HighTalk

Icon

Conversations with George F. Snell III on Media, PR & the Social Web

February 8, 2010 • 1:03 pm 1

Balance is Unnecessary for Good Journalism

Balance be damned. Truth is what matters.

Here’s what “balanced” reporting can beget:

  • The birthers.  A large group of right-wing conspiracy theorists who mistakenly believe that President Obama was born in Africa and doesn’t have a legitimate U.S. birth certificate.  Yet Hawaiian officials deny those claims and have produced copies of Obama’s birth certificate.
  • Death panels.  The claim by members of the newly formed Tea Party movement that the health care reform bill sponsored by the Democrats included language that would create “death panels” to determine if sick elderly patients would receive care or be abandoned to die.  There was, of course, no such language.
  • Vaccinations and autism.  The belief by a growing number of people that the childhood vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella can trigger autism.  This despite no creditable scientific evidence and, in fact, tons of evidence to the contrary.
  • Evolution vs. intelligent design.  A growing movement of Americans that believe that evolution – re-labelled as “Darwinism” – is an unproven belief system on par with creationism.  In fact, evolution is a scientific fact and forms the basis of the study of biology.
  • Holocaust deniers.  A group of people that claim that the Nazi death camps in World War II targeting Jews and other minority groups did not happen or have been exaggerated despite the overwhelming evidence found in the historical record.

The cases above were legitimatized by getting lots of media coverage.  Many of these movements were actually debated on TV news programs as if there were two legitimate sides to the story.

For example, Larry King on CNN interviewed one of the most vocal opponents to childhood vaccinations B-movie actress Jenny McCarthy.  McCarthy told King’s audience: “No, I do not believe that vaccines are the sole cause for autism. I do believe they are a trigger.”

King presented the former Playboy model and college drop-out as a legitimate scientific source on vaccinations – even though the real scientists and doctors at the Centers of Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health have determined no link between vaccinations and autism in several published studies.  Time magazine even wrote an article about the lack of scientific evidence supporting the autism connection, but headlined its story: “How Safe of Vaccines?” as if the issue was still up for debate.

So now we have many people confused about the issue when there should be no confusion.  Vaccinations have been one of the most important and successful public health initiatives in history – having literally saved the lives of millions of children.

The only way fringe movements – especially those fringe movements with no basis in fact – can become legitimate is to get media coverage.  The media often succumb to these groups in the mistaken belief that they need to provide “balanced” coverage.

Balance in journalism has always been tricky and misinterpreted – not only by the public, but by journalists.  When I was a journalist, the mantra was always: “Get both sides of the story.”

This was an effort to be fair – to make sure that the two-sides to every story were given equal weight. But unfortunately, there aren’t two sides to every story.  Sometimes there’s only one side – and many times there are multiple sides (I’ve written about the myth of “two-sides of news” before).

The examples above are issues with only one side.

Obama, for example, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.  Here’s a copy of his birth certificate.  There is no “other” side.

Yet the media felt compelled to air the birther’s beliefs in the name of “balanced” news.  As a result, the reporting actually help spread the misinformation and bolster the claim.  Some media outlets – like FOX-TV and Lou Dobbs on CNN – actually spread the untruths as a legitimate controversy.  At one point in August 2009, more than a quarter of all Republicans believed Obama was foreign born.

Spreading misinformation is bad journalism.  But it was this bad, but balanced journalism that helped spread the birther lies about the president.

The first obligation of journalism should be the truth.  In the age of internet communications, where any fringe group of a web page can spread lies and deceit instantly and around the world, journalists need to forgo the antiquated idea that balance is part of uncovering truth.

Truth is what matters.  If journalism is to survive and thrive in the 21st century then uncovering truth needs to be its primary goal.  Not dividing every issue into two competing, but equal sides.

I’ve shared my opinion.  What do you think?  Is balance necessary for good journalism?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Journalism, Newspapers , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 3, 2010 • 9:05 am 2

10 Ways to Break Out of the Echo Chamber

"O Captain, My Captain!"

Sometimes you need to drive a different route to work.

When you do that – you see new things.  Or even see the same things from a different vantage point.  Remember the scene in “Dead Poet’s Society” when Robin Williams has his literature students stand on their desks?

