Feb 9 2010

Trust Me

February 9, 2010 – 7:00 am

 By Mike Mulvihill

 2667337875_0af24ec979_mPhoto: Exercise in Mistrust from Black wolf

Okay, so the last 18 months have been near cataclysmic for many Americans.  We lost our money in the stock market, our jobs and even our homes. We’re mired in a two-front war. We loaned money to save the very institutions that created the financial collapse of the Great Recession, only to have them thumb their noses at us by loaning little of our money to help small business and average American’s while they continue to pay out big bonuses.

 No, I’m not disillusioned (well, maybe a little).  But now the 2009 edition of the highly respected Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that we have lost trust in virtually every form of communications, most industries and all but a few people. To this, I feel I must quote Homer Simpson, “D’oh!”

I trust my dog and my mom less this year than I did in early 2008.  (I pick them not only to make a sardonic point but because neither has a computer or cell phone where they read this betrayal.)  As Richard Edelman said about the study, “The events of the last 18 months have scared people.” Damn straight it did.  And fear is the antibody of trust.

 Michael Bush’s article Monday (Feb. 8) in Ad Age about the Trust Barometer purports that the survey shows that social media waned in 2009.  The evidence?  The number of people who view their friends and peers as credible sources of information about a company dropped by almost half, from 45 percent in 2008 to 25 percent.  Not surprising given the general sentiment and how many more people are using – or, perhaps more accurately, misusing – social media over this same time period.

 Several blogs, among them Going Social Now, disagree.  They even go into great detail about what makes certain individuals more credible than others and that individuals are more credible sources of information about products than they are on companies.  I mostly agree with these points.

 But Edelman staffer Steve Rubel does a good job of putting things in perspective – “…for social media the Trust data shows that we’re desperately seeking out experts.  It means that we’ll have to work harder to build credibility through online thought leadership.”

Who is credible?  The sources we trust more this year than we did in 2008 include CEO’s (26 percent), government officials (27 percent), NGO representatives (44 percent), financial/industry analyst (52 percent) and academic experts (64 percent).  While increased trust in CEOs and government officials is, at least to me, surprising, their numbers are still relatively anemic. (And to put this in perspective, the study says I trust my friends as credible sources about a company on a par with the CEO?   I don’t think that’s saying much about the CEO.) Meanwhile, perceived independent experts – like analysts and academicians – carry some considerable credibility.

There’s a lot of noise in social media and a lot of companies using social media as part of their marketing mix.  Like any medium, perhaps those with the most knowledge and expertise in a specific topic will carry the most weight – and create the most trusted messages in the social media space.  There’s nothing new there.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Mike Mulvihill | Posted in Blogging, Branding, Internet Marketing, Social Networks, communications, market research, social media | Comments (3)
Feb 8 2010

Fragmented Branding – The 21st Century Reality

February 8, 2010 – 4:05 am

2674913829_fe491d7768.jpg

by Geoff Livingston

We live in a world where anyone can hijack a brand and put it on the Internet with their own views, positive or negative (image by Brent Nelson). Brand control no longer exists, in large part because of widespread fragmentation of traditional and citizen-created media. The resulting brand distortion creates a situation where communicators attempt to paint the abstract.

The abstract takes pieces and puts them together to create a larger picture. Sometimes the pieces are clear, other times they are not. In the case of fragmented branding, some pieces are issued by corporate, others are the expressions of stakeholders, positive and negative.

There’s no greater example than the current Pepsi Refresh campaign. A brief recap of the initial Buzz Bin post: Pepsi has opted out of the Super Bowl in favor of a $20+ million integrated campaign that features crowdsourced charitable giving, a contest form of corporate social responsibility.

Ironically, given the quality of this year’s ads, this may have been an incredibly brilliant coup. Both Richard Laermer and I dubbed the campaign an instant success on our podcast, simply because of the many conversations it has created. See Richard’s breakdown above in this video.

The conversations aren’t all positive. In fact, the nonprofit community has doubts and questions, many of which are legitimate concerns about the viability of the contests and the sustainability of the program choices. Pepsi acknowledges these criticisms and has engaged in dialogue. I like that they aren’t running, in spite of valid criticism.

