Mike’s Points

Transparency, authenticity, disclosure, etc., are common buzz words in social media marketing.

To me, those and similar terms are about good ol’ honesty and integrity. Yes, integrity in public relations (or whatever realm you put social media marketing in).

I see nothing wrong with being paid or having other commercial/financial vested interest in promoting a company or group via social media technologies and tools — as long as you disclose your relationship, motive, etc. Heck, I’ve been paid to do it for the better part of the past four years.

Social media marketing is an interesting work process compared to traditional, offline media relations. It has forced PR pros to “step out from behind the curtain” because social media can easily intertwine our personal and professional online personas.

While the content is important, the source is just as important because the source is one way to help me judge the quality of the content and if I want to follow any links (such as content that is tweeted). If it’s a corporate or association Twitter account, for example, I don’t care who’s behind it because it’s a safe bet that most of the content is designed to help the company or association.

But, if it’s a person behind the tweet, for example — whether I know him/her or not — I definitely want to know if the content he/she is tweeting is because of personal or professional interest, or both.

To me, there’s a very basic litmus test to determine when you should disclose the relationship:

If you are being paid, will otherwise financially or somehow professionally directly benefit from a blog post, tweet, etc., you should disclose — even if the topic also is of personal interest.

For me, I am involved in public relations, social media marketing, and other marketing communication activities. I also do freelance journalism work for a couple Toledo-based newspapers. One is the Toledo Free Press. Every so often, I’ll retweet a tweet by the TFP. I do that because I think an article is important and I think others should know about it (others meaning people who may follow me but not the TFP).

I don’t think RT’ing the the paper’s tweets will directly benefit me (and I’ve never RT’ed a TFP tweet that was one of my articles). I guess by helping spread the exposure of the paper, one could argue that I’ll indirectly benefit by the chance that more people will be exposed to its articles, and likely visit its site, which could reinforce to advertisers that the TFP is a sought-after paper. And, if the TFP does well, one could argue that I would benefit.

I haven’t disclosed that I’m a stringer for the TFP in my RTs. Should I? To me, it’s a bit of a stretch that I’ll benefit by RT’ing the paper’s tweets. I also have RT’d the Blade’s tweets. Are those RTs any different?

If you disagree with me and think I should disclose my relationship with the TFP when I RT, please leave a comment.

And what about you: Do you disclose your business relationships with your tweets, posts, etc.?
-Mike

Recently, I received a request to remove an old blog post because one of the people in it didn’t like the fact that I blogged about the person making a mistake. (I’m keeping it vague because the subject of that particular post doesn’t really matter for this post.)

I didn’t remove the post, but did update it, and changed the headline to tone it down some. (Even that wasn’t needed, but I was trying to be nice.)

On Twitter, I posed the question if there’s any reason to remove a blog post. I didn’t get any public response (yay or nay and why), but did get some private messages. One person said he’d remove the post.

Yes, I know blogging and the stuff I write about isn’t earth shattering. And, removing an old post won’t cause WWIII.

Still — and maybe it’s the former journalist in me — I just don’t like changing history. (Though, every once in a great while, I will delete a tweet.)

The Internet is filled with people doing stupid things or things they might regret later — for whatever reason. (Yes, even I’ve made a stupid mistake or two, but didn’t delete my own post.) Other than maybe a one-on-one interview, there’s no better tool to check on someone than doing a simple search for his or her name.

Maybe I’m being too self-righteous but I just don’t see any legit reason to alter history.

Barring some legit court order, do you have any genuine, good reasons to remove a blog post?

-Mike

Joel Bittle over at GreenBuildingElements makes several good points about how builders should consider the reality of building green. That it can be less costly — at least the same as — traditional building.

While the energy part of being or building green can be easily seen — if you can save a few bucks to be green, do it — his points on health (the long-term health affects) and sustainability wouldn’t inspire me to focus on green. (Maybe health, but it depends on the issue. For many health issues, it depends on what it is and if/how close it hits home. Bittle made a good comment about it.)

The more conversation and debates there are around green, I think the more it’ll become more mainstream.

But, only if it makes personal or business economic sense. Bottomline, I’m not going to be green just to be green unless it affects my bottomline.

And, the bottomline for business is one that can steer business into awash of green washing.

Companies — and the marketers and PR people behing them, agencies included — too often and too easily jump on bandwagons if there’s a buck to be made or a product to be pushed.

Don’t.

If social media does nothing else, it forces a higher level of ethics and transparency. Sooner or later, now more than ever, if you are trying to pull something, you’ll get exposed.

So, go ahead and jump on the green bandwagon. Ultimately, if we can conserve our environmental resources and our financial resources, we’ll all be better off. Just be sure you’re focusing on both kinds of green and not just green backs.

