all the background information and necessary photos were delivered (unless the reviewer took pictures and/or arranged a photographer after the fact). And, once the review ran (assuming it was positive), everybody — meaning the firm and the restaurant owners — would throw up their hands in celebratory delight.

And that is where it ends, with exception to public relations professionals finding new ways to convince the reviewer to come back. After all, most restaurants are not going to be reviewed every week (or even written about weekly, despite any news they might think up).

Modern Media Relations For Restaurants.

Today, things can work much differently. A restaurant (possibly with the support of someone who knows social media) can publish direct-to-public communication about any variety of topics related to its cuisine. This is significantly different than press releases and pitches because none of the communication is wasted. All of it goes somewhere.

In addition, these various messages not only reach potential patrons but also provide a direct opportunity for them to engage representatives of the restaurant. And, with almost certainty, some of these people might be journalists (assuming the the social media communicator is savvy enough to connect with them).

There is no pitch. There is no release. It's just a steady stream of positive and valuable communication. There is no pressure on the reviewers. They just read what they want when they want and promptly ignore the rest. Until, one day, they decide to visit.

They review the restaurant, either positively or negatively, based on performance. All the photos and background content are at their fingertips via the Internet. They save time and the publication saves money. No one has to follow up to ask how it went. Everyone will know soon enough when the review is published, and if it isn't published, no one will even notice.

Afterward, there may be an internal celebration. However, the celebration isn't where the communication ends. It's where the communication begins. Because the restaurant has a social media program, it can either explain why a review was bad (if they choose to) or share it with customers that already have a positive relationship with them.

They can also publicly semi-thank the reviewer, simply by being unafraid to share whatever they want. It's the best gift you can give a journalist; they don't want bribes as much as a chance to be read. But even more importantly, they would appreciate a little more attention to what they have written as opposed to when they might write something again.

Some Media Relations Is Built On A Weak Link.

While this does not hold true for all public relations firms (some are good), it does hold true for many. The relationships they claim to have are weaker than most would admit.

While the press release might not be dead (especially as it pertains to news that is not yet public), the dynamic has changed. Journalists, much like anybody, prefer to discover news as opposed to having it pushed at them. And the public, especially those who are engaged, are genuinely happy when restaurants can validate fan experiences with a critical review.

Teaching: How Social Media Changed Everything

Some people are still scratching their heads. Social media changed everything, but they are not quite sure how. Since I began teaching social media as part of communication, I've relied on one simple equation: you have to think of social media as its own environment.

People who are engaged in social media already know it's true. However, for those who don't understand this, it still seems like a foreign idea. They tend to frame up the online experience as a "virtual world" as opposed to "real life." Even my colleagues in social media are prone to stumble. They keep lists of people they met in "real life" as opposed to those they only know online.

It's a mistake. And the reason is simple enough. The environment has changed. And last Friday, I was able to illustrate the point with an example that turned the light on for many participants. It also demonstrates why traditional media is still hemorrhaging subscribers, mostly because many of them are among those who see the Internet as another broadcast channel.

Traditional Media Broadcast Messages Into An Environment.
Sometimes you have to review the past to better explain the present. So, among the slides in my deck, I presented an oversimplified communication model representing the past.


A person (broadcaster) used an expensive technology to transmit messages to a less expensive technology so other people could consume the communication in the environment of their choosing. They might read the paper at the breakfast table, listen to the radio in their car, or watch television on the couch.

Distribution was also limited. Generally speaking, the only way to receive that communication was to not only own but to be actively using a specific reception device. As long as the television was on, they could receive your message. As long as they opened the paper, they received the message. As long as they turned on the radio, they received the message.

But even more important to consider, this message was part of their greater environment. And, once they receive the communication, they might share or discuss that information with people within direct proximity to their environment — the people in their households, friends at the local pub, or maybe around the water cooler.

Social Media Broadcasts Messages Into An Environment.

Social media, on the other hand, dramatically changed the model. While two people still needed devices to broadcast and receive messages, they no longer were disproportionate in their capabilities. Every device that connects to the online environment is equally capable of broadcasting and receiving. That changed the model, and it changed it in more ways than one.


A person (broadcaster) can now use one inexpensive technology to transmit all forms of media to other people who have the same technology, while simultaneously allowing one-on-one communication with any number of people that message reaches.

The potential for one-on-one communication changed the dynamic of the communication because it allowed for engagement, enabling other people to respond to the message in whatever form they wished. The physical environment no longer mattered because the engagement effectively made the "virtual world" the only environment that mattered.

At the same time, a percentage of people who were originally communication consumers became communicator broadcasters, which empowered them to rebroadcast messages, repurpose messages, and critique messages as they felt fit. Some might rebroadcast within the same environment while others (traditional media) would also rebroadcast the original or adapted messages across traditional mediums.

Convergence Will Solidify The Change.

Five years ago, I used to receive plenty of push back on convergence — the day when broadcast would be indistinguishable from the Internet. I rarely receive much push back anymore. The average American spends 32.7 hours per week online, up from 9 hours per week in 2006.

It's happening all around us. I can pick up an iPad and watch programming without even having to plug in to a hardwired location, read my email, create original content, or put it on a larger screen. At the same time, digital is being rapidly integrated into everything from television sets to game consoles. And, as technology continues to converge, you can readily expect the various communication disciplines to converse right along with them.

Eventually, the only difference between one device and another will be the size of the screen and, perhaps, the number of people in any given environment. The reason this is important is because many people talk about social media being a one-to-one communication tool. But it really isn't. Social media is a one-to-many, one-to-niche, one-to-one communication tool at the same time. And that is where communication practitioners need to adjust their thinking.

Shifting Responsibility: Purpose-Driven Brands Over Government

A new study by Edelman shows a significant shift in public expectation as it relates to philanthropy. People are less interested in the government tackling social issues and are more interested in purpose-driven companies becoming better corporate citizens.