Williams, playing teacher John Keating, tells them: “I stand upon my desk to remind myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way.”

It is easy to do things the same way over and over again – until it becomes automatic.  So automatic that you never stop to consider why you are doing it that way anymore.

In business – especially in communications and marketing – that’s dangerous behavior.

All of us get complacent.  We forget to keep exploring and asking questions.  We all have our own echo chambers where are beliefs and reinforced (for many of us its called our RSS feeds).  So here are 10 ways to break out of our own personal echo chambers:

1. Drive a new way to work.  Take the scenic route or just drive randomly and see if you can find a shortcut – or even a longcut.

2. Don’t read your RSS feeds for week and instead read publications and blogs that you don’t usually read.

3. Pick up a book from a genre you never read – Fantasy, Western, Romance, etc. – and dive right in.

4. Don’t watch television for a week and see if your perspective changes on how you relate/understand news stories.

5. Order a lunch that you’ve never ordered before from a restaurant that you’ve never been to.

6. Start a conversation with a stranger.

7. Take a personal day off from work and go to a matinee.  Or get a massage.  Or go to a museum or the library.  Break your daily routine.

8. Invite a co-worker you’ve never had lunch with to lunch.  Have a real conversations with them.

9. Pick out a random assortment of Tweeples and read through their tweets to get a completely different perspective from the usual group of people that you follow.

10. Stand on your desk.

How about you?  Got any advice on breaking out of routines?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Business, Culture , ,

February 2, 2010 • 1:17 pm 1

Six Ways Blogging Changes Behavior

As a long-time blogger (has it really been four years?) there are amazing and strange ways that the medium changes your behavior.  Below are six ways in which I’ve observed that blogging can change behavior – both good and bad.

Good luck getting this rascal off your back.

The World is a Blog Post

Bloggers begin to experience everything around them as potential topics for blogging.  For me, any new topic and I can feel my mind trying to figure out how this information can be presented as a blog post.  Every time I meet with clients – their questions steer me to new topics.  Every thing I read begins to germinate as a blog post.  TV, movies, cooking, driving, etc.  Everything becomes fodder.  Most of the time bloggers don’t even realize that this is happening.

Sharing Everything – But Maybe Not

Bloggers are excited about news – and trends.  The tendency is to share everything.  You discover something new and you begin to think about ways to share the information with your friends, fans and followers.  This can be a good thing – especially when you’ve just read an article on tips to improve your social media campaign or a news story about businesses adopting social media practices.  However, your filters can get out of whack very quickly.

For example, several times I’ve started to draft a blog post related to a client or Weber Shandwick (where I work) when suddenly it dawns on me that I can’t share this information.  It is either privileged or private.  The instinct to share is very powerful when you’re a blogger that it can sometimes override common sense.  I can definitely understand how people end up sharing too much and get in trouble.

So it is important to make sure your filters are strong and that you don’t publish blog posts rashly.

The Searing Guilt of Blogging

It’s been a few days and no blog post.  Tomorrow, you think, I’ll have more time tomorrow.  Then tomorrow – which is now today – slips by with too many meetings, too many deadlines, and there’s still no blog post.  The blog starts to become a rather corpulent monkey riding on your shoulders.  The guilt starts to weigh you down until it begins to interrupt your day – kind of like what would happen if the monkey started banging a coconut against your head.  Some bloggers are good at pretending that there is no monkey on their shoulders.  Others can’t handle it and, despite other tasks mounting up, they write the damn blog post.

Me?  I need to get rid of the monkey.

Over Simplification Syndrome

Bloggers develop a very bad habit: If it can’t be explained in a blog post then it is too complicated.  Unfortunately, life is extremely complicated.  So is business.  Very few topics can be explained thoroughly via a blog post.  So there is a tendency to shave away the complications and make things – processes, politics, marketing, etc. – seem simpler than they really are.

There are very few solutions that work for everyone in every situation.  For example, saying that every company needs a social media strategy isn’t true.  Some companies don’t need to use social media.  Heck, some companies don’t need marketing or communications.

Bloggers need to be diligent in not resorting to Over Simplification Syndrome.

Oops, I’m Lecturing Again

Bloggers know everything.  Just read their blogs.

