Elastic Thought

Social Media's Historical Context

It's that time of year again when we predict the future and put up our top 10 lists.  We also look back over the previous year and do a retrospective.  And 2008 was certainly the break-out year for social media.  However, there is a broader context to look at social media.  It's unique in that it isn't a fad.  It isn't the "Year of Facebook" or "Twitter" or another platform (though Twitter enjoyed quite a year!).  Social media has a place in history.  It has changed (and continually changes) how we communicate.  And it changes how we think.  And that is where I hope social media finds its place in the historical context.  Changing how we think.

I first started thinking about social media in terms of history when I saw Arianna Huffington on The Daily Show talking about blogging with Jon Stewart.  It was an appearance to promote her new book on blogging, and in one of her statements she said: "blogs are history's first draft."

I thought that was an interesting comment.  As consultants in the field, we always tell clients that blogging does not have to be perfect.  It does not have to go through multiple drafts and end up as a polished white paper online.  We say this for two reasons (maybe more), but we're trying to get past the notion that blogging is hard and time consuming on the client's end, and that the more colloquial, "down-to-earth" language is valued within the online circles.  It's honest, transparent, and authentic.

Yet, we have something more here.  A first draft is where writers "dump" all their ideas on paper and then edit back to fit the assignment in successive reviews.  In a sense, editing down to the "better" ideas (in their and their editors' opinion) and leaving the other ideas on the cutting room floor.  (OK, so I'm mixing metaphors)  Presumably never to see the light of day.  So blogs, or social media as a whole is actually a more complete version of history.  Un-edited, un-filtered, with all ideas out there for the readers to make the judgement on "better," not the editors.

But wait, there's more.

Look at how we market/advertise/communicate.  We're moving from a one-way dialogue to a two-way dialogue.  We're moving from being spoken to, to being consulted and conversed with.  We're forming relationships with brands, and we're taking on the role of advocate.  Advocates who's selling power is 10x more effective than a billboard.  In 2007, I did an interview with Deirdre Breakenridge for her book "PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences in which I discussed about how instead of targeting and segmenting audiences, companies should target themselves.  That is, to make themselves so attractive to audiences that their customers actually seek them out.

Today we call that attraction marketing.  And it is the basis of what social media became in 2008: stop the interruptive communications tactics and make yourself valuable to the customer.  Engage in conversation, share, interact, and form a community that attracts the "right" audience to your brand/product/organization.  So our second point here is that social media has changed the way customers value companies.  It has created an environment where helping others and sharing information (once held hostage) freely to create a giving relationship.  We're all benefiting from this and the promotions/communications field is for the better because of this.

Finally, let's go back to the "thinking" part.

Sure, social media has changed the way we think about communications and brings ideas to the light of day that hadn't before.  But let's look at it from a bloggers perspective.  This holds true for company bloggers as well as individual bloggers, though maybe holds more impact for the company bloggers.  And that is--that blogging forces you to think.  It forces you to step out of the rat race, look at current events, form hypothesis, put "2 and 2 together," and create logical assumptions based on what others are doing and what's going on in the world around you.  It forces one to stand up and peek out of the metaphorical cube in the non-descript corporate headquarters and learn to play well in the world.  Not just in the silo that the company may have fallen prey to.  It forces you to connect.  It forces you to think.

And that may be the best part of all.  How many times are you irritated by the customer service rep that reads from a script and can't help you because the company doesn't have a policy for that.  Or worse, does have a policy, and that policy is one geared towards not helping you.  How refreshing is it when someone "thinks out of the box" and actually treats you and your situation unique and solves your problem?  Social media's historical context just might be turning these companies into the exception and not the rule.  And wouldn't that be great?

Oh and for the individuals out there that made social media a great place for companies to dip their toe into?  Thank you.  Thank you for standing up for yourselves and getting something done.  From Dell Hell, to the Apple battery video, to recent examples good and bad (Motrin/Twitter, Digital Nomad, My Starbucks Idea, even Chris Brogan's experiment with Izea), to every blogger that has tried to make a difference--thank you.  And for those that say social media is like a cocktail party, thank you for helping teach better dinner manners to a society that was beginning to lose their social graces.

I'm anxious to see what 2009 brings...

How Do We Measure Trust and Authenticity?

In an earlier post we began discussing how to validate social media measurement.  And there has been some great ideas starting to be passed around.  This is definitely an area to delve into further.  So, look for more posts on that in the future.  It may even be profitable.  And it could get contentious as Razorfish just filed a patent on their action tag looking to "own" a big chunk of this space.

But what about trust?  What about authenticity?  How do we measure that?  Certainly there are tribal rules to follow, and many have commented that trust is largely emotional.   Scott Henderson commented in his blog on Chris Brogan and why this Kmart moment matters, that trust is the most important currency in any economy.  This may be true, but I also see "Caveat Emptor" or "Buyer Beware" still dominate our economy here.

(This is the Chris Brogan piece in mention if you haven't seen this elsewhere.)