Specifically, 87 percent of Americans believe business needs to place equal weight on society's interests as well as business interests. Eighty percent feel corporations are in a uniquely powerful position to make a positive impact for good causes. And nearly two-thirds would like corporations to integrate philanthropy into their daily operations (beyond giving money).

"Cause-related marketing, as we know it, is dead," said Carol Cone, managing director, brand & corporate citizenship, Edelman. "Americans are seeking deeper involvement in social issues and expect brands and companies to provide various means of engagement. We call this the rise of the 'citizen consumer.'"

Is There Really A Rise Of The Citizen Consumer?

Some parts of the study bear this out. Consumers' expectation of government to do the most for good causes has declined dramatically since 2009, while their expectation of "people like me" has jumped. Only 30 percent of U.S. consumers now believe that the government should be doing the most to support good causes, down 11 points from 2009.

There is a reason for this. More than ever before, consumers have come to realize that when government tackles social causes, it must seek funding, which eventually is charged back to the consumer in the form of debt or taxes. As a philanthropic pillar, government is one of the least effective components for social good, because the return on taxpayer investments is diminished compared to corporate grants, individual donations, and direct support.

For example, the amount of one taxpayer dollar is significantly diminished (as much as 80 percent) by the time it reaches a participant when compared to a direct one dollar donation (only about 20 percent, depending on the nonprofit). In addition, people want to be directly involved in giving, with 3 percent believing that "people like me" should be doing the most, up 8 percent from last year. They want the companies who they identify with to do good too.

Where the study falls short is in placing too much emphasis on a study that suggests 47 percent of Americans rank purpose as significantly more important than design/innovation or brand loyalty as a purchase trigger when quality and price are the same. The reason is that if quality and price are the same, then there is no innovation.

The reality is that Americans want two things from companies. They want innovative products and services that do no harm. And they want companies, especially those with hefty profit margins, to do more good.

What they don't want are companies that employ cause marketing as smokescreens, notably the concept of greenwashing. What they do want, which most cannot articulate, are companies that follow a Marc Benioff model. He believes the best charity models include investing one percent of a company's profits into grants and donations, one percent of its time into volunteer efforts, and one percent of its time into equity (e.g., foundations).

The model makes sense. When companies invest in the communities in which they operate, they strengthen the community in which they operate, which eventually leads to more prospects willing to purchase their products (assuming the products have value). Even more importantly, as the study points out, people want to work with companies to get the job done (much more than they want the government involved).

Additional Highlights From The Edleman 2010 Good Purpose Study.

• 79 percent of Americans find it acceptable for brands to support good causes and make money at the same time.
• 75 percent of Americans believe that projects that protect and sustain the environment can help grow the economy.
• 67 percent of Americans support legislation requiring environmental standards even if it negatively impacts profits.
• 62 percent of Americans would pay slightly more for a product (like a beverage) if that money went to good causes.
• 34 percent of Americans would prefer to receive a donation to a good cause as a gift than a friend-picked gift.

The takeaway on this last set of numbers is very telling. People are basically saying that they want companies to become more involved and will reward those companies for doing so. However, if companies do not become involved, then the public is willing to force legislation that will require them to do so.

This study might suggest something else too. As long as companies are not abusing their support of good causes, customers want to know they are involved. While it used to be some strategic philanthropic thinking was to hide donations (rather than boasting), consumers really want companies to speak up and help set an example. Now that's something to think about.

Focusing On Social, Not Media: Fresh Content Project

Every time communicators talk about social media, they tend to talk about social media. In reality, we are really talking about one portion of a communication plan. The reason is simple enough. Social media still seems new and that is where people want to focus.

Keep that in mind when you read these five fresh picks. If you do, you'll have a better understanding of why Malcolm Gladwell was right, why public relations professionals ought to have been clipping content beyond client mentions all along, why mass data collection never seems to match a single customer, and why you are only pretending that B2B and B2C are different. When it comes to people, people are people.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of October 25

• Gladwell Is Right. The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.
While there were plenty of people who took exception to Malcolm Gladwell's comment that the revolution will not be "Tweeted," Jason Falls takes the time to point out why he might be right. Falls says the primary reason is that the argument was meant to add some reality to the over-inflated sense of importance we give social networks. And, in this case, he is right. Social media does not happen in a vacuum. Unless your communication takes a physical or tangible form, it just doesn't matter.

• Curating Information as Content Strategy.
"Content, which is anything that informs, educates, or entertains online, is your business digital body language," writes Valeria Maltoni. And the importance could not be underscored enough. In a related study, we recently found that that 46 percent of the time, people are looking for topics of specific interest, 39 percent of the time for information, and 37 percent for multimedia, and 55 percent for news. Content consumption IS the primary activity online, despite why people join a social network. Think about that. And then find out from Maltoni why curation is important.

• Marketers, It’s Time To Rethink Target Market Segmentation.
Beth Harte tackles the various graphics — demographics, firmograhics, pyschographics, sociographics, and enthnographics — that marketers look at every day. When you add CRM systems and social media monitoring tools, there is a ton of data that can be pulled and pooled and analyzed. But instead of relying on that data alone, she suggests that marketers pay more attention to audience research analysis. And she is right. The best way to understand your audience is to connect with them and engage them on a regular basis. Besides, sometimes when you ask two questions, you discover different answers.

• The Pre-Holiday Internet Marketing Checklist.
Ian Lurie shares 20 things you could be doing right now, before the holidays, that you probably are not. He touches on almost every aspect of online marketing: scrubbing the house e-mail, fixing the Facebook page, improving site performance, doing SEO homework, fixing broken links, and so on and so forth. It's stuff many content creators never think about (guilty here, but not for clients). But even more importantly than running the list, Lurie specifies some of the stuff that people neglect and makes you want to get busy with it.

