Category Archives: Not Just Marketing

BP in the Gulf: When Crisis PR Shouldn't be the Question

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.

Does Google Discourage Diversity?

During the Mass TLC Social Media Summit 2010, David Weinberger pointed out how marketers love the “echo chamber” in which they get to hear lots of positive feedback from people who already love them. The problem with this, he says, is that the echo chamber may satisfy our bosses and clients, thereby making us look good, but it does little to help advance true thinking. He believes we should be encouraging more diverse thought.

David Weinberger as seen on Wikipedia

He’s right, of course. Later in the morning Mike Troiano gave a shout-out to the concept of diversity of thought in his listening talk by noting that “listening is the means by which we corrupt our vision with the external reality.” That is, we (entrepreneurs) may think we know everything, but when we start listening to the people around us, we realize that we know less and need to think more.

On the surface, Weinberger is right. Diversity of thought and ideas leads often leads to stronger discussions. That is, when it doesn’t end with a bunch of guys yelling “You suck!” “No, YOU suck!” Or worse, with one US Senator beating another with a cane.

Generally speaking, informed discourse is the way to go, it’s why we have Freedom of the Press. If we had state-run news agencies that providing everything we needed to know, we wouldn’t be able to check on our government. Worse, the government would be getting and relaying information only from those with the money to lobby, and no one would be there to shout “this isn’t right!” (I’m looking at you BP who told the government experts that cutting the big oil pipe would result in a 20 percent increase in oil, something that the media parroted. Only, today NPR reported that it could, in fact, be much worse.)

In any case, when it comes to diverse thought we have a small problem. Well, a big problem, actually. It’s called Google.

Marketers bow before Google as the god of online marketing. Putting out a press release? Run it through a few SEO tools to make sure your keywords line up just right. Reporter writing stories find themselves rewarded based on the number of views their stories achieve, something that plays directly into Google’s hands. But rising in the Google rankings means playing to the echo chamber.

Here’s how it works. Let’s assume that a bunch of people linked to Dave Weinberger’s site calling him the smartest guy on the Internet. Eventually you’ll be able to search Google for the “smartest guy on the Internet” and find Dave. Pretty cool. But if there is diversity, some may call him the smartest guy, but others may say he’s the biggest moron they know. Now Google is a bit confused. Maybe both searches get to him, but more likely another guy becomes the smartest guy on the Internet and Dave loses out.

So if marketers need to get Google to look their way they need the echo chamber. They need those links that portray their company (or their client’s company) in a positive light, containing the right links, etc.

Granted, this is a bit of a simplification, but you get the point.

Which raises a pretty important question. While Google opens us up to a wealth of information that has never been available, does it also push us to be less diverse in our thought?

Facebook's Death by 400 Million Cuts

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

Becoming a Social Company Means Caring

Bill Warner gave a wonderful presentation at the Mass Inno Breakfast on Friday, one that I know a lot of people have seen. But if you haven’t, you need to go. Bill begins the talk by pointing out how he founded two companies (Avid Technologies and Wildfire), one from the heart and the other… well… not so much. One (Avid) is still in business. The other (Wildfire) had some financial success for investors, but ultimately shut down without reaching its goal. Both had great technology, but one failed. He then goes on to encourage all of us to work from the heart, not just from the mind.

Often in the social media world you hear people make similar comments, that they should capture their “passion.” The concept isn’t new, for years people have told me to follow your passion and the money will come.

But most importantly, Bill asked the people in the audience to think about who it is that we’re helping and to keep those people in mind as we build our business. It’s not an easy exercise, as you don’t want to define the people you’re helping as a demographic, nor do you want to define them in business terms, but you want to define them as people. You need to tell a story about them.

Let me tell you mine.

I want to help James (identities changed). James works in a retail store and has a passion for what he’s selling. He doesn’t plan to be there forever, but still, working with stereo products and music is something he cares deeply about. It’s why he’s there. Still, the owners of the shop think like marketers in that they only want certain people tweeting, blogging, Facebooking, etc. James works on the shop floor, he’s not in that management area that has been “blessed” by the owners. But when I go into the shop, I work with James, I like him, he gives me great advice, to me, he is the face of the store.

Despite his relatively low level, James wants the store to succeed. He loves working there, he cares about his work, he has a job satisfaction that goes well beyond money. Still, his bosses don’t see it as something that can help them.

My job is to help James and, by default, help his bosses. I believe that people like James are the key to making businesses, all businesses, successful. Helping James is no easy task, of course. A lot of education must go on from the top down and from the bottom up. Companies need to identify the “James” within their employee base. Frankly, they need to look for more James’ when they go to hire. They also need to give James the tools and guidance so he can help them grow by bringing his passion to the public.

One person who understands this is Jules Pieri, founder and CEO of the Daily Grommet. She has a wonderful piece on her blog about pitching VCs with feeling. Originally she’d gone in with a by-the-numbers type of presentation, but then one day she said “I want to change the world….”

The VC told her the presentation gave him chills.

That passion comes through in ways that go well beyond VCs. Check out a post by an anthropologist who notes “As you can see from this post, the story of The Daily Grommet resonated with me. Jules and her team appear to be very passionate about and good at what they do, and it feels to me like Jules is ‘following her bliss’, so to speak.”

But it’s not just Jules, her employees are all out there in the public talking about their passion and lovingly describing the products they’re finding.

That’s why her site is, and will continue to be, successful.

Becoming a True Social Organization: What Phase are You?

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.