You can’t run from the mirror. If anything online media shows us, somewhere down the virtual path you will find a community pond that will shine that crystal clear reflection of you. Just like private life.
That’s why smart companies acknowledge and engage stakeholders about their problems. They note where they think they are wrong, acknowledge larger implications, factually address the matters, and correct matters. In some cases, companies/brands cease operations until they can address perceived wrongs.
There was no better case of this than SeaWorld’s comprehensive crisis PR last week. The company engaged first and foremost (see Scott Monty’s analysis). But more than that, SeaWorld did not run from the accidental death. It quickly brought in outside experts to ensure trainer safety, and won’t continue full shows until a complete evaluation was performed.
This is straight forward engagement. What a refreshing difference when compared to Toyota, who tried to ignore its problems.
Others try to wash away their problems by “cause-washing” them, or simply brushing them off as business (the personal equivalent is “I’m just human”). When problems aren’t acknowledged and followed by a sincere attempt to address the wrongs, trust erodes. And in the 21st century trust increasingly drives brand value.
The networked economy caused by peer-to-peer media means problems won’t go away. The only question remains will executives corporate communicators change general practices, and start addressing their problems head on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
This post is for the youth who aspire to become Internet communicators. In an era when fame and follower counts are overemphasized, it seemed apropos to offer what I consider the best assets of an Internet communicator. Guides to attain optimal personal brands and the most amount of Twitter listings represent red herring pursuits as compared to the cultivation of these skills. I would suggest focusing on where it matters most; the development of timeless strengths that transcend media. Here are the five tips:
1) Become a Great Writer: Writing well still represents the most important skill set of a communicator. The two paths to great writing (in my opinion): The ability to creatively convey great ideas and crisp grammatically-correct prose (I know I’m one and not the other!). Whether you prefer Dostoyevsky (ideas) or Turgenev (prose), you need to be a master of one and/or the other online.
Great writing also necessitates storytelling. Without writing excellence it will be hard for people to consider your content worthwhile. Even videos and games require scripts… Master writing and you master the essential cornerstone of communications. In that sense, I value an English or Literature degree as much if not more so than a Communications degree.
2) Subject Matter Expertise: This represents my greatest hope for younger communicators. One must develop substantial experience in a communications area or vertical market segment to truly become a master. The great bloggers and influentials out there not only know how to communicate, but they also possess subject matter expertise. That’s how they rise above the pack. Their experience clearly distinguishes them.
For me, over the past 16 years I’ve cultivated experiences in the technology/telecom vertical market, the nonprofit vertical market and the communications profession. I don’t stray beyond those areas of conversation, because frankly I don’t have substantial experience to draw upon, and could only wage a mediocre conversation at best.
3) Passionate Creativity: While creative skill with words can be intermingled, one still needs a muse. Passion inspires creativity. If you love what you write/talk about then it will ring through like a red shirt in a sea of grey.
When one has passion, brilliant metaphors, unique perspectives and emotion all interweave themselves into communications. You can see this from 140 characters to long form. Passion manifested in creative expression exudes itself attracting interest and conversation.
4) Other-Centric Thinking: Beyond all of the Cluetrain rhetoric about no market for messages, etc., truly great Internet commmunicators serve their stakeholders. One could debate whether this is intentional or an act of natural instinct. Regardless, the great ones know their stakeholders and give them what they want regularly.
5) Develop Consistency: Whether you are simply a conversationalist or a content creator, you must offer a consistent presence. There are plenty of self-proclaimed experts and there are others who demonstrate flashes of brilliance, but they rarely stand the test of time. The great ones deliver regularly and frequently over time.
Leading Internet voices become known for their consistency over the years, and build reputations around it. A word of caution though: Regularity doesn’t equate to brilliance. This skill is listed last for a reason. In the words of Emerson, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
Maybe it’s because I was gone for two months on a sabbatical, but returning to my reader has been a disappointment. Let me be more specific. In particular the social media, PR and marketing blog posts about PR, social media, marketing and, yes, the general “conversation,” read like a time warp back to 2007.
From social media consultant and PR bad apple rants to suggested proper RFPs and Facebook vs. Twitter posts, the social media conversation seems to be the same old conversation. The echo chamber seems to be in full effect tripping all over itself.
Or how about an increasingly important issue raised by the semantic web with privacy? For example, Facebook users’ photos, home towns and friends lists are all public now, and Mark Zuckerberg would redesign the network to make all data open. While harnessing social information to serve users with “smarter” content companies, and increasingly nonprofits, sacrifice that most important aspect of the social web: Human relationships. In return for receiving users information in a trusted relationship, they move away from sincerity and return back to the 1.0 machine of consumer exploitation.
Or what about the incredible fight for viability the newspaper and traditional media industry continues to face? And then there’s the almost complete failure of government 2.0 to provide transparency into government.
What are we as a communications community of bloggers, the people that helped usher in the era of the social web doing to prepare our customers and readers for the web of now? In my opinion, the marketplace trusts us to provide this kind of intelligence. How can the current conversation about the conversation really be considered germane when overwhelming evidence shows a dramatic shift towards application-based and portable media?
