HighTalk

Icon

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

September 1, 2010 • 10:23 am 5

It Must be True. I Read it on the Internet!

Pinocchio or the new sports columnist for the Washington Post?

Here are a few things that I’ve learned on the Internet:

  • President Obama was born in Kenya and is not an American citizen
  • The Holocaust never happened.
  • The Democrats tried to create “death panels” for the elderly in their health care overhaul bill
  • The September 11 terrorist attacks were plotted and by the Bush administration so we could go to war in the Middle East
  • The British royal family assassinated Princess Diana

I know these things are true because I read them on the Internet.  And the Internet would never lie.  Would it?

I’m being facetious, of course.

The Internet isn’t a news source, but unfortunately, many people view it that way.  We rely too much on search engines directing us to the information we need without fully vetting where the information is coming from.  Just because it is written down on a website doesn’t mean the information is truthful or accurate.

That’s why everyone should be wary from relying on information from unknown sources.  It is one reason that the mainstream media will remain an important aspect of news gathering and journalism.  Say what you will about newspapers and news magazines, but they do an excellent job of vetting the information they publish.  They try – and don’t always succeed – in checking and double checking their facts before publication.  The reason it doesn’t always work is because it is extremely difficult work.

Blogs, Facebook status updates, tweets, and other websites don’t necessarily go through this same vetting process.  So the information they carry might not be factual.  That’s not to say that the posters are lying or deliberately trying to mislead – they simply may have made a mistake or relied on faulty information themselves.  That said there are also plenty of people and “sources” out there willing to purposefully mislead – or outright lie (hello, birthers).

When you come across information on a website you should approach it with skepticism and ask the following questions:

  • Who operates the website?  Who are they and what is their agenda?
  • Did they research the information themselves or rely on another source?  Where is the information coming from?
  • Why is the website publishing the information?

That’s why the news this week that Washington Post sports columnist Mike Wise purposefully lied in several tweets was so disappointing.  Wise said he executing an experiment to see how quickly misinformation could be spread online (as if we needed an experiment for that).  So he wrote several tweets that he made-up.  And, yes, people believed his lies.  What Wise failed to understand was that his readers and followers trusted him as a source for sports news because of who he is and where he works.

Why wouldn’t they believe him?  He was a journalist for a respected national newspaper.

There’s already too much misinformation on the Internet.  We don’t need our trusted news sources stooping to these levels and further undermining legitimate journalism – which is already under attack from many quarters.

The Post suspended Wise for a month.  He’s lucky to still have a job.  Lying is severe offense for a journalist.

How do you approach information you get from the Internet?  And what is your take on Wise and his “experiment”?

Links:

Top 10 Internet-fueled Conspiracies (via Salon)

Washington Post Suspends Columnist for Twitter Hoax (via New York Times)

Photo by Camera Obscurist (via Flickr)

Bookmark and Share

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

August 30, 2010 • 11:41 am 2

Yes, You Can Outsource Social Media

Only clowns think you can't outsource social media.

Here’s a persistent myth about social media and brands:

Social media activities can’t be outsourced.  That the only people who can manage social media channels are employees.

This is nonsense.

Brands outsource all kinds of crucial day-to-day activities these days, including accounting, advertising, public relations, IT, customer service, legal, and even delivery services.  No one questions this anymore.  It’s considered the price of doing business to outsource business critical activities to outside experts.

So why do many people consider a brand outsourcing social media as taboo?

There’s no reason why consultants can’t manage a brand’s Facebook or Twitter accounts with as much passion and insight as an employee.

The conventional argument against outsourcing is simple.  That social media is a transcendent form of communications built on engagement and relationship building.  The only way to truly build and strengthen a relationship is for the “spokesman” to be an employee.

This, of course, isn’t true.  Customer service call centers – where representatives speak on behalf of a company and try to resolve issues – are almost always outsourced (lots of times overseas).  Advertising for a brand is managed by their advertising agencies, who often control the brand image not only in advertising circles, but online and for marketing purposes.

These are outsiders speaking for and engaging on behalf of a brand.

The same thing can happen on social media channels.  As long as the brand works in conjunction with their consultants – setting up the overall strategy and approving the tactical approach – there is no reason why social media shouldn’t be outsourced.  Just like in other areas, the social media consultants would work for and on behalf of the brand.

And for the record, consultants often have just as much knowledge and connections as employees.  For example, at Weber Shandwick we have clients we have been working with for more than a decade – longer than the tenure of many of the executives that we report into.  This gives us institutional memory and a deep understanding of the brand.

