Mike’s Points

Maybe it’s USA Today’s fault, maybe blogging is to blame or maybe I have Twitteritis. But, my attention span and getting around to putting together a post of any length is lacking of late. (Good thing there’s a monthly TalentZoo column and the periodic free-lance gig to keep me honest. See page 10.)

Regardless, here’s one post with a couple points for your digestion and review:

A lot on the Internet is free — but there’s still a price

There’s a lot of “things” free about social media. Blogging is free. Social networking is free. Sharing pictures and video is free.

Outside of social media, a lot on the Internet is free. Email is free. Job searching is free. And, a lot of information is free.

And, some of that information is questionably accurate. As an example, Sandeep Krishnamurthy  has a very interesting article at iMediaConnection: Beware: the search advertising sky is falling. There’s good food for thought in Professor Krishnamurthy’s column. However, some of his stats — from compete.com — were questioned by Bill Burke.

Website stats from compete.com are free. So are those from quantcast.com. And, I’m sure there are similar others.

Ah, remember, you usually get what you pay for. Buyer beware.

While social media — which clearly should be a subset of public relations (I ain’t talkin’ advertising) – may be free, doing it well requires an investment in time. Time to get to know the online community to which you are marketing. Time to develope a relationship and comfort level with the community. You don’t need to be buddy-buddy, but any good PR practitioner knows that true success is about relationships. Not about getting “hits.” It’s about connecting your employer or clients’ products and services with the needs and wants of your audience. (For more on this, see one of my TalentZoo columns.)

How best to teach?

You often hear or read in sports that the best managers and coaches know as much about human nature and pyschology as they do about their sport’s fundamentals and tactics. They know which players to pull aside privately to deal with an issue and which will respond better by a public tongue-lashing.

Chris Brogan publically called out a company this week for poor pitching. Chris Anderson at Wired called out a bunch of supposed PR pros for poor pitching. CrunchNotes does it. And, when it occurs often enough, the BadPitch Blog does as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s easy to pick on mistakes PR people make.

I’m not saying what Chris B. or any of the others did was wrong. Sometimes, to get someone’s attention, to really get through to him/her, you need to call ‘em out.

There are times — guess it’s up to your own judgment — when a private approach is best taken to teach someone the right way to do their job.

Just because you can easily give someone a public tongue-lashing, doesn’t mean you should.

– Mike

Photo from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_two_headed.html

Whether you work predominantly in offline marketing (like I used to) or work predominantely in online marketing (like I do now), knowing your audience and where you can find them is invaluable.

Blogs, boards and social media in general have been around for many years. However, like most product lifecycles, they’re still in their infancy, still in the growth mode. Being so new, many people and companies are trying to carve out a social media expertise for themselves. That’s fine and good, but don’t get myopic.

The United States population now is about 303+ million people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Okay, but really, most of us are not marketing to youth. As of July 2003, there were 217.8 million people age 18 and older, with a total U.S. population of about 291 million people. So about 75% of the U.S. population were adults (18+ yoa) in 2003. Let’s assume that’s consistent with 2008.

According to eMarketer, nearly 194 million people in the U.S. are online, as of a February 2008 report.

That eMarketer report doesn’t distinguish if that population consists of adults only or all age groups, so I’ll assume all. That’s only 64% of the total U.S. population (194/303). Not bad, but I’d think it’d be more. If you use the same 75% figure as above — that 75% of the U.S. population consists of those 18+ yoa — then only about 145.5 million (0.75×194)U.S. adults are online.

How many are using social media technologies like blogs, boards, sharing videos, rating products, etc.?

According to Forrester’s Social Technographics data obtained in late 2006, only 48% of the U.S. adult, online, consuming* population are using social technologies. It’s simple math since the graph stats 52% are not in any of the categories Forrester measured. (*I’m not sure what % of the adult online population Forrester counts as “consumers” so my numbers may be off, but still good for the point being made.)

If you take 48% of the 145.5 million adults online (0.48×145.5), you get a little less than 70 million U.S. adults online using social media technologies.

To have success in social media, word-of-mouth activities, you really don’t need a lot of people. And, with the ability to niche your market, you likely only need fewer than that to call a social media marketing campaign a success. So, that’s still. a. lot. of. people.

