He asked it again as we were watching the BP mess unfold in the Gulf of Mexico. But this time my answer was simple: there's [...]]]> Whenever some big crisis hits the news my dad likes to say "So, my son who is in PR, what would you do in this situation?" Then he argues with me.

He asked it again as we were watching the BP mess unfold in the Gulf of Mexico. But this time my answer was simple: there's nothing to do here. This isn't a crisis communications issue. Yes, it's a crisis, but the communications plan should be the LAST thing on their mind right now. The issue here is fixing the problem and communicating what they're actually doing. Anything less is disingenuous.

The best example of this process gone wrong is the painfully funny Twitter account @BPGlobalPR. Here you have a guy digging at BP on a daily basis, pointing out their inconsistencies and problems in an amusing way. In his Huffington Post essay, the writer of @BPGlobalPR noted the futility in any kind of crisis PR program in this situation:

I've read a bunch of articles and blogs about this whole situation by publicists and marketing folk wondering what BP should do to save their brand from @BPGlobalPR.  First of all, who cares?  Second of all, what kind of business are you in?  I'm trashing a company that is literally trashing the ocean, and these idiots are trying to figure out how to protect that company?  One pickledick actually suggested that BP approach me and try to incorporate me into their actual PR outreach.  That has got to be the dumbest, most head-up-the-ass solution anyone could possibly offer.

He goes on to say how BP's PR solution is to fix the problem. Note to BP Crisis PR folks: don't try to find fancy ways to communicate your messages, don't look for new and innovative ways to to put the best face on the problem, now isn't the time for that. Just provide information on what's being done. Period. Oh, and yell at management to do more. In fact, that SHOULD be the crisis PR plan.

I share my information with my friends, I just happen to use Facebook to do it. It's a distinction that I wonder if Facebook really understands. Today in a conference call, Mark Zuckerberg pointed to Facebook's continued success by noting that people are [...]]]> I don't share my information with Facebook and I bet you don't either.

I share my information with my friends, I just happen to use Facebook to do it. It's a distinction that I wonder if Facebook really understands. Today in a conference call, Mark Zuckerberg pointed to Facebook's continued success by noting that people are still members, the mass quitting that so many discussed never truly materialized, though "Quit Day" still lies ahead. "We have seen no meaningful uptick in the number of people who deleted their accounts," he said.

And I doubt it ever will. But what I'm hearing anecdotally is that with each privacy concern, people share LESS on Facebook. The problem for Facebook is that if people put up less information, then I have less of a reason to go there to see what people are doing, and so do you. Think about how you use Facebook. If you're like me you log in, check out the newsfeed and see what's in people's lives. If that newsfeed doesn't interest you, and continues to be uninteresting, then you'll slowly move away. It'll become a place to grab some basic information (birthdays, locations, jobs, etc.) but its true utility will be gone.

I believe that Facebook is measuring the wrong thing. I believe a better metric would be the number of posts per person over time. You would have to examine their activity and create a standard, then measure how each user stacks up against that.

A drop in this usage would be the biggest threat to Facebook; it would be death by a 400 million cuts to the information we put out. If we stop sharing, Facebook stops existing. Not tomorrow, but slowly, over time, until it's that site you used to visit but doesn't have much pull any longer.

Will the privacy controls unveiled today keep people from fleeing? I'm not sure. In conversations with friends, mostly non-techies, their trust in Facebook has been shaken. While a change could help, rebuilding trust will take much longer and include many, many more steps. We all now realize that we're sharing with Facebook as much as with our friends, and that little change will change our behavior.We'll see what impact that action has on Facebook itself

Anyone who watches social media trends knows that it's moving deeper into the organizations, everywhere from HR to customer service [...]]]> Most companies look at Social Media only as a marketing concept. That makes sense, it touches quite a bit of the marketing function such as driving web traffic, engaging and educating prospects, building sales leads, etc.

Anyone who watches social media trends knows that it's moving deeper into the organizations, everywhere from HR to customer service to finance. Christina Warren at Mashable asks the question "Who owns social media?" (Full disclosure: I'm quoted in the piece) and it's a good question, but it's also a short-term question. She references the November 2009 study by Econsultancy that points out that the majority of social media programs today are owned by the PR and marketing team.

But it shouldn't stay that way. It can't. Because companies need to focus on becoming social organizations, not on producing "media."

At LaunchCamp David Beisel asked a panel of entrepreneurs about their marketing spend. Each said they hadn't spent a dime, but the marketers in the room bristled at the notion. "Of course they spent something," the argument went. "They spent their time and energy." But if you go a layer beyond that you realize that they are social organizations. That is, the media that they produce as part of who they are is their marketing, their marketing is in their social DNA.

This is where Todd and I are taking Fresh Ground. Yes, our background is PR and marketing, and like other social media programs we start there, but we see our role as helping companies transform into social organizations.

We see this as a process that has four distinct phases. Companies today fall at different points along this spectrum, but if you look hard you'll see your own group here.