In fact, hasn’t the concept of social media already exploded the myth that a brand ambassador has to be an employee?  Aren’t brands seeking outside advocates via social media channels in the first place?

Outsourcing social media makes a lot of sense in this spotty economic climate.  Many brands have cutback on employees and are operating marketing and communications departments like skeleton crews leaving those departments overworked and overextended. Adding social media activities to their already full work schedules is a recipe for disaster.  Or costly mistakes.

Working with experts – knowledgeable ones who already understand communications and have a track record of social media success and experience – seems to be a no brainer.

I’d be interested in hearing your take on this.  What do you think?

Links:

Photo by Stephen Brace (via Flickr)

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Business, Social Media, Social Media Consulting , , ,

August 20, 2010 • 1:58 pm 0

Does Crowd-Sourcing Work in the Long Term?

Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant...

Is Wikipedia about to fall over like a domino?

As Newsweek noted last week:

“Thousand of volunteer editors [for Wikipedia], the loyal Wikipedians who actually write, fact-check, and update all of those articles, logged off – many for good. For the first time, more contributors appeared to be dropping out than joining up. Activity on the site has remained stagnant, accorrding to a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit behind the site, and it’s become ‘a really serious issue.’”

As the story notes, there are lots of theories about why Wikipedia is struggling.  But at the heart of it seems to be this simple premise: Writing, editing and research are hard work.

And Wikipedia relies solely on unpaid volunteers.  You have to be extremely dedicated – or have a lot of free time – to keep providing hours and hours of free services for relatively little to no reward.  Wikipedia made a splash when it first launched and had people lining up to help, but the “newness” and “coolness” factor have worn off.

Other user-generated content sites – Digg, TripAdvisor, Yelp, etc. – may soon find themselves in the same boat.  As the Newsweek piece notes, that’s why many of these site are enhancing their rewards programs to frequent users.  So far that seems to be working, but will it in the long term?

Can organizations and businesses have a long-term, viable future if they rely on free content from outsiders?  Can a corps of volunteers be relied upon to populate a web site with consistent and quality content?  Is crowd sourcing sustainable?

We’re going to find out in the next couple of years.

As I’ve written before: Social media (blogging in particular) is hard work.  Very hard work.  And almost as hard as producing content is producing it on a consistent basis.

Even the most dedicated and passionate bloggers go through dry spells: Ideas dry up, other work gets in the way, etc.  And you have to be passionate to blog because less than 4% of bloggers make enough money to do it full time – the rest are volunteers.  But at least bloggers have a chance of becoming popular and mainstream enough to make a go at it professionally.  The same can’t be said for heavy users of Wikipedia.

What do you think?  Can crowd-sourcing work in the long term?

Links:

Newsweek article “Take This Blog and Shove It”

Do Blogs Naturally Run Out of Gas?

Guess What? Blogging is Hard Work

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Blogging, Content Creation, Social Media , , , , , ,

August 18, 2010 • 12:08 pm 2

Things That Will Likely Be Obsolete Within 20 Years

Start the church organ music now.

Just for fun here is a random sampling of every day items, services and objects that I predict will be extinct within the next 20 years (or at least not being mass produced and consumed).  In other words, obsolete:

  • Wrist watches
  • CD players
  • Coal
  • DVD players
  • Public payphones
  • Ashton Kutcher
  • Twitter
  • Computer keyboards
  • Newspapers (at least the kind that comes in a printed version)
  • Paperback novels
  • Gasoline-powered automobiles
  • Justin Bieber
  • Power chords
  • Camera film
  • Facebook
  • Movie theaters (they go the way of book and video rental stores)
  • Personal computers
  • Network television
  • Privacy

Anything to add?  What do you think will be long forgotten or unused in 2030?

Links:

The Beloit College Mindset List

Photo by Adam Selwood (via Flickr)

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Culture , ,

August 17, 2010 • 8:29 am 0

7 Ways Companies Screw Up Facebook

Facebook = Commitment.

Have you blown up your Facebook page before you've even started?

There’s really no other equation that works.  Companies that jump into social media need to have a commitment to them.  That means resources: time and money.  But it also means a commitment to integrate the social channels into all of marketing and communications.

Here are seven of the most common blunders companies make when launching a Facebook page.

1. Look another press release link

Too many companies think of Facebook as a link farm for their corporate web pages.  They throw up links – mostly to press releases or to articles in which the companies appears – and wonder why no one seems excited about the content.