And why should they? In spite of cause-based and marketing critiques, to the common American this is a huge investment in society and a big statement. The abstract brand picture, even with the smudges, is a pretty strong one for Pepsi. In fact, without the criticism one could argue that the conversation would be less believable and loud. Brand fragmentation in the form of generosity and community contribution works.

It should be noted that Pepsi did not just launch a social media campaign. The Super Bowl ads are missing, but the company has not left the abstract painting strictly in the hands of folk artists. There’s been serious PR as evidenced by stories like the CNN piece appearing in every major media outlet, as well as substantial advertising to notify citizens of Pepsi’s Refresh America attempts.

Welcome to the fragmented brand marketing of the 21st century: A combination of mass campaigns featuring traditional advertising and PR mixed with corporate social responsibility efforts as well as authentic social media that enables both good and bad conversations. There’s no call to action beyond doing good, because Pepsi simply wants to refresh its brand. And in this case, it’s a win. I guarantee you that people — as in the people who walk into Safeway with a grocery list — will think about Pepsi again, and in a new light. Fragmented branding measures the composite view — not the individual wins or Monday morning quarterback complaints — to determine success.

Three Additional Musings for Those About to Experiment

1) Pepsi is relatively early in the crowdsourced social philanthropy game, but not the first. What was notable in this project was the size of the purse, as well as the opt out of the Super Bowl. Copy cat marketing efforts are sure to arise, and less successfully so. Less money + me, too copycat = a yawn.

2) Corporate social philanthropy needs to be authentic to the core of the company. Customer-centric efforts with crowdsourcing efforts are cool, but ultimately represent a novelty especially for niche brands that are not serving mass markets. They will be better served building programs around the corporate culture or strategy. For example, if one is a software company, one might focus on digital freedom, transparency, developing programming jobs in the U.S., as well as technical education in high schools and universities.

3) Contest fatigue is setting in. And criticism of cause-based contests is also on the rise. Make sure this is the right tactic as opposed to engaging your community in a different, more sustainable way.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Geoff Livingston | Posted in Branding, Case Study, Internet Marketing, communications, social cause, social media | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments (16)
Feb 5 2010

Toyota Took Risks. Did PR Know?

February 5, 2010 – 12:22 am

The recent massive recall at Toyota, aside from breathing new life into a moribund General Motors (an Obama conspiracy?), raises an interesting question for public relations folks. If your management makes a conscious decision to take more risks in manufacturing, is it also obligated to communicate this strategy’s potential impact to stakeholders, particularly customers and investors?

Toyota Taking its Lumps

Toyota Taking its Lumps

The Lean Manufacturing approach at Toyota puts standard parts into a wide variety of vehicles in their lineup, and by doing so raises the risk that failures will cause havoc to the company’s public relations, or worse, harm to its customers. So, how do you balance the additional profit per vehicle with the increased risk that if something goes wrong, it goes wrong big-time?

As Daisuke Wakabayashi reported in The Wall Street Journal last week, the Lean Manufacturing technique is seen as risky even by its promoters. David Meier, co-author of “The Toyota Way Fieldbook” and a consultant on the approach, was quoted in the Journal: “The cost may be decreased in the short term, but the risk is increased.”

Some experts say that Toyota’s perceived quality score could fall 20%, leading to a 4% drop in the residual value of its cars. The company could face difficulty borrowing for its operations (Fidgety Fitch put the company on negative watch recently).  Some analysts predict impact on sales of over $1 billion. Add to that the lawyers’ fees, the increased advertising and incentive costs, and you have the makings of a true corporate crisis.

Now, Consumer Reports has a dedicated page of blogs on Toyota issues.

Another overlooked-but-important question, then, is “How much is this going to cost me when I sell or trade my Tundra pickup?” Toyota had about 17% of the 10.7 million car and truck sales in 2009, according to WardsAuto.com. In recent years alone, their huge share increases mean that they’ve put millions of us at risk of experiencing a drop in the value of our vehicles. 