But the crux of this, really, is that trust may not be measurable in the sense of hard numbers, but it certainly can be attributed to the piggy-bank theory of deposits and withdrawals.  But why the huge withdrawal on something that makes little sense?  I guess that's the emotional part of this.  But really, is this so far from what happens everyday?

There are very few things that are devoid of ulterior motives.  Let's start with Rudolph.  (And not because a school is banning it from their holiday program, but because he's such an entrenched part of the social fabric of Christmas.  (And it's that time of year) Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was created by Robert L. May in 1939 as part of his employment with Montgomery Ward.  It was an advertising promotion.  Soap Operas were created by soap manufacturers to bring attention to their products.  And on and on.

Let's look at some modern-day examples.  Coke puts their brand up on the judges table in American Idol.  Is there really Coke in there? .......  Paula?  Extreme Home Makeover uses an extensive list of sponsors to donate to the homes they build.  30 Rock made fun of this practice with their bit on Verizon.

Are the judges less apt to comment on performers? (don't answer that)  Is Extreme Home Makeover less credible because they sell advertising and sponsorships?  And if so, how many withdrawals do you hit their piggy bank with after building so many homes for so many needy people?  Are the homes any less meaningful to the recipients?  Is 30 Rock any less funny?  Are you less entertained?

The problem here is that social media is walking a fine line.  It can't exist without funding.  Someone has to build the tools that we all use everyday.  Without funding, the tools aren't created, and we don't have a platform to communicate with.  Social Media is probably the first thing that did not start out as an advertising platform first.  It started out "pure," and there are those that will defend that.  But how long can it last?  Or, rather, how many deposits do the players in  social media's piggy bank have in it?

In an earlier post on PR 3.0, Dennis Howlett asked why does it have to be a message and not a conversation?  My reply was that it can be a conversation.  It is a conversation.  But someone is always looking to get something out of that conversation.  The example I used was "having a conversation with my boss to ask for a raise."  People have used the "cocktail party theory" to explain how to navigate through social media's murky etiquette waters.  If we go that route, I would say that the reason people go to cocktail parties is to network.  They network to get exposure.  They want exposure to be called upon for the next business opportunity.  But let's add one more point here.  They are usually looking for the business opportunity to make money to maintain a family.  So are they less credible for having a financial motive to being socially witty, funny, and a great person to have a drink with?

The examples roll on and on.  PR is the "credible" way to get "earned" media and they are not immune to this either.  Follow that chain, the article in the paper was influenced, most likely, by a PR person.  That PR person is paid a salary to do this.  So is what they pitch for a client flawed because it's just for a salary?  For money?

Let's tie these together.  Back to Scott Henderson, he states that personal reputations are more important than corporate brands, and that your character defines your reputation.  I believe in personal reputation, but how many blog posts are out there on building your "personal brand?"  That's the difference here.

Social media is building brands, but it allows individuals to be those brands. 

And why do people build those personal brands painstakingly?  Most likely, to be seen as an expert and be visible for the next business opportunity.  And that's OK.  I believe that the more sophisticated and successful players understand the medium and will not abuse it.  I also believe they can tell the difference between sponsorship and credible dialogue.  Especially when the money isn't even for them in the first place.  And even more so when they are transparent about their relationships and motives.

Izea may not have completely fine-tuned this yet.  But I believe Chris Brogan (and others) have enough deposits in their piggy banks to bring the ideas to the table with companies like Izea and make the monetization piece of social media more palatable for the masses so that we can keep social media about authenticity and trust.  Donating the toys to worthy causes certainly doesn't hurt!

Who knows, perhaps they'll create the next Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer?  (It has to be better than flame-broiled meat body spray!)

More to come...

PR 3.0 - Regaining Credibility

There was a quote about the railroads that still floats around today that talks about the demise of the railroads in the United States.  Put simply, if they railroads realized they were in the transportation business rather than what they perceived as the railroad business, they would have transitioned better and been more relevant to the economy.  Perhaps even taking on a whole new business model as the times advanced.

Now, there is a whole new slew of "PR is Dying" blog posts running around, from Dennis Howlett's "PR is So Over," to Andrew Smith's justification of that sentiment.  This is nothing new, as we saw Chris Anderson drop his hat in the ring by calling out all the PR people that have "spammed" him in the past, countless posts about the death of the Press Release, and a whole host of others chiming in the chorus of how social media is killing PR.  Well, that and Charles Cooper's response to that.

Now, he has a point about Kara Swisher from The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital questioning: If the message is empty, why bother?  Very true.  And there is a whole other blog post (or 10) that can be written about the vacuum of good story and good messages in pitches these days.

But I want to get back to the railroads.

I've always believed in the inherent credibility of PR and felt that when done correctly, this concept and approach to getting the message out was extremely powerful.  After all, isn't this what social media is asking for?  Transparency, open dialogue, good message, relevancy?  It should be a cake walk.  But it isn't.  Why?

Because PR doesn't see themselves in the credibility business, they see themselves in the PR business.

And that is what is "killing" PR in my opinion.  Not social media.  In fact, social media may only be killing PR by means of the account executives that believe these new tools to be the answer and trying--unsuccessfully--to incorporate them into their programs.  With the level of understanding they have of the tools, this serves as little more than a distraction.