2. Consistency only in their absence

I worked with a company a couple of years ago that showed up so infrequently on its own Facebook page that its largest competitor had set up shop and was engaging with fans, answering questions and redirecting people back to its own web site.  Don’t let your Facebook page be hijacked by others or become a ghost town.

3. I am not a robot, but play one on Facebook

Another client I worked with before handled each Facebook compliant the same way – they thanked the person for the comment and then posted the 800 number for customer service.  They did this over and over again.  Facebook needs to be more than a referral service and your Facebook spokespeople need to have personality – and be empowered to engage honestly and openly.

4. Content creation is the easy part

Believe it or not, but the most difficult part of Facebook is not creating the content – and that can be very hard.  The most difficult aspect is engaging.  Time should be spent every day answering questions, thanking participants, providing additional details, making inquiries and providing a voice and presence on Facebook.

5. Welcome to Facebook Island

Facebook becomes a lone communications site that doesn’t integrate with other campaigns the company is doing.  If the marketing department is running a contest there should be integration with Facebook.  If the communications division has published a press release on a new product there should be information about it on Facebook.

Facebook should be built into all marketing and communications being done by the company.

6. Kitchen sink syndrome

Some companies are simply too large to have one Facebook page.  That’s why smart companies like Microsoft (full disclosure: Microsoft is a client of Weber Shandwick) have Facebook pages for Excel, Windows 7, X-Box, etc…  Microsoft understands that one corporate bucket for news and information for ALL of its products and services would dilute content and provide too many fans with information about products that they aren’t interested in.  Think micro-targeting!

7. Rely solely only on status

Status updates are crucial on Facebook, but there are so many different ways to engage on Facebook – photographs, videos, commenting, contests, applications, widgets, badges, tabs, etc. Facebook provides a multimedia platform – so use multimedia to engage with your fans.

Any other mistakes that companies commonly make on Facebook?  Please share you insights and observations.

Links:

Photo by Global X (via Flickr)

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Social Media, Social Media Consulting , , , ,

August 16, 2010 • 10:17 am 0

Old Media Isn’t So Old Anymore

Old media might not be feeling as old as the pyramids anymore.

Is old media making a comeback?

In fact, is it fair to even refer to traditional media outlets like newspapers and magazines as “old” anymore.  They have infused their online properties with interactive and multimedia elements and syndicate their content on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

For example, the New York Times and CNN are among the top 30 of Twitter accounts with the largest number of followers (and among the top 3 that aren’t celebrities).

Let’s be clear.  The glory days of the daily newspaper and the weekly news magazine are over.  The print industry has run its course and is slowly becoming a niche industry.  Circulation at all major newspapers and magazines has plummeted and won’t recover now that news can be read instantly on a Kindle or an iPhone app.  The days of the paperboy tossing the local fish wrapper onto your front porch will soon be nothing more than a memory.

But that doesn’t mean traditional media is going away.  They have and are evolving after years of being in denial.  They have reduced headcount, streamlined operations and invested in the newest and latest technologies.  They have come to realize that “print” was simply a channel – not their product.  That news – and delivery of that news in an entertaining and informative way – is the product and it needs to be delivered electronically – be it on YouTube or on a mobile device.

There are still many challenges ahead for traditional media, but they have a lot of advantages that the new media amateurs don’t have:

1. Trust

Trust might be at an all-time low for traditional media outlets, but when a big story breaks most people still turn to the media companies they know for accurate news.  If you want to be sure of the facts are you going to trust the Associated Press or the Huffington Post first?

2. Networks

Traditional media outlets are connected.  They have the best sources, they remain the go-to place for PR agencies, companies and organizations to help spread the word about news, products, services and events.  New media is catching up but most companies would rather see a feature story on their CEO in the Wall Street Journal than on GigaOm.

3. Built-in Consistency

Creating new content every day or every few days is difficult work.  Bloggers, especially solo practitioners, often run out of steam (or go on vacation!). Many blogging operations have struggled to provide this consistency and have adopted old media models to make it happen.  As of yet, corporations aren’t designed to provide a steady stream of new content with any consistency.  However, old media has the processes and the staffing model to provide content for the insatiable appetites of the Web.

4. Money

While old media has seen plummeting circulation rates and declining ad revenues, they still have deeper pockets than most blogging operations – some of whom are funding by venture capital and have business models just as weak as old media companies.

What do you think? Will traditional media make a comeback?  Have they become the new “new” media?