Only if you go back far enough in the archives, you’ll probably discover that the blogger has contradicted herself many times.  That’s because blogs are works in progress and bloggers may think one thing last year, but have now changed their minds.  That’s how most rational human beings work.  They discover new information and then adjust their opinions with the new data points.

But bloggers tend to be authoritative – even on topics that they are not experts on.  They like to use statements.  So bloggers have a tendency to start lecturing (and some bloggers can be downright scolding) and that’s not a good tendency.  Luckily, most bloggers allow for commenting and readers can weigh in when the lecturing becomes too much.

Here’s My Opinion – Whether You Want it or Not!

Bloggers get very bold in stating their opinions.  It’s what they do when they are blogging.  But being opinionated can often bleed out from blogging into regular life.  And guess what?  Most people don’t like really opinionated people constantly stating their opinions about everything.  People like conversations and interactions.

Bloggers need to watch out for this.

So how about you?  If you blog, how has it changed your behavior?  Have other social media channels changed the way you act?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Blogging, Culture, Social Media , ,

January 27, 2010 • 11:55 am 0

Why “Free” Won’t Work for Journalism on the Web

The state of online journalism's business model.

In a speech defending journalism Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger recently took a shot at the New York Times‘ decision to erect a paid wall around its content in 2011.

In defense of providing free content, Rusbridger said of the UK-based Guardian:

“During the last three months of 2009 the Guardian was being read by 40 per cent more people than during the same period in 2008. That’s right, a mainstream media company – you know, the ones that should admit the game’s up because they are so irrelevant and don’t know what they are doing in this new media landscape – has grown its audience by 40 per cent in a year.”

It is always good news for a media company to expand its audience – or is it?

Because providing free content is not a sustainable business model for the Guardian or any other publication that conducts serious journalism (I’m talking about journalism – not just reporting).  Online advertising simply doesn’t provide enough revenue to pay for globally dispatched editors and reporters.  So here is a question for Rusbridger:

Could the Guardian even afford to provide free web content if it wasn’t subsidizing the web site by selling content through its print edition?  And how much longer can the Guardian afford these subsidies?

Because here is the real question for newspapers and magazines.  What’s more valuable?  A smaller audience paying for the content or a larger audience not paying for it?

Rusbridger talks about the higher ideals of journalism and wants newspapers and magazines to be an important part of the global dialogue now taking place on the web.  Those are, indeed, worthy goals, but can you really discuss higher ideals when your business model is sinking like a rock?  He acknowledged in his speech:

“If you think about journalism, not business models, you can become rather excited about the future. If you only think about business models you can scare yourself into total paralysis.”

There is no doubt that newspapers are responsible for a large part of their problems.  We can all acknowledge that mistakes have been made.  Big mistakes.

I recently wrote a blog post asking whether free content was simply a stage in the Internet’s growth – much like a phase it went through on the retail side during the dot-com era.  I noted that many dot-coms offered free as an enticement to draw in large audiences – free products, free shipping, free returns and free forever offers.  That model proved to be disastrous and helped usher in the dot-bomb era.

It was the second wave of online retailers – and the smart first wavers – that figured out how to profit from online retail.  So is it so outrageous to consider that free content – really free journalism (which is extremely expensive to produce effectively) – on the web is in a temporary “free” stage that is unsustainable and that a paid model will emerge to make it all work?

I think the starting point for many pundits – that content needs to be free on the web – isn’t necessarily true.  I respectfully disagree with Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine who insists that “linking” is a right and “keystone of free speech” not just a bizarre accident that occurred when publishers and others started posting content on the web for free – without much consideration for the consequences.

Jarvis recently wrote: “What’s public is public – that is, we, the public, have a right to observe, point to, share, and comment on it. And the internet is public.”

That simply isn’t true.  Some areas of the web are public – but there are many private, password protected quarters on the Internet.  Large swaths of the Internet may be “open,” but they are privately held.  Take Facebook.  Facebook can ban people from their property and remove their content at will.  People on Facebook can also control their privacy settings – allowing some in and others to be kept out.  That’s pretty much the same at many social networks that allow users increasing degrees of privacy.