Does a company engaging in this risky business of Lean Manufacturing have an obligation to tell customers and investors of the risk? Or, is it caveat emptor? Toyota lists 10 risks of doing business in its 2009 annual report’s automotive section. Lean Manufacturing didn’t make the list. While it may not be material to Toyota in an accounting way, what about reputation and brand risks based upon exposing Toyota owners (both of their vehicles and of their shares) to such significant costs?

Roger Vincent and Ken Bensinger, reporting in The Los Angeles Times this week, focused on the “public relations blitz” begun last Sunday, quoting some PR professionals saying that the recent communications represent a “too little; too late” approach. In their reporting, Vincent and Bensinger characterize CTS Corp., manufacturer of the pedals, as apparently “taken by surprise” by the recall.

Was the Toyota PR team surprised, also?

Regardless of what happens to Toyota sales, it is important for the company to look at this incident with its legendary attention to detail. While the recall certainly has an impact on the seven wastes that are so high on the Toyota Production System radar screen, there is an even better reason to analyze and address the circumstances that led to this foulup.

The confidence of consumers can be a fragile thing. The discipline of disclosing risks to consumers and investors has to include revealing risks like the one coming from Lean Manufacturing practices. This means that a very deep look into operations should be married with a propensity to overdisclose; both to the company’s public relations, risk and sustainability professionals, and other, external stakeholders.

Toyota will survive and even thrive. The bigger opportunity here is to rewrite the book on how a manufacturer tells the rest of us about our risks due to its way of doing business. Toyota is in a great position to change the rules in favor of such transparency.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Michael Whitlow | Posted in Blogging, Branding, Internet Marketing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments (10)
Feb 2 2010

Rapid Brand Deceleration

February 2, 2010 – 1:02 am

 By Mike Mulvihill

3688022509_cbd92a3997_m

Ten days. In today’s social media fueled world, a crisis can begin – and even end – in hours, if not minutes. Ten days. That’s how long it took Toyota to announce a fix to the rapid acceleration (faulty gas pedal) problem that prompted a recall of 4.2 million cars worldwide and 2.3 million in the United States, including some of Toyota’s best-selling models, such as the Camry and Corolla. To make matters worse, millions more had been recalled earlier because of floor mats that could catch the gas pedal causing a similar sudden acceleration issue as the current recall.

Ten days. Even 10 years ago, that would be considered an awfully long time to leave Japan’s number one brand name and one of the most powerful brands in the world in limbo.

Jim Lentz president and COO of Toyota USA made the rounds of the morning news shows on Monday to be the face of the company’s mea culpa and announce the fix – a small piece of metal about the size of a postage stamp – then held a press conference later that morning. Toyota released b-roll containing Lentz apologizing, “I know that we have let you down.”

In a related event, AutoBlog UK reports that PSA Peugeot Citroen has recalled nearly 100,000 Peugeot 107s and Citroen C1s built between 2005 and August 2009 at the facility it shares with Toyota in the Czech Republic for the same faulty accelerator problem. The cars were built alongside the Aygo, one of eight Toyota models that make up the Japanese manufacturer’s 1.8m vehicle recall in Europe.

How long does it take to lose $20 billion in market value (a one-week stock price decline of 16 percent), to irrevocably harm a brand that for years has embodied the Japanese auto industry’s hallmark of quality and reliability? Less than 10 days. Far less than the 10 days that have indelibly sullied the once omnipotent Toyota brand.

(For the record, I have owned many cars in my lifetime, including two Toyota’s – a 1999 Avalon that we drove for, oddly enough, 10 years, and a late model RAV4,  not part of the recall, that my college-age daughter currently drives.)

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Mike Mulvihill | Posted in Branding, Case Study, communications | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments (3)
Jan 20 2010

Nothing’s permanent, not even death.

January 20, 2010 – 9:00 am

By Wyatt Wood

It seems to be a reoccurring trend, at least in the blogosphere, to step back and evaluate the balance that time spent online (largely spent in social networks) affects our lives. This desire for balance is a good move; considering the research showing damaging physiological changes created by increasing use of social networks and the associated decline in face-to-face contact. So it’s time to unplug.