Links:

Digital Tonto’s post “5 Reasons Why Traditional Media is Making a Comeback”

Nieman Journalism Lab’s post about traditional media profits

What Newspapers Do Great

Photo by Anthony Kelly (via Flickr)

Bookmark and Share

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

August 12, 2010 • 9:33 am 2

The Danger of Arrogant Writing

Guest Blog Post By: Dave Yewman

It happens all the time – and it’s usually an engineer who says it.

Stop writing jargon, says Yewman

During a presentation workshop I’ll go on a rant about jargon; how it kills communications; how using it is arrogant, and how much audiences hate the insider terms and silly acronyms that populate so much of our contemporary corporate communications.

And then it happens.  After a sharp intake of breath the engineer says something like, “Yeah, but our (fill in the blank: partners, customers, prospects, employees) understand those terms.”

No, they don’t.  They just haven’t told you.  And they won’t.

It’s human nature not to proactively demonstrate our stupidity; rare is the audience member who puts up her or her hand and says, “Yeah, I don’t get that term” or “What does that acronym mean?”  No one wants to look foolish; we all want to be part of the cool kids’ gang, so we keep silent and jargon – along with its close cousin acronyms – keeps killing communications.

Here’s what Amazon.com said about its “cloud” services – a cute-sy term that basically allows people to store information on Amazon computer servers – think huge, fridge-like machines that are probably located in a nondescript building outside of Salt Lake City (more details in a post by Laurence Vincent here).

“Amazon CloudFront delivers your static and streaming content using a global network of edge locations.  Requests for your objects are automatically routed to the nearest edge location, so content is delivered with the best possible performance.”

Okay then.

The sad thing is that this type of language is appallingly common across corporations.  What Amazon apparently means is that when you store something (your content) on its big ass server the Amazon software can make sure you get it really quickly, so you can download you vacation video in, say, 15 minutes instead of 45 minutes.

A few weeks ago I was in the United Kingdom reading a newspaper.  There was a job advertisement for a lecturer at Bournemouth University.  It said the university was, “providing innovative solutions to pedagogic issues in the teaching of media.”

I had to look up “pedagogic.”  It’s a Greek word meaning, “to lead the child.”  In the context of the advertisement it means a sort of holistic approach to teaching students.

But here’s the point: I had to look it up.

If Amazon wants regular human being to use its services, it should explain its “cloud” services using an example or at least clear language.  If Bournemouth University wants to actually recruit a lecturer, it should explain the post in a clear, simple way.

Yeah, but people who store things in the “cloud” may know what “an edge location” is, just as university lecturers may toss around “pedagogic” in casual conversation.  But what if they don’t? What if those organization are missing out because of intellectually lazy writing that kills effective communications? What if using such terms just comes across as arrogant?  What if intended audiences hate those terms and don’t get in touch?

Happens all the time.

My favorite current quote by Bono:

“If someone can’t explain to me what a particular theory is very quickly, I’m not coming up to the conclusion that I’m stupid and they’re smarter than me. I’m saying, ‘You’re just not very good at explaining. Try it again.’”

(Dave Yewman owns Dash Consulting, which helps executives “Get to the Point.” He’s also the author of “On Getting To The Point,” a volume of writing tips that should be a must read for any PR practitioner who enjoys a good belly laugh while actually learning something. He’s also find him on Twitter and on LinkedIn.)

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Public Relations, Public Relations Consulting, Writing , , , , ,

August 10, 2010 • 8:52 am 3

Consistency is Crucial in Social Media

Does your blog look like this? Then add a dose of consistency!

Launch, launch, launch!

Facebook, Twitter, a blog and maybe even a YouTube channel.

Create a lot of new content.

And then…

For many companies this is when social media assets start to wilt like flower gardens in August.  They launch various channels during a campaign for a new product or service and then – just when they they have a beachhead – they let the new social channels languish.

The urgency is over and a new discovery is made.  Updating content for social media channels is hard work.

But consistency is crucial in social media.  Social media is a conversation.  A constant and ongoing discussion about your company, its products and services, its market, and trends and news happening in that market.  People have questions.  Other people have comments.  If you stop talking – so will they.

Here’s are six tips for keeping your social media channels consistent – and therefore viable.

1. Create a social media editorial calendar

Use a spreadsheet to integrate social media into your company’s ongoing PR and marketing efforts. Make sure that any news worthy of a press release gets an equivalent treatment on social media: a Facebook status update, a tweet for Twitter, a blog post, etc.  Write and track these updates out in advance through the editorial calendar and assign people to create the content.