• Destroying the 7 Myths of B2B Social Media.
Jay Baer pinpoints some of the myths of B2B marketing in a slideshare presentation that makes sense. Among them: he includes the idea that B2B customers do not use social media, that it's not worth the trouble, and that it seems like a B2C world. Although not included in his slides, almost 90 percent of B2B decision makers are already interacting with personal and professional connections. The question B2B companies might ask themselves is if their prospects are not talking to them online, then who are they taking to?

Consuming Research: What If Popular Identified A Market Opportunity?

"We overdo pretty much everything," Gayle Bessenoff, who teaches psychology, told the Hartford Courant. "There's something about the American Dream that leads to overdoing everything."

It's one of several stories focused in "The Psychology of Overconsumption." The idea came out of research for another class, when Bessenoff noted the increased attention on hoarding and addiction. And she believes the American dream might have something to do with it. She's partly right, claiming the American dream originated as religious freedom, and suggests it is now fruitless.

In actuality, the American dream was first defined by James Truslow Adams in 1931. He said America was a place where citizens of every rank can achieve a "better, richer, and happier life." You can find the idea in the Declaration of Independence. It says that "all men are created equal" with inalienable rights such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The American dream Bessenoff is talking about today, is a misunderstanding. That American dream came about in the 1950s when certain items became commonplace as part of the American experience — a suburban home, lawn, car, and television. Basically, the public as a whole decided you could not have happiness without those things.

As the years moved forward, the quest for the new definition of the American dream became a compulsion and entitlement as opposed to something earned. We've added a lot more to the list too — a computer, smart phone, game console, certain services, certain assurances, etc.

More central, it seems to me, is her argument that people identify with not what they do (equally bad) but what they own (like a toothbrush).

How Does It Apply To Marketing And Communication?

If we oversimplify, marketing often comes in one of two forms. Innovate and create demand. Or, out position as a preferred choice. Both hope to establish a brand relationship that people identify with, as it generally solidifies consumer loyalty.

If Bessenoff is mostly right, then she is saying that people allow their things to identify them as much as they identify with their things. But I don't think that is right, except in some cases that I won't get into here.

Most people seem to buy something because it best meets the values or characteristics that they possess, like a hybrid car. Innovation tends to come out of these values too, which is why there is an increased focus on public transportation. And that is why what she is doing might be important to marketing. It helps clarify the thrust. People buy things (besides essentials) because it best meets their values and characteristics.

That seems like a very different class than overconsumption, although I agree with her that some brands are trying to hijack "happiness" into every can, cup, or cardboard box. Overconsumption is something else entirely, and I wish more marketers would pay attention to it. It's because the experience of purchasing the product (or consuming the product) is providing more happiness than the product.

That is something to think about. It could underpin which products or services are inherently weak, giving someone an opportunity to better innovate. Or perhaps, even more importantly, help us understand why popular tends to be less satisfying.

Advertising Negatives: Does It Still Work?

Now that the dust is settling after the midterm elections, it might be safer to consider the advent of negative advertising and whether or not it still works. The answer might be in the middle, with Americans clearly losing their appetite for it.

It's not exclusive to political advertisements. Companies employ them from time to time too, just with less frequency. Chevron clearly has in its campaign to claim that it is different from most energy companies. However, there might be some unintended consequences based on what it says.

What does it say? Oil companies make huge profits. Last year, Chevron made a lot of money. Where does it go? Oil companies should put their money to good use. All that sticks, but not the solution. Let's take a look...


The rest of the message is quickly lost to overlapping and less convicted dialogue, until Chevron is fully branded to the opening negative message. Did you see it? We make huge profits ... Chevron. We should put our money to good use ... Chevron. The economy is bad ... Chevron. It's the kind of strategy that lends itself to all sorts of interpretations, including those with colorful language.


Advertisers need to learn that people tend to associate negative messages with the source as much as the subject. The same can be said about political advertisements that are overtly negative, with some exceptions. But if it will help you to give yourself pause, always consider that negative messages generally stick to the source.

Some candidates learned this the hard way last night, except in Nevada. Front groups still seem to pull the wool over the eyes of Nevada voters. More than $1.7 million in negative ads was lobbied against one candidate from one front group, for example. But since the ad was funded by a front group, the opposing candidate wasn't considered the source.

Of course, both candidates did enter into the mudslinging on their own too. The reason was simple enough. Both of their respective teams knew they could no longer gain likability so they sought only to increase each other's unlikability. Now, neither of them are very well liked. Mission accomplished.

As much as I hate to admit it, negative ads do work, especially in politics. However, they tend to work best if they aren't too personal, too unbelievable (with the exception of humor), or too attached to the source as opposed to the subject. Looking back at the Chevron ad, you can easily see they miss on all three. The spoof, however, hits all three.

Checking It: Five Lessons To Save Your Social Media Program

Tucked inside a new study from Cone, a strategy and communication company, communication professionals will find some very worthwhile information if they read between the lines. And I do mean read between the lines.

The raw data never tells the whole story. You need a seasoned analyst to help you put the pieces together. And, this newest study demonstrates how important that can be.

An inexperienced communicator would look at this study and deduce customers like frequent engagement, plenty of coupons, interaction on more than one network, and are interested in everything the brand has to share on any given day. But we see the study differently, especially when we put the numbers from various parts to consider very different findings.

1. Incentive Offers Can Cost You Customers.

Finding. 77 percent of consumers say a free product, free service, coupon or discount will attract them to follow or like a new brand. However, in another section of the study, 58 percent of those consumers say that if a brand over communicates or starts to spam them (over saturating content or offers), then they are likely to stop following the brand.

Analysis. Everybody likes a promotion or contest from a brand they support. However, blasting daily discounts eventually erodes the offering, literally driving more people away than those offers might attract. Brands have to balance their tactical approach, keeping incentives in line with relevant content.

2. Consumers Can't Tell The Difference Between Blogs And Websites.

Finding. According to the study, 63 percent of Americans say that they interact with companies via their Websites and only 13 percent interact with or read a company blog, which scored lower than email, social networks, mobile devices, or message boards.