Should a social network be obligated to allow a user to vanish? It can be simplified as who owns the content. The article 10 ways social media will change in 2010 expounds on the idea that a battle over content will erupt is a very real concern. And a social network profile is really just content, albeit juicy content for advertising impression research and trends.

In the case of Google, they have explicitly stated that they do not mine the data – with a note that they could and that government institutions can as well:

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

*It should also be noted: Google provides many ways for a user to clear cache and attempt to remove themselves or content from its engine’s clutches.

“Nothing’s permanent, not even death.” – from the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. So what if you want to do more than take a break from social media? Now with morbid flair there is a new tool encouraging users to clean the slate and “meet their real neighbors again.” The Web 2.0 Suicide Machine, apparently seems to be working, Facebook recently blocked the service from their network, citing privacy violation. However given how the service works, by blanking out entries rather than deleting, I think it may help expose the fact that it’s not affecting the privacy of users – rather the information being gathered by advertisers.

How successful is this service? So as a consumer of social media, I take at face value all the “data” about my interaction online as well as the actual content that I “create” is monitored and valued to the larger community. Whether services like Suicide Machine are effective or not do not matter – rather I think they provide a good stimulus to the conversation about finding the balance between the real life and the social network persona. What are your thoughts about vanishing your online presence?

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Wyatt Wood | Posted in Branding, Social Networks | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments (1)
Dec 1 2009

5 Whys Jog Actionable Listening

December 1, 2009 – 12:03 am

I can pay to listen. I can listen for free. I can “monitor,” even. I can pay others to listen for me. I can lurk. I can engage.

There have been some great posts on the tools for listening. The list for both paid tools and free tools is ever-expanding, it seems. If I want to latch onto the latest and greatest, I only have to visit Alltop or check Twitter. Recently, for instance, Crazy Egg caught my eye. How sociable? is also really interesting in that I can view my brand as “mentions” across the web. But with all the focus on listening, is there enough focus on doing something about what you are hearing?

Looking for Answers (www.freedigitalphotos.net)

Looking for Answers (www.freedigitalphotos.net)

Jason Falls took on the subject of listening, posting on “The Five Ws of Social Media Listening” in August, where he also noted a favorite of mine from Michael Brito about active listening on the social web being overrated.

It all reminds me of an old riddle I’ve loved since I first read it in a book called “Five Frogs on a Log: A CEO’s Field Guide to Accelerating the Transition in Mergers, Acquisitions And Gut Wrenching Change” by Mark Feldman and Michael Spratt from Pricewaterhouse Coopers. Five frogs are sitting on a log. Four decide to jump off.  How many are left?

If you answered “1,” you aren’t listening deep enough, perhaps. The answer is “5,” since there’s a big difference between deciding and doing. I still smile almost every time I think of this little riddle because it was a particulary apt way of stating the challenges of a merger or an acquisition. There is often so much attention paid to the decision and the “doing” of the deal that the doing of the integration, etc. often goes wanting.

It’s the same with listening, whether you call it active or not. Maybe we should embrace another way to look at ”why.”

It’s called 5 Whys.  It is a great process to move listening from just listening to doing something about what we hear. It’s been practiced by Jeff Bezos at Amazon, and it is a good tool for us to use in our social media listening (thanks, Pete Abilla for the Amazon example).  Credited to Sakichi Toyoda, founder of Toyota, the 5 Whys are most often seen in the context of industrial processes, but the same persistent asking of “why?” could go a long way to getting beyond the surface in social media measurement.

For example – “The car won’t start,” my (son/daughter/wife/husband) says (Wikipedia example): Why? – The battery is dead. (first why) Why? – The alternator is not functioning. (second why) Why? – The alternator belt has broken. (third why) Why? – The alternator belt was well beyond its useful service life and has never been replaced. (fourth why) Why? – I have not been maintaining my car according to the recommended service schedule. (fifth why, probably the ”root” cause)

Remind you of conversations you have had with clients or bosses? Can you think of some 5 Whys from your work in social media? Could the 5 Whys be a useful tool in getting deeper into your listening and monitoring? Would a shift to “actionable” listening be a possible outcome from using this discipline in your work? And, if we couple the Actionable with the other two “As of Metrics” that are talked about in the measurement world, we’ll make our measures Accessible and Auditable.