It’s becoming a question of relevance. And it’s only a matter of time before people simply tune out.
First the good news – business loves social media. A January 3 update to the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research annual survey on the adoption and practice of social media by the Inc. 500, a list of the fastest-growing private companies in the U.S., found that more businesses are experimenting and engaging with social media. Among the survey respondents, 91 percent of companies report they incorporated at least one social media service or tool in 2009. Literacy and awareness was also on the rise with roughly 75 percent stating that they were now “very familiar” with social networking. Conversely, there was an impressive drop in Inc 500 companies that did not use social media at all, which plunged from 43 percent in 2007 to 9 percent in 2009.
Now, here’s the bad news. Control is still a major issue, especially at larger companies. According to a nationwide survey conducted by Robert Half Technology, 54 percent of 1,400 companies surveyed completely restrict employees from visiting social networking sites. Another 19 percent restrict use for business purposes only.
Businesses are increasingly using social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter for marketing purposes, but those same companies don’t want employees logging on during work hours.
The Robert Half spokesperson said employers find social networking a waste of time. “It takes away from primary responsibility. When socializing on sites such as Facebook, we lose track of time.”
A secondary concern companies mentioned is the potential for employees leaking confidential information or sharing thoughts that may reflect badly on the company. The spokesperson said that many of these companies are still trying to set boundaries.
So while business increasing embraces the desire to “push out” info using social media, they still have not gotten over the fact that they have engage communities by trusting people to have conversations with customers, suppliers and their many other stakeholders.
I’d love to see a survey of how many of the 91 percent of companies using social media are failing miserably because they still just don’t get the fact that every employee is an ambassador, whether at the supermarket, a cocktail party, the kids soccer match or when active on a social media site. They trust their salesmen to represent the company unsupervised, but can’t trust their employees to use social media responsibly. Seems like there’s still a lot of growing up to be done in 2010.
While social media is helping shoppers avoid in person holiday sales and still get a great deal, it’s not all about buying the gifts, which is on a strong surge. With the true spirit of the giving season, the act of giving, social media is making an appearance to make giving front and center.
In the past, the big organizations brought the holiday giving campaign to the people with in-person, crowd based campaigns. Now, organizations like the Salivation Army are using social media to extend their reach with a personal touch through Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. They even offer tools for dedicated volunteers to help spread the message.
The Baltimore Sun has an interesting article about charities using social media to add another avenue for giving:
Organizations such as the United Way, Salvation Army and the American Red Cross are using Facebook pages and Twitter accounts to reach younger volunteers and donors.
Facebook fans of the Salvation Army can create virtual kettles on their pages and ask their friends to make donations without ever visiting a real storefront kettle. The United Way and Red Cross are tweeting their latest news of families helped and fund drives launched.
No one can yet say whether the new social media are effective ways to raise money, but that’s the goal, charities say. “We’re hoping to get this new audience, and we hope in the end there is a fundraising component with it,” said Amrit Dhillon, communications director for the United Way of Central Maryland.
Taking into account that the economy has been hard on everyone, Beth Kanter articulates a good process for making your holiday charitable giving decisions. The Red Cross found in a recent study that in spite of the economic downtown that most people anticipating donating more than $25 this year during the holiday season. Maybe by using Social Media these charities have a chance of getting those donations by interacting with their audience when they are at their computers, more able to donate online.
In October, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonial in Advertising. The new guidance is game-changing, as many have commented upon. Some have even said that the FTC, particularly in its comments about “typical” results claimed in advertising and other promotion, has changed the rules in the middle of the game. Regardless of your take on the new “guides,” it’s prudent to review your social media guidelines and consider revising them to match up with the new advice, muddy though it may be in some areas. The new effort at the FTC to increase transparency in endorsements could greatly complicate the work public relations people do every day.
So, here are some ideas for revisions to your social media guidelines:
The claims you make on behalf of (company/client) must be substantiated by information you have reviewed or that has been reviewed by a teammate in the case of reTweets, blog comments, etc., you pass along. (This has always been good policy, but even more important under the guides. A recent Virginia governor’s race covered by VirginiaTomorrow.com pointed this out when one worker tweeted about his candidate’s opponent: BREAKING NEWS: McDONNELL HAS CONFEDERATE FLAG POSTED IN HIS BOOTH AT GUN SHOW IN RICHMOND. Trouble ensued when the McDonnell campaign replied “not our booth; not our flag.”)
You must note your connection with the product, service or other information presented in any social media or other public comments. Promoting or endorsing the (company’s/client’s) products, services or other activities, are covered under this requirement, whether or not you are on the team responsible for the product, service or other activity. (This is particularly important with companies or their consultants where highlighting the relationship is sometimes treated casually by other offices or teams not specifically focused on promoting the product or service mentioned.)
Your claims on behalf of (company/client) may not be qualified by “results may vary” or other disclaimer, so take special care in presenting information of a scientific nature or other information that is outside your expertise. A safe approach is to never make a claim without presenting the source via a link or other method. (Again, this has always been good practice, but may not be explicit in existing social media guidelines.)