Jarvis argues that blocking links is an assault on journalism.  That is patently ridiculous.  What endangers journalism is the idea that newspapers and magazines need to give it away for free – while it costs them money to produce.  And to make matters worse search engines, social bookmarking sites, and content aggregators can then use this journalism to enrich their own coffers and don’t have to help produce it or pay for it.  Now that’s what is really ridiculous.

I’m sorry, but if I have to decide which is more important to society – the New York Times or Del.icio.us – my vote goes to the Times.

We are all now conditioned at getting online data and information for free.  But just because that’s the way it is now doesn’t mean it will always be this way.  The dot-com era proved that poor business models – particularly the ones that promised “free forever” quickly went out of business.  And there will always be a lot of content on the Internet that will always be free – blogs, government documents and reports, retail sites, books no longer under copyright, companies and organizations that want to provide free data, etc.

Even a lot of journalism can remain free – if we change the rules.  I offer a few suggestions on how journalism can be kept accessible on the web – while being paid for by those that consume it:

  • Why do we have choose between only two states for content: open and closed?  In other words, why must content either be free or sold?  Can’t it be both?  Can news outlets keep content behind a paid wall for the first 24-hours and then release it afterwards?  Consumers would then pay for access to the immediacy of the news when it is most valuable.  Outlets could then release the archival material to allow for its use in the public record.
  • Create a model where search engines and content aggregators need to share profits with the content producers.  So if Google sends traffic to the Boston Globe, the Globe gets a small percentage of the profits Google makes from selling advertising around the search terms that lead the user to the Globe’s web site.  Google is, after all, profiting by accessing other people’s content and they should be charged a fee for that – just like anyone who borrows or uses material with a copyright.  Blogs and other news sites would be allowed to “link” as long as they cited and credited the source of the link.
  • Form a formal partnership between the search engines and aggregators and the publishing industry where together they share the revenue that they generate together.  Think of the NFL – of all things – as a model.  The teams pool the TV revenues into a pot – and split it.  Would it be so hard to figure out an equitable system to allow revenue sharing for every entity that profits from journalism so that we can afford to pay for it?

These are my feeble suggestions.  It might be a simply as changing the pricing models on online advertising.  But I’m sure that the answer is out there (and hopefully the New York Times will discover it when it launches its paid wall in 2011).  But just like Apple figured out a way to make selling music online work, there is a way to make journalism work on the web as well.

But I’m eager to get your take on this.  What do you think is the future of online journalism?  Is “free” content a model that can work for news outlets?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Content Creation, Journalism, Media Relations, Newspapers, Social Media , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 26, 2010 • 2:25 pm 4

3 Examples of Facebook Awkwardness

Can Facebook actually be more awkward than this? You bet!

Facebook is a wonderful place for communications – for keeping in touch with people.  Yet like any social circle it has it’s awkward moments.

Here are examples of three of them.  Please feel free to add your own.

1. Fan Me!

I’m sure this has happened to you.

One of your Facebook friends sends you an invite to be a fan of their business or blog or hobby page.  You don’t do any business with them.  You don’t read their blog.  You don’t engage in their hobby.

Yet you feel obligated to accept – even though you don’t want to.  Some people do accept and just suck it up as the price of not offending anyone.

But there are some of us (yes, I’m part of this group) that declines.  And guess what happens next?  The “friend” inevitably sends another invite.  The awkwardness just reached a new level of discomfort.

Blogger Mark Drapeau at Cheeky Fresh puts it more bluntly in a recent post: “Not only do I not give a crap about being your “Fan” (whatever that means), your in-your-face tactics just make your numbers inauthentic, and therefore, meaningless. So basically, your actions are meaningless. Is that any way to go through life?”

Then there is the other side of the equation.  Why in the world are you inviting random people to be fans of your business, blog or hobby page?  Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of having a “fan”?  Aren’t fans supposed to passionate about what they are fans about?  What are you hoping to accomplish by collecting fans that, in fact, really aren’t fans?

2. How utterly random

Sitting in my inbox, untouched so far, are two invitations for “friends.”  One is a woman (apparently a blogger) who I have never heard of.  She has not emailed or called me to introduce herself.  She has not – as far as I know – commented on HighTalk or aggregated or shared any the content I produce here.  I have absolutely no idea why she wants to be my “friend.”