Some very progressive organizations might even open up the three As to the outside world, pushing ROI and transparency even farther down the path we’re on. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Michael Whitlow | Posted in Blogging, Branding, Buzz Meter, Internet Marketing, Social Networks, market research, social media | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments (4)
Nov 20 2009

Conscious Capitalism/CSR Creates True Fans

November 20, 2009 – 12:05 am

The really old school capitalists like to say that the only business of business is to provide a return to shareholders. Long before the concept of “stakeholders” came into being, business was conducted, customers and suppliers were treated fairly or not, and it all somehow moved along. Now, companies need to do better. The concept of “conscious capitalism” is taking hold.

Companies concerned with social responsibilities are finding many new places to carry on their activities, and in the process of talking and doing, they are creating

Freedigitalphotos.net

Freedigitalphotos.net

value for all of their stakeholders. Add this expansion of business interests to the explosion of media and the advent of social networking, and you get very positive tools for boosting capitalism, as well as some strange phenomena.

It strikes me as  just a little odd, for instance, that a company can now attract a “fan” for good customer service, when it really was Bob in customer service who provided the heroics that resulted in getting what should be expected and given to every customer. Have we lowered our standards to the point where getting a normal result is exceeding expectations?  Also, I don’t think company fan pages is a trend that bodes well if too much celebrity is attached to companies. Many of them simply don’t deserve all the attention — and certainly not our adulation. (But, I digress.)

One very interesting frontier for this new dynamic is what’s being called the post-carbon economy. What previously sufficed as measures of good citizenship will no longer, as companies will have to show us their costs to society so that we can compare those costs to the benefits they bring us.  Customers are increasingly focused on this from the perspective of water, waste, energy use and other previously uncounted impacts. Other stakeholders are able to get their contrary perspectives before large audiences via social media. Good public relations demands a game plan for this new CSR environment, and, with a nod to CRO Magazine, here are a few ways to address some of the challenges they covered recently:

  1. If you are in a traditional industry — energy, mining, chemicals, heavy manufacturing and the like — get carbon savvy in the same way your process improvement teams are doing it. Be conversant it all of the measures being used in your company.
  2. Learn how employee health and safety, sustainability, governance, risk and compliance activities in the company are being conducted, specifically how they are having an impact on profit, and build this knowledge into your plans for various stakeholders.
  3. Track peers, competitors and best practices in Corporate Register or in CRO (link to sign-up page). There is a wealth of information on what others are doing to create value for their companies with the new capitalism.
  4. Help your company move from defense to offense. The public relations function is ideally situated on the “border” between a company and its stakeholders. There is going to be increased transparency by regulation, and the public relations function should be in the business making the transparency serve the business. It will be particulary important to translate business practices into benefits for stakeholders. Sometimes this will mean kudos for the company, but more often it will mean making and communicating changes that will allow the company to improve its citizenship over time. (This is tough work.)
  5. Don’t be sucked in by the “going green” mantra prevalent in so many businesses. In this age of increased transparency, it won’t be about the labels of “green” versus “dirty.” It will be about innovation in product, services and in citizenship.
  6. Move away from the “campaign” mentality altogether. Quarterly themes of green, sustainable, diversity, human rights, etc. must move out from the realm of messaging and into the realm of exchange of ideas. PR is ideally situated to help nurture the values that foster these principles in conscious capitalist companies.
  7. Consider a more interactive online presence, built by your Web consulting team or available through such products as Report-Works.
  8. Follow your peer group online if they are posting information about their programs. A good example is McDonald’s “Values in Practice” Blog, “through the eyes” of VP Bob Langert, who has posted, for instance, on “The Eighth Sin of Greenwashing,” among other topics.