• Phase 1: Authoritarian -- As traditional as you get, this model is a top-down approach with a central voice that pushes out communications. Think of the traditional press-release driven PR and you get the idea. Some people put on a social-media dressing, like a Twitter account that only faces outward, or creating social media releases that still announce the same old stuff, but it's the attitude that defines the phase.
• Phase 2: Inclusive -- This is where companies begin to truly walk down the social path. You see them start developing more journalistic-style content and interacting with the social world. In this phase you can start to hear the tone in their blogs posts. The Facebook pages start to interact and speak to the audience while the marketing department starts listening to the Twitter stream.
• Phase 3: Collaborative -- Now things get interesting as they move out of marketing and into more customer-facing departments. No longer content to just listen, the marketing department, as well as customer service, HR, tech support, etc., begin answering queries. They are starting conversations and continuing them. Measurement gets put in place, but usually with a marketing-bent.
• Phase 4: Social -- The company is now a hub of a community, with everyone taking part. Marketing has now turned its attention as much inward as outward, providing employees, customers, partners and investors with the tools and information they need to interact directly with the community. Companies are now able to take advantage of the army of employees at their disposal, but so are customers. Information that flows in from the community can be put to work helping create new products or offer new services.

How long does it take to move through the phases? Who initiates it? Can every company achieve it? How do you open the lines of communications internally? Those questions are left to be answered, as each organization is different.

Some of it lies in trust. I know small business owners who don't want their employees tweeting or otherwise engaging because the owners worry that they'll lose their best employees. Others feel that marketing must engage because it's "media," despite the fact that the front-line employees engage with customers every day, doesn't it make sense that they engage here? Why doesn't marketing train them and offer the tools they need?

No matter what, this isn't a fast-fix, it's a progression that takes time. Internet time may be quick, but true change happens slowly.

What do I mean by this? It's the point at which what you know becomes less important than who you know when it comes to getting your next job or [...]]]> Duck your head, you may be close to hitting your social salary ceiling. I hit mine last year. I think my wife hit hers this year.

What do I mean by this? It's the point at which what you know becomes less important than who you know when it comes to getting your next job or winning business. I suspect it's heavily dependent on your industry, but when it comes to PR and social media, I've definitely reached it.

Not to say this is bad -- it's why I teamed up with Chuck Tanowitz to form Fresh Ground. And not to say I don't know as much as I used do of course. Now I'm wiser!

How old were you when you reached your social salary ceiling?

But now the story has taken a darker turn. Today [...]]]> Jason Chen (pictured right) over at Gizmodo had an amazing scoop. For $5000 (paid by Gizmodo) he landed the next-generation iPhone, a gadget left behind at a bar by a poor Apple employee (who is no longer such) and seemingly picked up by a passerby.

But now the story has taken a darker turn. Today it came out that police raided Chen's home on Friday night and seized quite a bit of equipment like digital cameras, hard drives, etc. Why? According to the search warrant, because the items may have been used in a felony.* Gawker Media is now arguing that Chen is protected under the Shield Law, drawing a direct argument that bloggers are journalists. According to TechCrunch, the San Mateo District Attorney is investigating whether a crime took place and collecting evidence, but Gawker argues that because of the shield law, they cannot take the materials from Chen, as he is a journalist and therefore protected. As TechCruch defines the law "California’s shield laws protect journalists from having to turn over their sources and unpublished information they’ve collected as part of their reporting. However, Gizmodo could be found to have committed a crime when they paid the phone’s finder for the device."

Frankly, I don't dispute that bloggers are journalists. (Full disclosure: I have pitched Chen several times in the past) and as of when I am writing this article, the investigation has come to a "pause" because the shield law may apply.

My problem is, and always has been, with the idea of a Shield Law. It's not that I think journalists shouldn't protect their sources. Of course they should. But I also believe that journalists are citizens and citizens, in this day and age, are journalists. The First Amendment applies to everyone, so how can you create a class of citizens for whom it is more important? How can you decided that one class of citizens can maintain protection for information they have that could be relevant in a criminal case, but another class cannot be protected? No journalist would argue that we should have a "journalist registry," so how can you define who is a journalist and who isn't?

As Justice White wrote in Branzburg v. Hayes: "Sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods."

That was 1972. Drop in "blogger" for "pamphleteer" and you see where this is headed. In other words: it's not up to the courts, nor the legislators, to decide who is and isn't a journalist.

I don't have a real answer here to the obvious problem. How can you ensure the free flow of information without turning journalists, bloggers and other publishers of information into arms of law enforcement?

* A lot of people see Apple's invisible hand behind this police investigation. It's possible. But keep in mind, Apple is not shy about suing to protect itself. Remember the site Thinksecret.com? Apple sued them into an oblivion a few years back. How many companies can sue their most ardent fans and get away with it? I ask this question even as I type on a MacBook Pro while my iPhone charges behind me. Would we bloggers and tech folks be as forgiving if Apple didn't produce great products?