The second invite is from an acquaintance.  My family has a lake house in Maine and the invite is from one of our neighbors.  A very nice man who I’ve shared a few conversations with.  But nothing intimate.  The conversations have been polite, but always superficial.  In fact, the neighbor is much friendlier with my mother and father.

Awkward?  You bet.

The reason is we all use Facebook differently.  I use it to connect with people I’ve met and share common interests with.  I primarily use it as a water cooler – not a place to share family details or photographs.  I think of Facebook as an extension of my work life – but the intimate work life.  So most of the people I am connect with (and there are many exceptions!) are related to that part of my life.

So that neighbor of mine?  Does he really want to read status updates focused on PR and social media?  Probably not.  In fact, the stranger who blogs would probably find my content more interesting.

3. Not really a friend

You connect with someone you know on Facebook and then discover that you have been blocked from just about every piece of content on their site.

You can’t look at their photos.  You can’t see their videos.  You are even banned from their profile information.

What’s the point?

Facebook has become so big – so ubiquitous – that we now connect with people that we don’t really want to connect with, but feel obligated to.  We just don’t have the inner fortitude to say no when that invite comes a knocking.

So rather than say no – we say yes – and then put them in the corner with Baby.

In many ways, this is more awkward than being rejected.  Because rather than a no to friend request – you get a kind of.  It’s like being invited to join a fraternity – only you can only go to the frat house on Mondays and Tuesdays in the morning.  The rest of the time?  You’re banned.

So how about you?  Any Facebook awkwardness you’d like to share?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Culture, Social Media , , , ,

January 22, 2010 • 8:22 am 1

Is Free Content Just a Stage in the Internet’s Growth?

Free is a lousy business model.

The New York Times announced this week that it will begin to charge for content – again – in 2011.  The Times hasn’t mapped out a plan on how it will accomplish this, but it brings up a larger question:

Is free content just a stage we’re going through in the evolution of the Internet?

In other words – is “free” sustainable?

If we look back at the dot-com era as a guide post there’s an argument to be made that our current state of “free content” on the web might not be permanent, but simply a nascent stage in the growth of the Internet. That conclusion can be supported by evidence of what happened to online retail during the dot-com phase of the Internet’s growth.

Those were the heady days of the dot-com bubble when every product had a .com after its name and its own online store: Furniture.com, Pets.com, Toys.com, and Jewelry.com to name but a few.  Many roared into prominence with grand promises of “free forever” – from shipping to returns to products.

I consulted with a company called Intranets.com that provided free intranets to small and mid-size companies.  Intranets.com made “free forever” part of their messaging – until they implemented a monthly subscription fee.

Remember HomePoint.com?  They sold furniture on the web and promised free returns.  But returning a 82-inch, $2,000 couch turns out to much more expensive than returning a DVD.  They went out of business (and they weren’t alone).

All the promises of free this or that turned out to be a lousy business model for online retail and its already razor thin margins.  The result was the dot-com bust that rose like a mushroom cloud over Silicon Valley in 2000.  Now there were other problems for the dot-coms other than the promises of free, but the cheaper and faster mantra certainly added to their problems.

So that brings us to today and our state of free content.  Content cost money, yet the media industry – with only a few notable exceptions – has been giving away their most valuable commodity for free – for years.

And that is no longer working out very well – as the Great Media Collapse of the past year has clearly shown.

The New York Times wants to change that by charging for its content.  This hasn’t worked in the past.  The Times tried to charge for premium content a few years back and it bombed.  This time, however, they may have learned a thing or two from the failed experience.  Hopefully, they are in the process of developing a strategy that will benefit both them and their readers.  We’ll see once they roll out the details.

Will other media outlets follow them into the pay model?  News Corps seems ready to jump into the river with the Times.  Will there be others?  Can media outlets really afford NOT to start charging?  Reporting news takes manpower and manpower costs a lot of money.  You can’t afford to send reporters and photographers to Haiti, for example, to conduct in-depth reporting on the earthquake if you don’t charge readers for the content.

It’s a very simple equation.  If media outlets don’t start charging for their efforts – they will continue to fail.  That’s just the way it is.  I disagree with pundits like Jeff Jarvis who believe that web content wants and needs to be free.  Jarvis warns that if the New York Times charges its readers – its readership will shrink.  Well, no kidding.  But it’s better than the alternative – bankruptcy.