Analysis. The vast majority of links shared on social networks (content that consumers value) direct consumers to new information, articles, or posts. Whatever you call this content, almost all of it is delivered as a blog. In fact, more companies are beginning to replace their Websites with blogs to capitalize on a continuous stream of new content because there is very little reason to visit a static Website.

3. Social Networking Is A High Risk/Reward Medium.

Finding. 46 percent of consumers say that they expect companies to be able to solve their problems and provide customer support via social networks and/or other online engagement tools. 58 percent also say that when brands act irresponsibly toward "me" or other customers, they will stop following it.

Analysis. While many online interactions "feel" like customer service issues, brands must never lose sight of the fact that every interaction, especially with a customer having a problem, is a potential crisis communication situation. Where social media differs from customer service is two-fold. First, consumers are calling in on their own; they bring a percentage of their friends along for the ride. Second, the problem or concern is being addressed in public; the company must always remember it might as well be answering customer questions on a broadcast channel.

4. Engagement Is In The Eye Of The Beholder.

Finding. 28 percent of customers following a brand want the company to develop new ways to engage them online and 36 percent expect communication. However, 53 percent will drop the brand if the information they share isn't relevant enough and 36 percent will drop a brand that doesn't respond or refresh its content.

Analysis. People are different and, generally, behave online much like they do in real life. Think of it like your average high school classroom. Some students want to raise their hands and answer every question. Some students never want to be called on, even if they know the answer. Some leave the class and share information with friends. Some love the lessons, but share them with no one. And so on and so forth. Brands that build in adaptability to their engagement models will be best suited to hit the middle mark.

5. Real-Time Measurements Can Be Misleading.

Finding. Customers vary the number of times that they actively connect with brands. 33 percent visit once or twice a week (not daily), but the greater balance of the visitors only visit between a few times a year or a few times a month. 14 percent never visit again, even if they keep the connection open.

Analysis. The perspectives of a content creator and the consumer is significantly different. Content creators are engaged with their project on a daily basis. Most consumers are not, which changes the experience. For example, consumers are not likely to see each new item on a return visit but three or four or more new items, each time they return. So that post that didn't "seem" to have significant traction on the day it was posted could become your most popular a month from now.

Another quick tip related to experience: Online representatives must always remember that even if they have answered one question 100 times, the consumer is still asking that question for the first time. And no, they aren't searching your stream to see if you answered it already.

Social media seems like a simple communication tactic and many of my colleagues (myself included) tend to speak about it in simple terms. However, the reality is that social media is exceedingly complex because the people you hope to reach are complex. Sure, some experts will always make the case that there is a herd-like sociology pattern to be found, but don't count on it.

You can find the five-page 2010 Consumer New Media Study on Cone's Website. There is a data form to fill out, but you can limit the contact information to a name and email.

Tweeting Not tweeting: New Rules For Anything Goes

When Andy Warhol painted Campbell's soup cans, Brillo boxes, and Coca-Cola bottles, it was a well-known fact he consulted the style guides of the various brands he turned into subjects. Seriously? No, not seriously. I just made that up.

What I am not making up is Twitter would like to ask as much of you. Twitter has a new look. And with the new look comes revised rules for what once a clearinghouse of free expression. But as you know, with freedom comes responsibility, namely your responsibility and Twitter's freedom to protect its brand that you helped make popular.

Audrey Watters wrote about how what might seem harmless to some might have significant meaning to developers. And Brian Solis spelled out some of it in painstakingly detailed rules that everyone is asked to abide by. You can read about it straight from the source too.

"This document is designed to help you use our marks without having to worry about negotiating an agreement with us or talking to our lawyers. If you’d like to make any use of our marks that is not covered by this document, you must contact us at trademarks at twitter.com.

They're not new rules as much as they are revised old rules.

Before I go further, I might add most people don't have to be overly concerned today. The original guidelines were posted almost one year ago, including the aforementioned paragraph. Mostly, people ignored them, except developers.

In limited cases, graphic standards can be great things. They can be especially helpful for designers, partners, developers, and other vested parties. Attempting to herd the greater bulk of users, on the other hand, always ends badly.

It's something to keep in check. Twitter is aging quickly as a company, has new people in charge, and is feeling a little less vulnerable. You might too with so many users. Just look at what happened when MySpace felt safe.

All right, MySpace may not be the best example. But it does offer a reality check. One day, Twitter might insist that everyone capitalize the T in tweet (unless speaking about a bird, which I am). One day, the ability to leave the new and less aesthetically functional dashboard might end. And one day, it might insist every screen shot you ever took of a Twitter conversation might be struck.

While that might seem impossible, do keep in mind the new logo isn't as friendly as the original. That makes sense to me. Twitter doesn't define itself as a message service anymore. Nowadays, it is an information network.

By the way, did you know Reddit.com traffic has almost caught Digg.com traffic without any overt platform changes? And did you know Mixx.com is in decline (assuming you heard of it)? Did you know the Internet changes players on a regular basis?

Thinking Forward: The Digital Classroom

According to a recent Project Tomorrow survey, access to mobile technology in the classroom has more than tripled among high schools students since 2006. Most of them consider smart phones and other mobile devices critical to learning, but some policies generally prevent students from using the devices in school.

That isn't the case for every school. Some educators have taken to incorporating smart phones and mobile devices into the education platform rather than assuming they will detract from it (and 62 percent of parents say they would purchase a digital device if it were to be used for education). And where they are being incorporated, the results speak for themselves.

"We are beginning to see mobile learning take shape in pockets around the nation where a small but growing number of innovative educators are finding ways to leverage the once banned mobile devices for learning," said Julie Evans, chief executive officer of Project Tomorrow. "Educators have an opportunity to help students learn more effectively and deeply by leveraging students' preferred learning tools and strategies."