I may never get used to companies having fan pages, but if just some of the coming challenges in this new social and media world are handled well, there will at least be a reason to salute the top practicioners of conscious capitalism. Corporate Responsibility Officer recently reported, btw, that the best companies in CSR outpoint their competitors in profits by 26%.

That’s certainly enough to create some shareholder fans!

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Michael Whitlow | Posted in Branding, Case Study, Internet Marketing, Social Networks, social cause, social media | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (9)
Nov 17 2009

Social Media: How Much Is A Good Thing?

November 17, 2009 – 1:06 pm

by Mike Mulvihill

3699589390_bf2202b022

Photo: yospyn.com

A survey from the CMO Club bemoans that four out of five CMOs allocate less that 10 percent of their budgets to “experimenting” through social media and non-traditional communications channels.  This is juxtaposed against the rising use of social media – more than 35 percent of adult Internet users have profiles on social media networks up just eight percent in 2005.  Just to add to add more fuel to the fire, Oxford Dictionary just named “unfriend” as the 2009 Word of the Year.

 As a marketer, I just shake my head wondering why we keep measuring social media in old ways – like expenditures.  And using social media like other marketing tools to “push out” our messages. How often do we need to be reminded that social media is about engaging customers and potential customers in a meaning way. Is $5 million of a $100 million budget too much or too little?  Well, social media isn’t all that expensive in the hierarchy of marketing expenditures.  The best money you can spend is on people to staff your social media effort – just look at Southwest Airlines as a great example. (With Southwest, it doesn’t hurt that the social media effort totally supports a brand persona born through years of traditional customer engagement.)

 If the social media effort is old school, then the $5 million is way too much and it’s probably alienating more people than it is engaging (thereby decreasing the effectiveness of the rest of the marketing mix).  If it is well done, then perhaps one less $1 million TV spot is better spent on more, equally effective social media.

 Lots of people have lots of pet peeves about how social media is used in a disingenuous manner. Many organizations and corporations still don’t really know what to do with social media.  Some I know have taken more than a year struggling to create social media guidelines that “stop the productivity drain” while allowing social media to be used for customer support and marketing .

 On the marketing side, a year is an eternity, especially when it’s about half the average CMO’s shelf life of 23.2 months. Like many of my clients and prospects, CMOs are bombarded with requests from non-marketing types, emboldened by all they see and hear about social media, asking why the organization is not doing this or that social media tactic. The result can be launching any social media effort in support of other marketing efforts (i.e., push out strategies) rather than the right social media engagement strategies. Let’s just hope that the crossroads between the need to keep up appearances (increasing social media expenditures) and the real value of the social media programs funded doesn’t end up being the ruin of a good thing.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Mike Mulvihill | Posted in Blogging, Branding, Internet Marketing, PR, communications, market research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments (9)
Oct 30 2009

Old/New Media Multiplying Whines?

October 30, 2009 – 12:01 am

I love The New York Times. I really like the writing of David Segal. I didn’t like Segal’s “Soapbox” column last week where he added the muscle of his newspaper to one person’s battle with T-Mobile. (Full disclosure: we represent another mobile firm).

Customer Service: The Office

Customer service according to The Office (click to play)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, long story short, his subject complains about a never opened T-Mobile account for which she is being charged.

Segal gets in touch with T-Mobile on her behalf, and the PR team at the phone company “sprang into action.” Segal wonders in the piece why (presumably all) ”companies seem to rouse themselves only after they get a tap on the shoulder from someone in the news media.”  He does a bit of a tap himself around the facts: The customer complained. The company asked for some information. She didn’t provide the information, and the collection firm pushed on.

I have often pushed back on bloggers, Tweeters and Facebook status updaters who perform elaborate public whines or rants over customer service issues that they should have solved themselves. Caveat emptor has never been more appropriate than in the brave new world of the internet, yet many seem to think that it’s possible to fly through life unscathed by the unscrupulous or even dented a little by a bad customer experience.

I am impressed with consumer companies that are facilitating good customer experiences by using social media. Dell was featured in a guest post on Mary Ellen Slayter’s Smart Blog on Social Media recently. Matt Jurmann from Chromatics lists a number of good ones, also, in the form of case studies. Maybe Price and Jaffe have it right in The Best Customer Service is No Service.