There’s another reason why free content is a bad idea.  Value.  People don’t place a premium on items they get for free.  For example, a report on NPR’s Marketplace yesterday on healthcare and unions illustrated this point perfectly.  A dentist’s office for union employees had skyrocketing cancellation rates because the union members received their treatments for basically no cost.  When patients had to pay a larger fee for canceling an appointment the cancellation rate dropped from 25 to 5 percent.

According to the report: “When it’s only $6 (to cancel), there’s very little incentive, if it’s not convenient, for them to keep the appointment.”  In other words, people don’t place a value on free items and that leads to waste and a dismissal.

The same can be said for news organizations when they give away their content.  When it’s free, it has less value.  People don’t appreciate it.

I don’t want newspapers and magazines to end up in the same boat as the failed dot-coms.

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t want to pay for what I’ve been receiving for free either.  It hurts.  But I also understand that if I want to read excellent journalism written by professional editors and reporters – then I’m going to have to open up my wallet and pay for it.

The key is finding a paid content strategy that will actually work.

Unfortunately, that’s a HUGE challenge and no one has quite figured it out yet.  Here’s hoping the New York Times has a plan that can actually work.

What are your thoughts on free content? Can paid models work on the Internet?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Content Creation, Journalism, Media Relations, Newspapers , , , , , , , , , ,

January 20, 2010 • 11:05 am 2

Traditional Media is Social Media

Traditional media has become so technology savvy that robots now do all the reporting.

The idea that there’s traditional media and social media and that a gigantic wall not unlike the Great Wall of China divides them is one of the most persistent myths in communications and marketing.

It is, of course, completely untrue.

This may have been the case back in 2005, but it isn’t the case in 2010.

Traditional media – and by traditional I mean newspapers, magazines, radio, and television – is social media.  There are few media outlets in existence that don’t have a web site filled with social media components – from Twitter feeds to commenting and sharing.  Most traditional media sites are chock full of multimedia elements – videos, photographs, charts, audio, and even slide shows.

Readers can share content via email or through multiple social bookmarking sites.  They can comment on stories.  They can watch videos.  They can download audio files.  They can rate or rank stories.

Despite cries to contrary, traditional media outlets now get it.  They are as social – if not more so – than many social media outlets.

Look no further than BusinessWeek Online as an example.  BusinessWeek Online offers the following:

  • Blog Network: BusinessWeek (and now Bloomberg) reporters and editors are blogging daily on dozens of different topics.  Blogs in the network include The Auto Beat (all about car manufacturing),   Bye of the Apple (all about the technology and gadgets coming out of Apple), and Traveler’s Check (all about news and trends in the travel industry) and many other topics from business in Asia to politics.
  • The Debate Room: A forum that looks at the pros and cons of different issues from CEO compensation to green energy.  Readers can weigh in on the issues via comments.  They can also suggest ideas for different debates.  The idea behind The Debate Room is to provide an online forum where readers can discuss red-hot issues.
  • Podcast Platform: Going on a long business trip and want to download stories on your smart phone?  BusinessWeek offers all kinds of interesting content via its podcast platform.  Content includes business round-ups and audio versions of cover stories.
  • Video Channel: BusinessWeek provides all kinds of video content that can be accessed right from the first page.  Interviews and stories.  Analysis and trends.  The videos can also be downloaded onto smart phones.
  • Reader Forums: BusinessWeek allows readers to have a real voice at it’s “What’s Your New Story Idea” – new take on the idea of a reader’s forum.  Here readers can talk directly with editors by pitching stories.  One pitch a week gets selected and written about.
  • Interactive Galleries: The magazine also has a robust feature that visually tells stories through slideshows.  Using photographs and informative captions, the slideshows are an interactive way to narrate a story – everything from how to survive a recession to to chef’s showing how to open a restaurant.

All of these features can be shared and commented on.

BusinessWeek is no different than most magazines and newspapers.  All of them are engaged more with readers – they are blogging, using multimedia and allowing readers to share and comment.

The fact is: all media is now social media.

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Journalism, Media Relations, Social Media , , , , , ,

January 15, 2010 • 7:33 am 1

No Screaming Allowed: Social Media & A Crisis

Burn, baby, burn!