The report reveals a shift in thinking by parents and educators who are now beginning to accept the role of mobile devices as instructional tools, in part because they are active users of mobile devices in their own personal lives. At Jamestown Elementary School in Virginia, for example, students use mobile devices to create multimedia projects, improve their writing skills, and collaborate with their peers. We need more schools to take the right step in this direction.

The Digital Advantage For Education.

Working as a part-time near volunteer educator, I've been slowly integrating more digital content into the classroom on my own. I would implement the concept much more aggressively, but the holdback is the surprisingly limited accessibility of WiFi hot spots on campus. Go figure.

Since WiFi is not always readily available, I've employed a transitional approach such as my upcoming Social Media for Communication Strategy this Friday. (The class is from 9 a.m. to noon, in case you are interested). It's less than ideal, but it's a start.

I'll present, speak, and take questions during class. Then, I'll make the deck and select handouts available online for the students. I'll also provide some links where they can learn more, especially any living case studies that might span several posts on this blog. Students are always invited to connect, collaborate, and ask questions after the fact too. Some do, for years.

Imagine how impacting and easier this would all be if everyone had tablets and the schools had the right tools. I would be able to present on the big screen and then electronically push handouts and/or live content to every tablet in the room to augment the content in real time.

I could also feel free to integrate more interactive features that go well beyond the typical counting a raise of hands. For example, I could send out, collect, and compile data with immediate surveys or even spontaneous in-class questionnaires and quizzes. This could help someone like me immediately identify which subject areas require more coverage.

Even in sessions where grades are irrelevant, it could be useful and create opportunities to discuss the outcomes from a peer-to-peer perspective. And, it would open the doors for universities to expand beyond their proximity; password accessed live-streaming video would capture some of what is lost from an in-classroom experience.

The same benefits would apply to high schools, replacing the need for three-ring binders, an abundance of handouts, and lack of take-home textbooks. Even better, when children have to stay at home, they could either watch from home or review prerecorded sessions to catch up. Or, perhaps teachers could host weekly online question and answer sessions after hours. The potential applications are limitless.

This is a direction that could eventually reshape education. At minimum, it might refocus on teaching children how to develop a love for learning as opposed to rote memorization to measure so-called performance. Need another reason?

Project Tomorrow Project K-Nect Results

• Students participating in Project K-Nect have a greater self-perception (61 percent) that they are succeeding academically than their national peers (39 percent).
• More than 90 percent of the students said that they are now more comfortable learning math, and 81 percent said that they have increased confidence talking about math and math problems.
• Almost two-thirds of the students reported taking additional math courses and over 50 percent are now thinking about a career in a math field.
• Teachers involved in Project K-Nect also report that their students are more responsible for their own learning and have developed more collaborative learning skills as a result.

The first step is tablets. The cost? Spread out over an entire education cycle, tablets might mean an investment of $100 per student per year (factoring in for upgrades over 12 years). However, even this cost may come with savings. School districts would save on textbooks, printing, and autodials.

Sharing Stuff: Fresh Content Project

One of the biggest near cliches in social media is "sharing is caring," which has a double meaning. Sharing content created by people who continually provide you useful information is one meaning. But sharing relevant information with the people you are connected to demonstrates some caring too. Quantity does not replace quality.

Social media isn't the only player in the content curation game, of course. Media understands all too well that sharing the right content at the right time is sometimes more important than crafting a good story. I'm not suggesting this is the right path, but sometimes things are what they are. Here are five takes that all have something to do with sharing and its impact on just about everything.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of October 18

• Braided Journalism And The Future Of Public Relations.
As citizen journalists begin to band together and, in some cases, become embedded, the communication process is a bit more complicated. Valeria Maltoni paints the best case scenario for businesses, offering up that embedded journalists could mean more credibility, transparency, and many more voices. She cites Shel Israel's concept that traditional and citizen journalists intertwined through mutual need, but Ike Pigott also deserves some credit for tackling the embedded journalist issue too.

• Five Ways Social Will Change Journalism.
Interestingly enough, Ike Pigott also penned a post for Social Media Explorer, related to the five cracks in the concept of journalism. Three favorite topics: curation trumping creation, the over emphasis on trending topics, and catering to the crowds. While not all of these trends are good news, it doesn't mean that it all has to be bad either. History suggests when pendulums swing too far in one direction, they often swing back again. However, right now, Pigott is right. The socialization of journalism will diminish its might, but don't mistake these temporary changes as the death of it.

• Sharing Is The Cornerstone Of Social Media Success.
Adding evidence to Pigott's concept of curation beating creation is a well thought-out post by Jason Falls. His one line Twitter strategy is "share good shit." There are several reasons this approach succeeds for many people online. Most notably, the prevailing social media tactic that you have to give to get. And the secondary point, you have to provide value (which is another way of reminding people it's about them and not you). Falls also practices what he preaches. He implemented a new addition to how he shares, publishing the links he shares every day.

• Which Half Of The Ad Spend Is Wasted?
John Bell shares an old advertising adage that suggests half of advertising is a waste, but nobody knows which half. He then applies it to social media in that measuring against ROI alone is a dangerous game online. It is especially dangerous because people do not necessarily follow links through in a specific order. They might search for the company, product, or service instead. They might click on an organic search result. Thus, he suggests that people consider the combined influence of more trusted third-party sources for information, the compound effect of social media on the performance of highly measurable and targeted paid media, and the increasing performance of social as a preferred referral engine. Better than warm.

• Information Streams Accelerating the Attention Crisis.
Louis Gray points out the obvious in a post that helps clarify that sharing quantity is not the same thing as sharing quality. People are already overwhelmed by the amount of data being thrown at them. So, Gray says, it might make more sense to be relevant in the selection. And, he also smartly points out, that once the content is delivered, the click doesn't necessarily mean that we'll read the piece let alone be engage by it. He suggests that the people most likely to be the most followed in the future aren't those who blast away, but rather those who continually get it right in terms of sharing relevant information.