One quick example.  In a recent meeting in a conference room of one of the large PR firms, a conversation about Twitter occurred.  Or rather, a conversation about how to get the message out about a client.  A conversation to gain them visibility (and implicitly, to gain credibility as an organization).  One of the "big" ideas?  Quote: "let's post something on Twitter."

Let's not get into a post vs. a Tweet, or the longevity of the content piece in a conversational medium like Twitter.  Let's look at two fundamental issues with this.

1. Understanding of the tool:  if you "post" something on Twitter, and you have no followers, who (outside of the public stream) will see your message?  (Another quote from that meeting: "well, how do you get followers, then?"
2. Understanding of the role of PR: the answer to "how do you get followers" is exactly what the brainstorm should be about.  That is what your job is.  Not to just suggest Twitter because you read about it in a book talking about PR 2.0 tools.

There are several reasons for this, but I would like to look at solutions.  PR is not going to "die."  But they are "bleeding" at the moment and there is a way to stop it and emerge better for it:

1. Stop the competition.  Staff members at all levels who are afraid of this change are drowning out the good ideas to protect their role on the team and putting forth uneducated ideas of their own and pushing them through to save their job.  Stop it.  Learn from your peers that know what they are doing and become a team.  It's not about you, it's about the client.  It's about credibility.
2. Stop with the writing test.  Now, I don't mean this literally, but I use it as a way to talk about hiring practices.  That same PR firm blogged recently how important the writing test is.  I don't know anyone that lives in 140 character tweets, 160 character text messages, and blogs that are mostly draft quality that will be swayed by a PR person who writes like it's going in a newspaper.  It's the idea, the message, the thought that counts right now.  Not the window dressing.
   
   1.  Update: maybe you can still do the writing test, but ask the interviewee to get the message across in 140 characters or less.  That would be interesting.  But who would grade it? 
3. Rethink hiring.  When print publications was the way to get the credible third party message out, PR firms hired journalism majors, editors from the newspapers, and beat reporters.  They did this to be more aligned with the channels in which they got their message out.  But the channels have changed.  So why not your hiring methods?  Why not hire bloggers, social media consultants, digital marketers and the like? You will have to make room for them and not have them report to old media bosses.  Maybe that's why you aren't hiring them.  But you did it once, you can do it again.  Rethink who and why you hire.
4. Rethink Teams.  There is no "Digital" group.  Only digitally-minded people.  Interactive may need to be separate for the design, code, and otherwise, but the strategy is not different than what is discussed in the meetings on strategy.  Make sure digital strategy is laced throughout the program and your team structures.
5. Rethink the role of PR.  Remember, it's about getting a good message out through credible channels.  Go back to thinking about gaining that credibility.  Throw away the print mentality.  Stop with the press releases.  Stop being in the business of PR and get into the business of credible messaging again.

You're Wasting Your Money

Getting the ear of the CFO

It's like trying to explain to my parents what I do for a living--getting the CFO to buy-in to more advanced digital marketing beyond some Pay-Per-Click and some banner ads.  It's getting better though (the part about the CFO, not the part about the parents).  But you have to speak to them on their terms.  Not ours.

So, instead of rehashing Twitter for business, or explaining how having great online karma will bolster their brand, I've had to go in with my financial guns blazing: you're wasting your money.  And I'll show you how.

Now I've got his/her attention.  Hey, their departments are graded on saving the company money, so why not help them?

Now, to back it up, I walked through the price of advertising in the "trade" magazines, the price of sponsorship in the directories, and some other standard B2B stuff for companies that "don't really need this Web 2.0 stuff."  Then we looked at the price of those--per head--on the call to action in those ads.  In some cases it got to over $300 per visitor to their web site!

Try it with PR too.  Just because the Journal gets X Million subscribers doesn't mean they all go to page B4 to read the 3 inches of column your agency secured for you.  Though we don't have statistics that show how many people go that deep, we do have statistics on how deep into search results people go.  Maybe page 3.  We have comedians like Brian Regan who poke fun at this a bit joking that he never finishes stories that are continued from the first page.  "And after a 9 month long trial the verdict came in...continued on A9.  I guess I'll never know."  So we can make a pretty strong argument that the number of people that made it back there in the Journal is substantially less than the subscriber base of the newspaper.

So back to wasting money--or rather, not wasting it.  We walked through cost of conversion for the effort of some social media campaigns, and how we can track who/when/where/how.  (I wish we knew the why!)  We walked through effort hours, we walked through cost per conversion, and the lasting effects of promotions placed on the web versus the newspaper and magazines (daily, weekly, or monthly shelf life).  And we tied it back to some of the measurements they were getting familiar with: pay-per-click (cost per click) and banner ad media buys (divided by number of click-throughs).

So we had cost per conversion, shelf-life, search visibility, and effort cost to compare.  All of which was (on a case by case basis) lower than what they were currently doing.  

They say to be successful in business, you have to build a better mousetrap.  We have the tools and creativity to do that now.  We just have to show off how many mice it catches rather than how cool and new the components of the trap are.

More to come...