When a social media crisis strikes a company – it can feel like the sky just fell on your head.  And not a sunny, cloudless sky, but one of those overcast, gray skies that look as heavy as lead.

Suddenly, there’s an explosion of blog posts, comments, tweets, YouTube traffic, etc. and it’s all being shared and distributed.  Then there are the internal emails, phone calls and general panic happening inside the company.

The first thing you need to do?

Breathe.

It’s probably not as bad as it seems.  When you’re inside of a storm – it always appears larger.  In fact, most social media crises should rightly be called social media flare-ups.  They pop, burn, and then they usually fizzle.  But the key to getting a flare-up rather than a full-fledged crisis are the steps you take right out of the gate.

Companies have more control over social media crises than they realize.  If you act with with urgency – not panic – and a sense of alacrity, many crises can be prevented or at else transformed into less damaging flare-ups.

It also helps, of course, to have a corporate crisis plan already in place.  Weber Shandwick (the agency where I work) has a program called Digital Defense, which integrates social and digital media strategies and tactics into our world-class corporate crisis plans.  This is crucial as few crises these days don’t have an online component.

Here is some advice on dealing with social and digital media crises.

  • Have listening posts set-up. Social media moves fast.  You can’t react to a crisis unless you know it is happening.  Daily monitoring using social media monitoring tools is an important first step.  Not only will you be able to find crises and flare-ups as they occur, but monitoring also provide invaluable intelligence on what people are saying about your company, employees and products.
  • Be ready to fall on your sword. If your company or organization did something wrong – admit it and apologize.  Amazing things happen when a company admits to a mistake.  Suddenly the venom loses its sting.  I’ve seen many growing crises completely lose steam once a senior executive steps into the fray and calmly and pointedly admits fault, says sorry, and moves on.  What’s left for bloggers, tweeters, and commenters to snark about once that happens?  Not much.  There’s real power in participation – and even more power in de-fanging an enemy with a sincere apology.
  • Address the problem where is occurs and point people to the remedy. If you the crisis is a video on YouTube then address it on YouTube (via comments or through a video response).  If the problem is on Twitter then respond with a tweet – directly to the the person who made the initial tweet.  If a blogger writes a damning post then respond on his/her blog.  After a response is made or information provided – you can use other social media channels to point people to it.
  • Have social media assets already in play. It is much more difficult to handle a social media crisis when a company has no social media assets.  If there is no plan.  No social media channels.  No clue.  Then dealing with a crisis or a flare-up becomes tough.  Isn’t it time to get a social media plan in place?

What do you think?  Any advice or observations you’d like to share?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Public Relations Consulting, Social Media Consulting , , , , , ,

January 14, 2010 • 8:28 am 8

Let’s Replace Press Releases with Blog Posts

Give Andrew Fowler at Newsvetter credit.

Moldy bread or a press release? You decide!

Apparently, without the aid of an adrenaline shot, Fowler read through every single press release from the recent Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas.

Why?  He wanted to find an example of an original, creative press release.

He failed.  “For a conference that showcases some of the most interesting and exciting consumer products you would scarcely know it from the depressing way companies describe them in their press releases,” he wrote.

Sadly, Fowler is dead-on.

When did the PR industry start writing sentences like these (the following have been taken from real press releases – but the names have been changed to protect the guilty)?

  • “By open sourcing this technology, we are allowing our industry partners and the community to contribute to the future of virtualization with us,” said John Doe, CTO and vice president, Engineering at Company X. “The Company X protocol is designed to optimize performance by automatically adapting to the graphics and communications environment that it is running in, so vendors have a terrific opportunity to enhance it for their specific applications.”
  • “Regulatory compliance, on-line transaction processing and rich media are just a few of the factors driving an exponential demand for enterprise-class storage and replication services.  To meet these needs, Company Y recently began offering dedicated SAN (dSAN) and dedicated NAS (dNAS) enterprise-class managed storage solutions.”
  • “Company W and Company Z will now offer full end-to-end, global business process management solutions from upfront consulting, through deployment and ongoing services, fostering the business agility necessary to meet ongoing change requirements.”

Have these people never read Hemingway?

If you bundled the bad grammar, industry jargon, and cliches into a ball and threw it at a goat, it would knock the beast unconscious and you’d have PETA picketing your company headquarters.