Treating Halloween: The Seven Deadly Sins Of Social Media

There is no question that social media can work as an important segment of any marketing or communication plan, but it also has a dark side. Why wouldn't it? Almost everything humans do has a cause, effect, and sometimes consequence. And what better way to lead into a Halloween weekend than by taking a quick look at the spooky side of human nature.

Although today's seven sins bear little resemblance to original as found in the Book of Proverbs and are considerably shorter than Epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 5:19-21), the seven deadly sins or vices held onto by modern society do ward people away from thoughts that often produce evil deeds, internally and externally. Online, offline, there really isn't much difference. Boo!

The Seven Deadly Sins Of Social Media.

Lust — Pandering influencers. If you are pandering to influencers by hanging on every word and lusting after their attention, you need a life. And if you're only lusting after them to leverage a faux relationship so they'll promote substandard content, then it's time to revisit your values. Manipulation is an empty outcome.

Greed — Chasing sales. If your only concern in social media is sales, traffic, and assembling a mob of would-be buyers, then your intent isn't grounded in customer concern. Sure, everyone needs money to keep the doors open, but that's not the secret to success. Success almost never chases money; money follows success.

Gluttony — Broadcasting. If you blast a steady stream of links, retweets, and reposts in an automated or near automated fashion, making consumption virtually impossible, you might be overindulging. Sharing is caring, much like cooking. Making too much is too much.

Sloth — Faking fame. If you open a social network account and never answer anyone's questions or engage anyone because you don't have time, consider the other person's perspective. If you don't have time for them, why would they have time for you? Don't buy followers either. Shortcuts don't work.

Wrath — Angry for attention. If your only goal in life is to be continually cast as a David taking on Goliath, pelting big guys with stones for all the wrongs they allegedly did to you, their customers, and the rest of the world, consider forgiveness. Criticism is welcome, but it usually comes with some sort of solution.

Pride — Boasting. If you find yourself celebrating your thousandth follower, publishing traffic stats to prove your worth, or checking your social network "score," your program is all in jeopardy. It's not really about you. It's about the relationships you create. Besides, self-worth works better from the inside out, and people tend to gravitate to it.

Envy — Misdirected attention. There is a flip side to pride that can be just as ugly. If you assume every popular person must be gaming the system or you're overly concerned with how many people read their content, you're looking in the wrong direction. Chances are you have a few dozen or hundred or thousand people who deserve more attention.

There is a flip side to all this evil thinking, of course. The seven virtues include valor (courage and knowledge), generosity, liberality, diligence (ethics), patience, kindness, and humility. It's a much better list of attributes. And it begins by asking yourself who you want to be rather than what you want to have. Happy Halloween.

Setting Example: How Ethics Plays Out, And Pays Out

While I would never encourage someone to seek a position to be a whistleblower, Cheryl Eckard, the former global quality assurance manager of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), demonstrated a near perfect example of how ethics ought to play out.

It's a lesson more public relations professionals and communicators might learn. As an industry, I sense many are still struggling to get it right. Well, it's more than a sense. I see exams that demonstrate ethics is approaching a crisis stage.

Eckard received $96 million of the settlement paid by the London-based company, which included $150 million in criminal fines and $600 million in civil penalties. The entire story makes an interesting case study in public relations. But for the purposes of the this post, the best lesson is how to approach ethical dilemmas inside a company.

How Eckard Approached Ethics Inside GlaxoSmithKline.

1. Eckard went to the Puerto Rico plant in August 2002 to correct manufacturing violations.
2. She discovered numerous violations, and suggested how those violations might be fixed.
3. She reported the problems to her superiors and the company's compliance department.
4. According to reports, neither the company nor the plant did anything to address the problems.
5. Eckard was eventually terminated, one year later, allegedly because of continuing to report problems.
6. Eckard turned whistleblower out of concern for consumer safety and public health.

The only area for improvement, keeping in mind it isn't clear if the company fired her prior to her realizing the company did not intend to take action, is Eckard could have resigned and still turned whistleblower. Any member of any company has an obligation to warn the public when all efforts to correct a problem internally have failed.

"We regret that we operated the Cidra facility in a manner that was inconsistent with current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) requirements and with GSK's commitment to manufacturing quality," said PD Villarreal, senior vice president and head of global litigation. "GSK worked hard to resolve fully the manufacturing issues at the Cidra facility prior to its closure in 2009 and we are committed to continuous improvement in our manufacturing processes."

Most reports indicate the plant was in violation of safety standards through 2005. The settlement statement reinforces that the company has not received any additional FDA warning letters since 2005. The plant continued to operate until 2009.

Where Public Relations Professionals And Communicators Tend To Trip Up.

From what I have noted, public relations professionals and communicators tend to fall on the opposite extremes of ethics. Either they pounce, reporting and making public any problems (even if there are none) without giving anyone the opportunity to do the right thing. Or, they don't go far enough, following most steps correctly until it becomes time to resign.

Only about 50 percent say they would be prepared to resign. Only about two percent say they would go public after resigning, potentially allowing public safety problems to occur. This concerns me. It ought to concern you too.

While situations might call for variations, ethical dilemmas are best handled by raising the issue with the guilty party, allowing them to correct the mistake and report the problem on their own. If they do not, then the discovering party should report it up to supervisors until one of them takes action. If no one is willing to, then the next appropriate step is to resign, letting the company know you intend to go public. What else is there?

Making Snowmen: Two Social Media Views

While it is true I live in Las Vegas, I wasn't born here. I was born in the Midwest, where winters were always white and building snowmen is considered a skill set. It might not be a bad skill set for social media experts to learn too. Making even one snowman can teach you a little bit about social media.

How To Build A Social Media Program, Using Snow.