However, don’t get caught up in your own online, interactive, digital world and think “everyone’s online.” They’re not. A sizeable part of your and your clients’/employer’s audience may be offline or — believe it or not — simply not using social media.

The good news is that, enough of them may be online. And, likely that online, adult, U.S. population using social technologies will be growing. (But, that’s another post for another day.)

– Mike

UPDATE, March 7, 2008: The fine folks at CustomScoop’s Media Bullseye republished the below post. I updated the content to include two other services: CyberAlert’s BlogSquirrel and CustomScoop’s BuzzPerception.

See a need, fill a need: It’s a philosophy that is one of the primary themes of Robots (and what inspired Rodney).

You could also say it’s the driving force in a free market, and why many businesses are started.

While social media is still in its infancy — it’ll have a long life, so many years is still an “infancy” — many who’ve been involved have several years experience. Some of us, even have a couple!

However, while the social media populous has been and continues to grow, the tools available to public relations professionals have been lacking, compared to what we’re used to offline. Offline, there’s media tracking services like Luce (okay, BurrellsLuce) and Bacon’s (okay, Cision), as well as newer online and less costly services like Factiva (via the WSJ) and NewsLibrary.com. If you’re tasked with keeping track of clients’/your employer’s media coverage, it’s great knowing you have other professionals and reliable services to work with.

But, online? It was much more manual and, from my experience, included doubt because social media was so new, and there. seemed. to. be. so. many. blogs! Early search engines like GlobeofBlogs, Technorati, BlogPulse and Google Blog Search while free, were very manual and still left a bit of doubt.

However, 2007 saw and early 2008 has seen the birth of many new social media tools. Tools that actually have functionality and make our jobs easier. Still, there’s spam and junk blogs to filter out, but the functionality of these tools versus what’s mentioned above is like day and night.

Here’s a rundown of the tools I’m familiar with — please offer your comments and positive/negative feedback if you’ve tried them, or add your own cool tools. (When possible, I’ve included what I know about each of the services — but by no means are my comments below a thorough commentary of all tools noted. For your own use, please review/evaluate these services yourself.)

Comprehensive tools

Techrigy’s Social Media Manager: Covers blogs, as well as a discussion boards/forums, social bookmarking sites, Flickr, YouTube and other, Twitter, etc. Offers a lot of functionality and flexibility. Note: I had an extensive evaluation of SM2 last fall and into early 2008 before we committed to a contract with Techrigy. I’m very satisfied with SM2, and company has been extremely responsive to suggestions and on-going communication.

Radian6: Similar to Social Media Manager in its range of social media covered. It’s been in the news every so often with contracts with some notable agencies. Note: I had demo of Radian6 early this year, and liked what I saw. In many ways, Radian6 and Social Media Manager are comparable — though each have their “differentiators.” There were a few key differences as to why we chose SM2.

Visible Technologies’ TruCast: I’ve not had a demo of TruCast, but from its site and from some communication with a sales person, it seems to offer capabilities comparable to the above: a “comprehensive solution for social media analysis and participation. Our enterprise level solution enables clients to complete the conversation by allowing them to track, analyze, and participate in blogs, forums, social networks and online communities.”

Forums/Boards

As a smart man once twittered — “forum mining is a tough nut to crack; it’s the deep, unsexy social web stuff that’s oft influential AND overlooked…” — discussion forums and boards are more important than blogs in social media monitoring in many ways. You can obtain so much feedback and trend information on companies, issues and industries by monitoring and participating. And, unlike blogs, you have only a few places to look.

Awhile ago, I had a post about a number of vertical forums and boards. Now, without time-consuming, in-depth searching, you can use board-focused search engines to find, review and monitor them.

BoardReader: “BoardReader was developed to address the shortcomings of current search engine technology to accurately find and display information contained on the Web’s forums and message boards.” (Personal/Local note: It was developed by some U of Michigan people! Go Blue!)

Twing (courtesy of the aforementioned “smart man,” aka Mike Manuel): “Our intent is to enable you to quickly find highly relevant communities and discussions pertaining to your interests, as well as keep you informed on the latest trends influencing communities.”