2. Surround news events with social media

Using your editorial calendar as a guide, you can use social media channels to build up to a news event, then announce the event, and then do all the post event wrap-up.  One news event can give you 3-5 status updates, 5-10 tweets and even 2-4 blog posts.  You can even do a series of videos dissecting different aspects of the news.  This way you are surrounding a piece of news with details, insights and behind the scene access.

3. Create a social media task force

The task force will set editorial policy and manage the editorial calendar.  They should meet at least once a month.  The best and most effective teams are a mix of communications, marketing and IT experts from your company.  By including these different departments you make sure that you have a fully integrated team and the best ideas and content flowing through the task force and out into your social media channels.

4. Build social media management and content creation into job descriptions

Social media can’t be an after thought or something you can do in your spare time.  Creating social media content is time consuming – and hard work.  Make sure the people responsible for creating the content have the time and motivations to do so.

5. Hire a social media expert or outsource to experts

If you don’t have the resources on your communications or marketing teams for content creation, then see if your company will let you hire someone who can help.  If adding to your internal team is out of the question then hire an agency to help you do the work.

6. Hold regular social media brainstorms

Invite different departments.  Get people thinking all across the company on how they can utilize the company’s social media channels.

Links:

Photo by Arne Hendrik (via Flickr)

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Content Creation, Social Media, Social Media Consulting , , , ,

August 9, 2010 • 9:40 am 0

Blissful Silence

Got quiet?

Last week, I was on vacation at a lakeside cabin in Maine.

I took a long walk on the camp road – a meandering, tar strip cutting through a hemlock forest.  Pine needles and deep beds of moss covered the ground.  Mushrooms of all shapes and sizes sprouted everywhere.  Granite boulders, leftovers of the ice age, were coated in moss and lichen.  Bars of golden sunlight slashed through the conifer branches.

I paused and soaked in the silence.  At first, to my untrained ear, it was complete.  Utterly quiet.  No background hum of air conditioning.  No low crackle of florescent lighting.  No office chatter.  No beeps.  No rings.  No vibrating mobile phone.  No windows popping up and demanding my attention.

But then I started to pick up the sounds.  The breeze knocking loose pine needles.  A red squirrel scurrying through the underbrush.  The birdsong.  My own breathing.

A good reminder that downtime is important and let’s you refocus on the smaller details.

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Culture ,

July 28, 2010 • 6:31 am 89

The Internet’s “Free” Problem

Findings from the 2010 Digital Future Project released this month:

  • 49% of Internet users have tried free micro-blogging services like Twitter
  • 0% of them would be willing to pay for it.

That’s zero (Z-E-R-O) percent.  As in nobody.

Pay up, sister!

As Jeffrey I. Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future, noted:

“Such an extreme finding that produced a zero response underscores the difficulty of getting Internet users to pay for anything that they already receive for free.”

I’d say that that’s an understatement.

Internet users have an extreme disconnect when it comes to the Web.  Most people have no problem with buying products and services offline.  If we go to Target and buy a CD – we shell out the cash.  If we buy at book at Barnes & Noble – we shell out the cash.  If we hire the services of an accountant – we shell out the cash.  If we go to a weekly yoga class for lessons – we shell out the cash.

So why don’t we want to pay for anything on the Internet?

We want free email.  We want free social networks.  We want free music.  We want free TV shows and free movies.  We want free news.

The problem may be that consumers have been conditioned to get things for free on Internet.  We have been getting a free ride since the crazy, dot-com days in the late 1990s.

And that may have been the biggest mistake businesses and organizations made when they made their first forays onto the Internet.  In order to entice users online, they gave away their products, services and content.  And now, more than a decade later, as 82% of Americans use the Internet and shift away from consuming goods offline (such as CDs and newspapers), businesses are beginning to realize they can no longer subsidize our long free ride on the Internet.

Free simply can’t work online forever.  Musicians can’t create songs without a pay check.  Novelists can’t write books if they don’t get paid for their time.  Software engineers can’t create social networks without revenue.  Journalists can’t produce news without salaries.

What do you think?  Have we been spoiled by getting too much for free on the Internet?  Are you willing to pay for content on the Web?  Would you pay to use Twitter?  Or Facebook?  What do you think the solution is?

Links:

2010 Digital Future Project survey

Is Free Just a Stage in the Growth of the Internet?

Why Free Won’t Work for Journalism on the Web

Photo by Jessiee Cuizon (via Flickr)

Bookmark and Share

Filed under: Business, Content Creation, Culture, Journalism, Social Media, Web 2.0 , , , , , , ,

HighTalk Tweets

HighTalk on Twitter

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

    Archives

    Creative Commons License

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.