1. Test the snow. Some snow clumps better than other snow.
2. Shape a small handful, slowly adding to it over time.
3. Accumulate more snow, pressing each layer to keep it firm.
4. Repeat for each section, considering which might be a foundation and head.
5. Link your various sections together. Snowmen fall apart without proper links.
6. Be creative because content matters. A banana might make an unexpected nose.
7. Add a hat, scarf, or other apparel to give it an authentic and unique personality.
8. Snowmen aren't uncommon, but people still take time to see an amazing snowman.

Now, if you had some of the same experiences I had growing up, there always seemed to one or two kids who enjoyed taking credit for building snowmen, but didn't necessarily have any passion to do the work. It seemed silly to them to start out with a snowball, when snow covering a ball might do the trick just as nicely. All that air in the ball will add volume and save time.

How Not To Build A Social Media Program, Using Snow.

1. Find a ball or make a cutout to inflate your sections.
2. Pile snow around balls, hiding the artificial surface.
3. Don't skimp on linking. Links are the most important part.
4. Don't worry about being creative. People expect snowmen to look the same.
5. Steal someone else's hat, scarf, and apparel, turning it inside out to make it look real.
6. People will still stop by, and if they take a snapshot, nobody will be the wiser.

For the first couple of days, not everyone will be able to tell the snowman apart from the real thing (especially if the original had time to replace the stolen clothes). But eventually, they will.

Artificial snowmen don't hold up as well in bad weather (or if the days turn warmer). An errant snowball might fracture the poorly constructed surface. And someone might notice the name tag in the hat doesn't belong to the owner.

Social media is only as complicated as you make it, assuming you don't fake it. The general idea is to find the right flakes and help them stick together. That takes time.

You can cut the time significantly by skipping some steps. But if you aim to capture attention with spam links, faux followers, and other tricks, then it might be time to face facts. The crowd that is gathering isn't visiting to join a community. They are visiting to shake their heads at a mess. Sometimes, they might even shake their fists. It's no fun linking to a detour.

Causing Havoc: NPR's Whack-A-Juan Game

When Bob Conrad first posted his take on the Juan Williams vs. NPR shakeup, I was quick to disagree. Too quick? Yes and no.

Conrad's position is better crafted if you read his take on the dust up, but the summarized version, simply put, is that NPR was within its rights to fire Williams. There is no dispute there.

Conrad also goes on to show the documentation, including the memo sent to everyone who works for NPR and the posting that outlines an entire history for consideration. Within the post is the real reason: NPR didn't like Williams working as both a "balanced news analyst on NPR; more opinionated pundit on Fox." (Minor point: He has been asked to give opinions across multiple outlets for years.)

The postscript might make some more sympathetic to NPR. And for others, the explanation leaves even less to be desired.

That is my contention. NPR may have been within its rights to fire Williams, but the fact that it wasn't satisfied with being within its rights was a mistake. It wants to be right too. And in being right, it wants the public to say it was right too. Too bad.

Being right is often a matter of opinion. And the initial case laid, that Williams made allegedly bigoted remarks, is open for debate.

Were Williams' Remarks Bigoted Or A Mechanism For Discussion?

They were not. You have to watch the entire clip to understand it. I did several times, but I only found a partial clip. He shared a personal experience, qualified on the front end and expanded upon it beyond this video, talking about how Americans must learn to distinguish between radical extremists and non-radical muslims. He also tried to reiterate this in his reaction to the firing.

My first thought for this post was to place this in a different context, mentioning the Confederate flag, which became (to some people) a symbol of slavery and racism. Or maybe it is like the swastika, often considered a symbol of hate.

In this case, Williams taps into the same thinking about "full muslim garb." He is not alone. Many Americans have taken such dress to represent something that it may or may not be. I don't share this feeling (or any feelings like that). But I do understand feelings like that. So perhaps it is better to explain from a personal experience.

Years ago, at the urging of one of my closest friends, I joined the NAACP (which seemed to have a milder platform then than it does today). My intent was to help the NAACP carry a broader and more inclusive message. My supporters in this pursuit were my friend, Nev. State Sen. Joel Neal, and Rev. Jesse Scott.

The first time I had the floor at an NAACP meeting, I was nervous. Rev. Scott had even told me I had every right to be nervous, because many people within the room would look on a caucasian NAACP member with suspicion, especially in a community that had recently been likened to the Mississippi of the West (whatever that means). Sen. Neal had even quipped that I had every right to join, given that the "C" in the NAACP stood for colored. My color just happened to be white. (If I was translucent, he also joked, I would not be allowed to join.)

So, does sharing this public speaking experience, and the fact it made me nervous, make me a bigot? Although I would be hard pressed to feel nervous speaking anywhere today, I think not. At worst, I was ignorant. But ignorance is readily cured with open dialogue, assuming people are open with their feelings. (As a side note, I was also nervous speaking to my first class at UNLV, with a mixed audience.)

Looking back, I never did as much as I wanted to do for the chapter then. But there were several other people that I enjoyed and appreciated meaningful friendships with from that point on.

I would like to think that is where Williams was coming from in his commentary. But, I can understand why those who might have had a much more sheltered set of experiences might not see where he was coming from. His commentary was a bridge to mutual understanding that humanized the story and helped people relate. At the other end of this bridge, was compassion.

The NRP Public Relations Debacle.

NPR has already admitted it handled the situation poorly, especially in that NPR President Vivian Schiller saw no trouble in sharing her personal views of Williams. She has since publicly apologized, which begs the question why the network didn't extend the same opportunity to Williams.

There were dozens of ways NPR could have kept itself out of the spotlight or handled the mess, including not renewing his contract or insisting he apologize (which might have convinced him to resign). But regardless of all of these other options, there is a bigger issue.

NPR is still insisting not that it was within in rights, but that it was right in its decision. This insistence comes well after all its admissions of mistakes and apologies and regrets. And yet, they persist.

What they don't understand is this: Whether NPR is right or not, the network chose to pursue a court of public opinion for validation over the firing. If you pursue public opinion for affirmation of anything, you might expect to be grossly disappointed. And, once disappointed, don't make the mistake of arguing to be right or continuing to whack someone you already fired.