My favorites are the new verb “open sourcing” and and the riveting offer of “full end-to-end business process management solutions.”  Wow.  Sign me up.

As I’ve written about before, press releases are terribly written – and getting worse.  It might be time to get rid of them and replace them with something better – blog posts.

Google is a perfect example of a company that uses its blog to great effect.  That’s where the company announces news.  No more writing by committee.  No more stale, jargon-riddle sentences longer than yard sticks.  In other words – bye, bye press releases.

Blogs offer syndication via RSS, easy formatting and distribution, a multimedia platform and the ability to engage with your audience. More companies should follow the Google led.

What do you think – should blogs replace press releases?

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Blogging, Business, Writing , , , , , , , , ,

January 13, 2010 • 10:06 am 0

Helping Social Media Mature in 2010

Client: We need some big social media ideas.

Social Media holding device or a rusty bucket?

Social Media Consultant: But you don’t have a social media strategy.  In fact, you don’t have any social media assets.  No Facebook page.  No Twitter account.  No blog.  No YouTube presence.  You aren’t even set-up to deliver on any big social media ideas.

Client: I know, but we need some big social media ideas to show the executive team.

———-

That conversation happens much more often than it should.  There are too many professionals in communications and marketing who are still putting social media into a rusty bucket.  They still believe that social media is a collection of tactics that can be bolted on to the end of a PowerPoint presentation.

Why is this?

A few reasons:

  • They still aren’t convinced that their customers are using social media – in any cohesive way. They hear the numbers – more than 300 million users on Facebook, 3 out of 4 people belonging to a social network, that 75% of journalists read blogs for story ideas – yet fail to connect the dots back to their own markets.  They believe that the social media revolution is happening, but just not in their specific space.
  • They are afraid. They have been doing marketing or PR for so long the same way – with success no less – that change is too scary.  Suddenly, the sky isn’t blue and rather than embrace these crazy new rules and channels – they pretend that everything has remained the same.  That the sky – if not completely blue – will soon return to its azure glory.  So why try doing it differently (other than to show the boss a few slides)?
  • They remain uneducated about the process.  Lots of brands are big and encompass many sub-brands and different regions (including international).  Trying to implement a “new” social media strategy to integrate with marketing, communications and customer service seems daunting – almost impossible.  When they hear about the success of other enterprises in social media, they are incredulous that those brands could have gotten everyone on board.  And they don’t believe it can be done at their company.

There are other reasons as well, but these seem to be the three big ones.  So how can we help enterprises get beyond this flawed thinking?

There are a few ways:

  • Keep showcasing successes. Social media works when it is integrated into the communications and marketing mix.  Standalone social media tactics can work, but for social media to flourish it needs to play with other external efforts.  It’s not enough to tell clients that their are 300 million people using Facebook.  Show them how they are using Facebook.  Provide insight to the numbers.  When three-quarters of the U.S. has joined a social network that means that behavior has changed.  Tell your clients how they can maximize the change to better market, communicate and engage with customers and other constituent groups.
  • Hold their hands. Change is scary for a lot of people.  Especially big change.  So instead of presenting all-encompassing strategic changes, why not begin incrementally?  How about proposing a Twitter handle – with a strategy, training and a content plan included?  Teach your clients how to do it themselves.  Be a guide.  Allowing them to experience small victories with lower risks are the best way to convince them on the power of the bigger projects and ideas.
  • Educate. Talk to your clients.  Send them email case studies.  Point out new studies and surveys.  Let them talk with other clients that might be ahead of the curve.  Get in a room with the communications or marketing teams to give them 101 sessions on everything from YouTube to how to use social bookmarking sites.

2010 is poised to be the year that everyone finally realizes that social media is not a fad – is not a temporary condition.  The web isn’t going anywhere – it will continue to be the fastest and easiest way for people to discover information, buy goods and services and connect with their social circles – from friends and co-workers to the brands they buy.

And that’s why social media doesn’t belong in a rusty bucket or as an addendum on a slide deck.

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Marketing, Public Relations, Social Media Consulting , , , , , , ,

HighTalk on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter
    View George Snell's profile on LinkedIn
    Subscribe to me on FriendFeed
    Add to Technorati Favorites