-Mike

Throughout my career (gosh that sounds so old), I’ve regularly worked with building materials suppliers and manufacturers who make products for residential and commercial/architectural building use. So, I know things like SHGC, how passive solar heat gain is a good thing in northern climates, R-values/factors, ENERGY STAR and LEED.

I’ve also worked in other industries where products are designed to reduce fuel consumption and/or eliminate unneeded emissions by reducing idling (along with other features/benefits).

One thing that has always struck me is that, no matter how much of a warm fuzzy feeling you can invoke by talking about the green benefits of your company, products or services, if it doesn’t have a positive affect on your company’s bottomline, it doesn’t really matter. I pointed that out in a post about Wal-Mart some time ago.

In other words, a company is only going to be green, if it can get more green or spend less green to run its business. (Or, if the color of your money is not green, substitute your own currency colour.)

An Information Resources Inc. study (right) found that consumers are giving more weight to green and sustainability features when making purchasing decisions. (Sources: PSFK and Environmental Leader.)

While more than half of those surveyed don’t consider sustainability factors listed, a significant enough do. Signigicant enough to get the attention of manufacturers.

However, as more companies jump on the green, eco-friendly, sustainability bandwagon, consumers naturally will be — should be — skeptical.

According to an Ipsos Reid study conducted this spring (2007) on behalf of Icynene, seven in ten Americans either ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’ agree that when companies call a product “green” (meaning better for the environment), it is usually just a “marketing tactic”. Consumers appear to be wary of companies who label their products as being green, or environmentally friendly, acknowledges the report. (Source: Center for Media Research)

Another issue to be resolved by each and every marketer — assuming they’re
all honest about their green efforts — what does it mean to be green, eco-friendly, sustainable, etc.?

Do your products or services reduce the need for natural resources or harmful emissions?

Do your manufacturing and business processes conserve environmental resources or somehow help our Mother Earth?

Do you encourage or mandate green practices from your vendors?

It would seem there are many shades of green. That may be why consumers are skeptical and perceive companies as “spinning” their green ways.

While there is a growing bottomline justification for companies to be green, like anything, they will have to

1) continually educate their customers, prospects and other interested parties about those efforts; and

2) prove it.

And, as PR and other professional and ethical marketing people, it’s up to us to ensure that what we say about clients and employers is the truth. Otherwise, we’ll be black and blue.
– Mike

Though it’s a never-ending battle, I try to make things simple.
That’s why part of me finds this transparency issue — a fancy way of saying honesty — puzzling.

Yes, in public relations, you represent your employer’s/client’s side of an issue or news story. You may not write or talk about every angle, but you do not mislead or lie. You tell one side of a story. Just as you would hear anyone talking about an event he/she witnessed.

If you’re doing your job correctly, you put yourself in the mindset of a news reporter to write a news release as a journalist would. Or, close to it. As noted, you may not include all angles, but you’d better be able to honestly, accurately and fairly answer any question that comes afterward.

It’s pretty simple.

In general, don’t you always expect honesty? If you always doubt what someone tells you, how awful that would be!

But, apparently, that’s how people perceive PR professionals.

Why else would transparency — or the lack thereof — be such a perpetual issue. We must all be afraid of showing the imperfections we all have. And, PR folks are kings and queens of hiding imperfections!

• [New York Times columnist David Pogue] said blogs can do wonders for companies who are looking to make a personal impact with an audience. “Material that is not cleansed by any PR person,” he said. “That is something to think about.” (Source: http://www.crn.com/it-channel/204600878)
• “Microsoft and global PR agency Burson-Marsteller are in hot water over a tactic that flies in the face of what we know about the nature of business and transparency in the era of social computing….The world is transparent, and many eyes are focused on the lens peering into the business world. Deceit will be exposed. There is no benefit in trying to get away with something like this, which only hurts the public relations profession, including those who would never engage in such practices.” (Source: http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/weblog/will_we_never_learn/)
• Anshe Chung, owner and developer of virtual real estate on the Dreamland Continent (in SecondLife) issued a news release last year “indicating that she *will* enforce the ballot initiative voted for by the residents of Dreamland — an intitiative that called for the banning of dishonest PR and marketing.” (Source: http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2006/11/anshe_to_honor_.html)

I supposed when you are being paid to be the voice of a company or individual, people are naturally skeptic of what you communicate. However, that’s only part of the reason. The other reason is weakness. The lack of self control and standing up to what’s right.

All the PRSA Code of Ethics and other well-intentioned, but teeth-lacking attempts to enforce ethical behavior simply stink if people — PR pros — have no self-control.

One of the positive aspects of social media is how — eventually — the truth will come out if someone is being deceptive or dishonest.

I firmly believe that knowing right from wrong is a basic, inherent human instinct.

We simply must follow our instincts.

–Mike