NPR was within its rights to fire Williams, but it fired Williams for the wrong reasons. Period. And until NPR accepts that, all it will do is fan the fire of those who disagree.

If they do it enough, then it is very likely they will be fired too, losing one to three percent of income that comes from taxpayer funding (or perhaps that figure is more). But even if they keep their funding, this is one of the stories that will make it difficult to see NPR the same way again. The New York Times included.

Charging Brands: Latino Bloggers Want To Be Paid

Although the national survey was limited to Hispanic bloggers, the same could be said about bloggers in general. Most of them want to be compensated.

According to the survey, monetary compensation isn't the only form of compensation (although some are only interested in monetary compensation). Free products, event passes, and insider opportunities are all attractive offers. It was also interesting to note that survey respondents placed significantly higher value on writing a post for someone as opposed to accepting payment for a sponsored post.

Highlights From the National Hispanic Blogger Survey

• 88 percent of Latino bloggers surveyed felt compensation was important to them.
• 61 percent of Latino bloggers are currently running Google and other ad networks.
• 52 percent of Latino bloggers said they wanted standardized rates for sponsored posts.
• 40 percent of Latino bloggers say they never perform work for brands without compensation.

Additional Insights From The Limited Survey Group.

• 41 percent post a few times per week and 26 percent post daily.
• 26 percent invest 5 hours or less to develop content; 30 percent invest 6-10 hours.
• 38 percent promote on Facebook; 35 percent promote on Twitter.
• 29 percent started for the journalism experience; 18 percent to develop connections.
• 38 percent valued posts at $250; 19 percent at $500; 24 percent at more than $500.
• Tweets were valued at $25 or more, with some placing 2-3 tweets at $100 or more.

"We know the topic of compensation is a sensitive one and at times controversial for bloggers," said Lourdes Rodriguez, president of HPRA Los Angeles. "But at the same time this information is invaluable to brand marketers and agencies."

Have Public Relations Professionals Priced Themselves Out Of Earned Media?

While the survey sampling is small, the study helped clarify something that has been occurring over the last few years. Just two years ago, most bloggers were satisfied with receiving attention from a company. Today, the cost of a single post can be as high as $1,000 (more if it is written by some people) and up to $500 if it is sponsored.

Wouldn't it be something if public relations professionals — working so hard to demonstrate that targeting bloggers is on par (or better) with traditional publications in a quantifiable way — never realized bloggers were listening to their conversations? Or, in other words, as public relations practitioners continued to inflate the value of circulation via blogs, bloggers decided they weren't so willing to give away space as earned media, a luxury major media could afford because of advertising dollars. Imagine that.

Creating Paradoxes: Fresh Content Project

Maybe we can blame politicians for the mix up, but the juxtapositions seem to have seeped into everything lately. People are continually asking us to pick sides. Are customers people we can relate to or mindless herds that click buttons? Does social media represent a more authentic business or a security breach that needs to be plugged? Is the new Facebook Group feature the answer to all our prayers or an opportunity to create illusionary layers of isolation?

I have a better question. Why is it when people offer us two choices, the two choices inevitability suck? Most questions in our life aren't as simple as choosing a cup or a cone. And even if that is the question, we might appease any indecision by flopping the cone on top of the scoop in the cup, making a nifty little crunchy hat.

But, as I said, that is an easy question. Nowadays, we increasingly ask questions that don't makes sense: do we want the ice cream in our hand or just a cone with no filling? All five posts touch the chronic duality of several experiences. Personally, the better choice is not to be the sucker picking between bad and worse (except on election day, I guess).

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of October 11

• Facebook Groups Give Rise To Social Nicheworking.
Brian Solis provides his take on the addition of groups on Facebook. The new tool allows Facebook users to group their friends, allowing users to share some items within select groups or everyone as they might want to. This could solve the challenge of keeping personal information personal and professional information professional. Of course, this assumes people will bother (most won't) and doesn't preclude someone from sharing what you said outside a group. Interesting read, even if it skews toward the way public relations pro would like to see it used.

• Us Vs. Them Thinking: You've Been Cookied.
Valeria Maltoni explores the possibilities that exist with having authentic conversations with customers. However, as long as those conversations have a click, like, sale, cookie, or some other agenda, she wonders whether most will simply be manufactured conversations crafted to draw people in. It's certainly possible. As long as the pressure for social media is to prove itself by those likes, clicks, and other symbols of online action, one can only assume someone is crafting what constitutes the best tweet to attract followers.

• Truth in Juxtaposition.
In almost like-minded fashion, Ike Pigott presented two tweets from opposite ends of the bipolar social media debate. On one hand, technology cannot replace human interaction. On the other, people are trying to figure out whether Twitter gets more clicks than Facebook. He offers up the nexus: “You can’t have a relationship with a database, but databases might yield useful information about our relationships.” Besides that, he mentions Rush in his post.

• Getting It.
Ike Pigott tackles the idea of "getting it" when it comes to social media. He's right in that there is a lot of fear in corporate America, with the goal of most companies hoping to carve out their piece of the pie and then protect it at all costs. Such thinking doesn't leave much room for things like blogs and social networks (with the polar extreme being employers who try to order their employees to promote, promote, promote). The irony, Pigott points out, is that the problem has nothing to do with social media. It has to do with employee behavior, and nobody seems to be doing anything about that.

• How To Show Up And Write
I was thinking about an upcoming editing class when this Fresh Pick popped up for consideration. Taylor Lindstrom tackles the question of how people become better writers. The simplicity is also the trip up. If you want be able to write more, write more. Lindstrom then goes on to offer the analogy that running can be approached the same way. If you want to run a marathon, you have to show up and run. So what's the rub? The rub is what I love best. Simplicity doesn't mean easy. It also doesn't guarantee results. Some people will never run marathons because they aren't built to. Some people aren't built to write, either.