Omgili: “Omgili is a specialized search engine that focuses on ‘many to many’ user generated content platforms, such as, Forums, Discussion groups, Mailing lists, answer boards and others.”

Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter what tools we use — clients/employer just want quality, cost-effective results. However, it sure is nice when the marketplace sees enough demand to develop tools to make our respective jobs easier and more effective.

See a need, fill a need.

– Mike

Control of branding and “the message” or word-of-mouth talk about a company, product, service, issue, etc., is a common theme in social media. It’s been written about in many books, on many blogs and, heck, even in person I’m sure.

And, it came up in a brief back and forth Twitter conversation I had with Geoff Livingston Thursday.

Maybe we’re talking about the same thing, but taking a different approach. Maybe it’s just semantics. Or, maybe we disagree.

As I’ve said in the past, businesses ultimately have control. Or, at least, the most influence.

Let’s start at the beginning: Essentially a company forms when someone sees a need in the marketplace and tries to fill it. (Yes, there are variances, like when a someone makes a product and then tries to find a need, but let’s stick with the basic premise.)

Before that company starts, there is no conversation, reputation or perception about it. It didn’t exist.

That company markets its products, so has contact with prospects, vendors and, ideally, customers via marketing communications, sales personnel, retailers, customer service personnel, etc.

Then, prospects and customers react to those “touch points” with the company — and have the opportunity to give their opinion of the touch point, whether its bitchin’ about a product online or giving rave reviews to the next door neighbor.

What online communication and social media — email, blogs, boards, etc. — have done is give consumers more power. More influence. More opportunity for our voices to be heard by a larger audience. Yes, more control over how ABC Company Inc. and its products are perceived.

But, remember, WOM is as old as history. (Just ask Adam about Eve’s review of the apple!) Companies have never been in total control of their brand or the WOM chatter.

Today, various tools and technology on the Internet give consumers more influence than ever before. Despite that, the ultimate influence of a company’s brand and the perception of its products and services is in the hands of the company.

The company starts all “conversations” via its marketing and other customer contact activities. We’re all just reacting to those contact points. And, we’re having a level of control or influence as to the positive, neutral or negative tone of the chatter — as we’ve always had.

But, ultimately, the company has the most control and influence because it initiated the chatter — via good or bad products, customer service, etc., — or it chose to heed the feedback of its marketplace.

Just like all good companies have done, and will continue to do.

– Mike

especially social media.

Today, the Center for Media Research has a must-read report: “Emotional Business Bonding on Social Networks,” based on research from Communispace:

“New research from Communispace, supporting the hypothesis that people are looking to fulfill six essential social needs online, and drawing on the Maslow hierarchy of human needs, concludes that businesses that help facilitate those needs are more likely to create deeper emotional bonds than usually exist between companies and customers.”

The key point that, while consumers don’t necessarily want a relationship with companies, they do want their needs met. You market by meeting needs. And, in the online world, you need to meet personal, social needs to be successful.

You don’t “hook” people. It’s much more subtle. I don’t mean deceptive tactics, but play into human nature.

This is an approach I bring up every so often via Twitter (in reply to Chris Brogan) or here, and definitely in my work when possible. Here are some pointers and thoughts on how to:

• In social media marketing, keep in mind we’re typically dealing with every-day people; not people at work, like reporters. Even if you are dealing with professional or industry bloggers and in other social media, you need to meet their needs.
• Effective working in social media requires the same long-term commitment and effort as in face-to-face dealings with people.
• Be humble, admit when you’re wrong, and be open to criticisms (call it “market research” if it helps).
• Contribute to the social media you’re involved in when it doesn’t have anything to do with your employer or client. In addition to sharing knowledge and helping others, it can lower barriers to how people view you when you’re not always bringing up employer/client-related stuff. After all, you are there to better the community, right?

Ultimately, when you’re in public relations (or other professional communicators role), you’re involved in social media to market a company, product, service or cause. Just make sure that you don’t forget that your audience’s needs need to be met first, before they will consider your needs.

– Mike

In writing this post, you’ll notice that I (too) often linked back to my own posts. I try not to do that (too) often, but it’s often easier to make my points. In this process of reviewing past posts, it struck me how similar Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs, referenced in the Communispace story, is to Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

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

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

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