Mike’s Points

What makes social media and related tools great — making it possible for a single voice heard everywhere with just a bit of momentum – is also their greatest opportunity for mob rule.

We all can applaud the sleuthing, okay fisking that goes into shedding light on someone that wishes to remain anonymous.

But, sometimes, the light being shed comes from the torches of an angry mob.

Case in point is the mother and family that played a harmful, deadly prank on a young girl, and is being blamed for pushing her over the edge to hang herself.

Legally, the family posing as the “friend” have done nothing wrong. You know, innocent until proven guilty. And, rightfully, traditional, trained, professional media kept the family out of print. But, then, there’s online rule.

The St. Charles Journal decided not to identify the neighbor in the absence of criminal charges or a civil complaint — even though her name is in a police report on a related incident. Columnis Steve Pokin said he wanted to protect her daughter. “Kids don’t get to choose their parents,” he said.

But once the story was posted online, bloggers matched details in his lengthy piece with property records to come up with the name. Thousands of readers soon began posting hateful comments. They posted a map and satellite image of her home on the website rottenneighbor.com, calling the family “psychos who pushed a teenager to SUICIDE.”

Yes, what that family did was wrong. Shameful. Vile. Evil. And, they will get their just desserts.

But, for that justice to come from an uncivil mob, even if only online . . . is that right? Shouldn’t we govern our actions according to the rule of law?

Or, does being online and the ability to be anonymous bring out the worst in us?

Unfortunately for many — an apparent vocal minority — it does.

For all the positive potential of citizen journalism and outlet for entrepreneurial spirit that blogs and other social media offer, there is a dark side of humanity that will always rear its ugly head.

I just hope that, when they do, their torches don’t do any real damage.

– Mike

I don’t have a big problem with services like PayPerPost (mostly because it encourages its bloggers to disclose a PPP post). And, really, if a blogger does paid reviews, it’s part of living in a free market society. For the most part, blogging doesn’t pay (much), and if you can make a buck or three, I can understand the enticement.

But, it’s . . . just . . . not . . . right.

David Binkowski often enough writes about PayPerPost and his opinions are pretty clear.

Sara of Suburban Oblivion, while not giving her opinion, recently asked her readers about paid reviews. (She and others do product reviews, but I saw no indication if they’re paid or not.) It seemed that most of the commenters have no problem with paid reviews.

If you’re being paid to review and blog about a product, there always will be a veil of bias hanging over the post.

I don’t think I’m being utopian by stating that blog posts are viewed as being honest. Forthright. Upfront. 
Trusted. Blogs are a powerful online, word-of-mouth, connecting resource. And, being paid to give an opinion hints at being biased. Not entirely honest.

Like advertising, I suppose services like PPP have their place. But, they do not — they cannot — have the same value as an honest, transparent product review.

As a public relations/marketing communications professional, I will not ask a blogger for a published review. I figure that, if a person blogs, he or she is naturally opinionated and will (postiviely or negatively) blog about the product, if he or she wants to.

The only thing I will ask for is for feedback — privately. That is one of the greatest values: objective subjective feedback.

Granted, however, I do tend to expect, or hope bloggers to blog about the product (because, as I stated, they’re opinionated). So, while not asking for a post, I have stated that, if a blogger does, then we’d try to work out a system where any of his or her readers who order a product and reference the blog, receives a small discount.

One of the greatest assets of social media is in how it connects. But, because that connection is done behind computer screens and keyboards — where you can easily be anonymous — what you type is who you are. Your reputation, your credibility is on the line whenever you blog.

If you’re being paid to review a product, your greatest asset – your credibility – suffers. And, no amount of payment will rebuild what’s been lost.

– Mike

Social media, I think more than anything else, is shining a bright light on public relations.

And, that’s a good thing. Because, rarely does anything good in business happen in the dark (figuratively speaking, of course). So,  goes the argument, if you’ve got nothing to hide, then you won’t mind answering a few questions for us.

Ultimately, good public relations is about achieveing good business results — whether that’s promoting a product, educating the market or pointing out a company’s true good aspects.

It seems like advertising doesn’t have any issues regarding if it’s honest or not. That’s because we know it’s advertising and, of course, it’s slanted. But, public relations — media relations, social media, and other activities to influence people — is generally more tactful. Traditionally, more “behind the scenes.” More indirect in reaching consumers.

And, it’s more personal. (That’s why it’s public relations.) And, because PR pros are being paid to represent a company, there’s an assumed slant. Like in advertising. But, because it’s often personal (not mass-marketed like ads), PR pros are held to a higher standard. We should be.

There should be an expectation of honesty. Beyond the shadow of doubt.  Honesty SHOULD BE THE NORM. Because much of public relations is one-on-one. It’s about relationships.

Unfortunately, there are enough PR pros that are either lazy and don’t do their job thoroughly (as Chris Anderson rightly pointed out) or they are dishonest. I’m sure that being paid to represent a company is a factor in why some suppposed PR pros are lazy or not honest. But, it shouldn’t. In the long-run — particularly dealing in social media — honesty prevails.

Because, as a PR pro, your reputation and your word is your career.

For me, I’m glad there are tools like wikiscanner. It’s only a “nightmare” if you’re being dishonest. While I strongly disagree that PR firms should be banned from editing entries just because they’re PR firms, I have no problem being upfront about my work on Wikipedia or about someone else reviewing any work I’ve done.

I look  forward to the day when PR pros have a better reputation.

- Mike