Maintaining customer satisfaction has never been more important, as Alison says in her Better Business Bureau video/blog post. As our client notes, “you can’t make all customers satisfied all the time.”  The crying of “wolf” over things that can be resolved with a little conversation, though, is troubling. Social networks have the potential to facilitate the resolution of issues; not just amplifying the whining or the shouting.

A more recent look at the multiplier effect of “badvocates” is Laurie Burkitt’s post on Forbes just this week. She repeats a Weber Shandwick stat, saying that power writers like @dmscott represent 20% of the world’s adult population online and each one reaches an estimated 14 people with his or her critiques. Powerful, most often principled, these critics, though, may be encouraging less sophisticated copycats

What do you think? Are we too quick to resort to the online rant or a call to Mother NYT? Is the age of social media encouraging whining? What is the appropriate role of customer service in the era of such transparency when the first complaint can carry such weight?

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Michael Whitlow | Posted in Blogging, Branding, Internet Marketing, communications, social media | Comments (18)
Oct 13 2009

FOX News – Just an Old School Troll

October 13, 2009 – 8:00 am

321902708_0d240586ed

 By Mike Mulvihill

Transparency is certainly top of mind in the SM world as a result of the FTC ruling on endorsements and testimonials (i.e., pay-to-blog). The ruling has drawn commentary from far ranging sources such as the Council of PR Firms to Chris Brogan. Like Chris, I don’t know what’s so hard to get on this topic – if you are given product or paid to blog, you better divulge it or your voice won’t have any cred (because sooner or later you’ll be found out.)

 I’m more interested in how transparency is making the news in a spat between the Obama administration and FOX News. OK, so back in the early 2000s, FOX pretended it was “fair and balanced” when it was anything but. Now, FOX is stoking up its ratings to unprecedented levels as what White House Communications Director Anita Dunn calls “a wing of the Republican Party.” The White House, which is essentially a wing of the Democratic Party, has said it is done talking to FOX News.

While I find this more than a bit disheartening from a societal viewpoint, as a communications consultant I say right on. From the White House viewpoint, FOX is a troll (photo courtesy of Doug Wildman), which Wikipedia defines as “…someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community…with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” One of the first bits of advice I received about blogging was don’t feed the trolls. And that is true in traditional communications as well.

Where do I get off calling FOX News a troll (at least to those who do not share its ultra-conservative agenda)? Let’s review a few pieces of history:

  • FOX was founded in 1996 and is still headed by Roger Ailes, who was for years a Republican political operative, including a stint as the elder Bush’s media strategist during which he helped create the famous “Willie Horton” attack ad. 
  • FOX is home to the conservative viewpoints of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and others. They recently added John Stossel and are rumored to be recruiting Lou Dobbs.  Granted Beck and O’Reilly have “shows” (i.e. editorial) while much of the FOX News programming is “news.”  However, that line is a bit too gray for the White House.
  • Before Obama even announced his candidacy, FOX started the false claim that Obama had attended an Islamic school (which was retracted).

 There are more but you get it – FOX is decidedly “conservative.” But, to their credit, at least they admit it these days. And the NY Times, NPR and others are “liberal.” So do you watch/read/hear news to broaden your horizons or to reinforce what you already believe? As a society, these days we seem more interested in the latter.

 Most successful issues management situations recognize that the secret to success is to mobilize supporters to help woo the large middle of the bell curve to your side of the issue. The two tails of the bell curve are either staunch supporters or staunch adversaries. Supporters you must avoid alienating. The adversaries are trolls – you won’t change their mind regardless of what happens. There is no need to include them, just make sure you know what they’re up to and don’t get baited into a fight. Because as FOX’s pugnacious Mr. Ailes has reportedly said, “Don’t pick a fight with people who like to fight.” 

 The next few months will tell whether the White House has silenced a troll or picked a fight. If nothing else, it will pump up FOX’s ratings.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Mike Mulvihill | Posted in Branding, Internet Marketing, communications, social media | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments (2)