Any “celebrity” or other spokesperson engaged and paid (in any form) to speak on behalf of (company/client) is also required to disclose the paid relationship to the (company/client). It is not sufficient to disclose a relationship to (the public relations, advertising agency or other promotion support firm), for example. A spokesperson who acknowledges a service or product in a forum not organized by the company or its agent and neglects to mention the relationship with the client is in potential violation of this guideline. It is the responsibility of the team assigned to the product or service to alert management so that corrective actions can be considered for the protection of (company). (The importance of tracking what your spokesperson/celebrity endorser is saying or doing is greater today than ever.)
If you provide any inducement in the form of a product or service to a blogger or others who might endorse the product, you should keep in mind that any “material” connections should be revealed by the recipient. The FTC will consider any direct or in-kind payment or transfer of product or service to classify the recipient as an endorser. Less clear is the “materiality” test, and the FTC indicates it will review events on a case-by-case basis. It is the responsibility of the assigned team to track any product, service or in-kind payment provided bloggers or others with the intent to generate editorial content and to assure that any resulting endorsement discloses the relationship with our (company/client). If the relationship is not disclosed, it is the responsibility of the team to alert management so that corrective actions can be considered for the protection of the (company/client). (The materiality issue aside, this and other aspects of the guide make it important to monitor social media mentions in order to assure transparency.)
The use of “typical” experiences in promotions or advertising featuring consumers who reveal their use of a product or service must disclose that results were unique to the situation depicted. (Short and sweet, but critical to pharmaceutical, nutraceutical and other similar firms, as well as other organizations that have operated under other rules for reporting results of trials of all types.)
Every mention of research used in promotion of (company/client) should clearly state the sponsor of the research. In cases where this is not done, it is the responsibility of the assigned team to alert management so that corrective actions can be considered for the protection of the (company/client). (In the age of social media, this traditional approach to attribution can sometimes be forgotten or left behind in a character-limiting environment. Just because you only have 140 characters or so doesn’t make the obligation go away, though.)
The revisions to social media guidelines are just the tip of this iceberg. I like the way John Cass, who wrote “Strategies and Tools for Corporate Blogging” posed the question on his post the other day, where is asked “Big Change or Storm in a Teacup?” Having worked for a long time in the corporate investor relations world, I’d suggest that the changes are just beginning. While we don’t have a Sarbanes-Oxley-like law that codifies much of this for “endorsers,” the FTC has greatly expanded the things over which it will exercise influence. Endorsers (and influencers of endorsements) beware!
I am the ultimate perpetual kid, fascinated by how things work and known to take anything apart especially if it isn’t broken (yet). If you’ve followed my posts in the past, you know that I am obsessed with the concept of search. Thankfully, I’m not the only one. Apparently the engineers at Google are dedicated to bringing new features to the table for the Google product line. This week they announced two fascinating new features.
It seems they cut their teeth on Google Wave, a viable product with virtually no delay between composition and publishing to a specified group. Now, they are able to provide search results in the same fashion, but rather than control the entry and consumption points, they bridge the delivery gap between “publishers” and “content consumer”.
Initially, in contrast to what some users are demanding for real time results, I feel that the results seem to be watered down. Mixing tweets with blog posts, dilutes the content over brevity. Each has a unique purpose and the combination of both in my opinion hurts the full story because of how the typical web user absorbs information. In crisis management, since timing is everything. Has Google made a mess of things pushing the responsible message out of conscience when a topic is trending and further responses or thoughts are possibly negative to the brand?
While I have hesitation over the display of content in the real time search, I think Google has done well to provide relevance to the search query. By providing a way for users to turn on/off the real time feature, it allows for easier consumption as well as shows the commitment to usability that Google is known for.
We have also made some new strides with mobile search. Today’s sensor-rich smartphones are redefining what “query” means. Beyond text, you can now search by a number of new modes including voice, location and sight — all from a mobile device. So we’ve been working to improve technology that takes advantage of these capabilities.
This is the one I am really excited over. While the focus has been towards the mobile web, no one has really pushed the boundaries of a “real-time” mobile web. Apps like Shazam, SnapTell and Evernote are wildly popular because they allow the mobile user to search in other ways besides text and finger inputs. Even with the new Nuance Dragon Dictation app taking it a step further with voice, Google trumps the deck by allowing search by life-streaming. Fire up your mobile camera – and query. Real time search by voice, location and sight.
So what’s the next step? Combining Latitude, 411, and Goggles services into real time search by mobile device – the ability to life cast and query became a reality. The real question becomes what impact does your message (brand or personal) suffer or succeed by real time influences.
Photo: Exercise in Mistrust from 
I am the ultimate 
Fragmented Branding - The 21st Century Reality:
Social Media May Be The Media Darling, But E-mail Is Here To Stay:
Google's Great Buzz Gamble:
Moving from Siloes to Hives:
Showing Love Increases PR Influence:
Facebook Fan Page Best Practices: