I mentioned Blippy in a post on this blog last month about capturing content. It’s drawn a fair number of comments and some positive and negative attention for me. In fact, many people in my social media circles know me as the crazy Blippy guy. As a result, I got to be on KING 5 TV news talking about the service and my general feelings on openness, transparency and living a public life. (Click on image below to view video on the KING 5 site.)
Of course, the flip side of living in a glass house is what most people hear more about and live in fear of. For example, how does this movie trailer for “We Live in Public” grab you?
Which camp do you fall into? What are your thoughts on living a public life?
Heather Snow, Account Director, WE Studio D
About a month ago Google launched a new Toolbar tool — Sidewiki — which allows people who have the plug-in installed to add and view comments on any website — essentially converting Web 1.0 sites into 2.0, whether the site owner wants to be comment-enabled or not. Google isn’t the first to dabble here — others have tried it before without gaining traction — and among the Tech bloggers response has been ho-hum. Another tool, another shiny object, limited utility.
Response within the communications space has been somewhat more galvanized, ranging from wary to visceral. Some compare Sidewiki to public graffiti and worry that it will damage corporate brand reputations, others complain that it bifurcates the conversation on websites and blogs and puts Google in channel conflict with the author. Much of the hubbub is overblown, IMO, but what Sidewiki does do — for those who have it installed (which is still a relatively small user base) — is surface to eye level comments that might otherwise be buried with the corporate website. The fact is, brands can’t control the conversation. But that’s not news.
Except when it comes to Pharma, where it becomes a bit more sticky.
Much maligned as an industry woefully lacking in transparency, Pharma brands actually have a more nuanced and complex path to navigate when it comes to social media, due to strict FDA regulations around the reporting of adverse events and promotion of off-label drug use. Under these regulations, Pharma companies engaging in social media would have to actively monitor, document and report discussion of adverse events, as well as correct misinformation as it relates to off-label usage — requiring implementation of new processes and databases. Consequently many Pharma companies are reticent about engaging in social media. But now Sidewiki is forcing the issue. And many Pharma brands have already attracted Sidewiki comments.
There is currently little guidance as to whether the FDA reporting requirements extends to comments placed on Sidewiki and the onus is on the individual brand to determine how to respond. Some argue that the regulation does not extend to Sidewiki, as it is not actually part of the corporate site; however Pharma companies are required to report adverse events when they become aware of them, raising the question of whether to initiate corporate policies to actively monitor or to actively ignore Sidewiki.
But as I see it, the crux of the story here is not one of tools. Sidewiki is but a blip — whether it gains popularity or not is largely irrelevant. The point is that the communication landscape is changing and has been for some time. One-way communication is long dead. Brand reputation can be massaged, but not controlled. Conversations are happening whether you’re listening or not. The onus is on brands — and industries — to adapt their processes to transparent, dynamic, two-way communication. Now. Before they have to get reactive.
Because, to return to the graffiti analogy, graffiti only occurs when nobody is watching.
People who live in glass houses …
…don’t attract spray paint.
Matt Whiting, Senior Account Executive, WE Studio D
One of Seattle’s most globally recognizable and omnipresent corporate citizens is trying a new experiment that has some Seattleites steaming and others just perplexed.
As it has been widely reported, Starbucks is conducting a trial in which they will un-brand three Seattle-based shops in an attempt to endear the international company with those who prefer to buy their goods from local, independent shops. As reported originally by the Seattle Times and subsequently by many others, the shop on 15th Avenue in North Capitol Hill will now be known simply as 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, a coffee shop that will not only offer standard coffee shop fare, but also will host poetry readings and serve beer and wine.
Stepping back from the caffeinated buzz, there are certainly some key trends to note here and lessons to be learned.
Transparency: Wiping the name from the windows is clearly a step away from the “sunshine” of transparency with condemnation of this move having already reached a feverish pitch online and in the surrounding neighborhood. While it is encouraging to see company spokespeople discussing the plans (at least somewhat) openly, the biggest complaints stem from the fact the company seems to be distancing itself from the brand it worked so hard to create. A good compromise would be for the store to be called something along the lines of 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea: Your Neighborhood Starbucks. Regardless of how they do it, the company needs to acknowledge the obvious or otherwise risk being seen as overtly deceptive.
Authenticity: Clearly not heeding Oscar Wilde’s oft repeated advice (Be yourself; everyone else is already taken), the new Starbucks is being derided for ripping off the style of its neighbors. As the SeattlePI.com puts it, “[i]f imitation is the kindest form of flattery, the restaurant and bar known as Smith is feeling … well … flat-out worshiped.” Smith and neighboring artisan coffee shop Victrola, among others are feeling less than flattered, but only time will tell if the new Starbucks location will outlast the opinions of those who have negative views of corporate copycatting.
PR Response: As often is unfortunately the case with any move by corporations, the communications intended to connect with their audience often come off as jilted and about as far from human as possible. As Marc Gunther of the Huffington Post aptly points out in a reaction to a particularly unnaturally sounding corporate response, “[t]hose, my friends, are words only a corporate PR person could utter. Any resemblance to spoken English is purely coincidental.” Such words do not serve to endear the company to those they are working so hard to win over by this extreme remodel. There is certainly a place for finely worded responses devoid of human emotion, but any such communications should be saved for legal matters and PR should get back to actually being able to relate to the public.
Knowing Your Audience: For all of the flak that Starbucks is getting for this, something has to be said for their attempt to adapt to what (they feel) the community actually wants. Sure, cynics will argue that the only reason they’re doing this is to make money, but what company isn’t trying to better its bottom line? The gravest error here is the lack of transparency and the fact that people feel they are being lied to. Completely un-branding oneself may be unprecedented, (those with more familiarity with techniques being used in test markets like Peoria and Columbus might know definitely) but trying to blend in with your surroundings is certainly a worthy goal.
Regardless of whether you are for or against the latest move by coffee’s corporate giant, (as clichéd as it may be) it is undeniable that the world is shifting in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few years back. In addition to coping with a recession unprecedented in modern history, Starbucks is forced to compete with a cheaper, even-more widely ubiquitous competitor in McDonalds’ coffee. Perhaps as important, Starbucks and global brands across the world are faced with customers who, through the channels of the internet, have become accustomed to immediate responses and are more attuned to the benefits of buying local.
Whether this experiment works or not, my guess is we will begin seeing more and more companies attempt to humanize their brands in the most efficient ways available. Here’s to hoping such humanization efforts finally add a nail to the coffin of contrived communications (bad corporate PR) as well.
Update: Earlier this afternoon, I received a friendly e-mail from Starbucks Corporate Communications following up on this post. The company rep kindly pointed me to a fact sheet that the Starbucks Newsroom launched at some point earlier today, while also assuring me that the company has thought long and hard about transparency and authenticity. While I don’t doubt the hard work and likely long hours that have gone into the planning of how this launch would be communicated to the public, I call into question the timing of when these communications were rolled out.
Much like the movie studios that are finding that many of their films are deflated by the time preview audiences have a chance to offer negative reviews about their latest offering, Starbucks seems to be the victim of an incredibly rapid news and complaint cycle. The fact that the press, including the likes of AP, The New York Times, The Huffington Post among others have reported on how the 15th Avenue Starbucks, to quote the AP piece, is “wiping its name” from the store, brings up the question of the need for immediate transparency. Since those reporting had nothing to go off of from the Starbucks communications camp, there was nothing to counter public perception and journalistic observation. Look for a broader discussion around the changing timeframes of communications in the near future.
Tac Anderson, Digital Consulting Director, WE Studio D
In a recent WSJ article John Stoll dives into the communication challenges GM faces in light of its recent bankruptcy and government bailout funding.
What’s interesting to note is the implementation of a traditional strategy using digital tactics.
Lee Iacocca is famous for putting a face on Chrysler’s turnaround efforts in the 1980s by appearing in TV commercials and in the media using a “plain speaking” and upfront approach to win back customers and trust.
GM’s new CEO Frederick “Fritz” Henderson is trying the same sort of thing but using an unscripted approach on company blogs, Web chats and a newly launched “Tell Fritz” online suggestion box instead of paid TV spots or other advertising.
Time Not Money
In Iacocca’s time writing a bestselling book (with the help of ghost writers, I’m sure) and buying a lot of advertising may have worked in a time before the Internet. Today those tactics would likely have resulted in more wasted bailout dollars.
While Fritz is taking a similar “honest” approach and putting himself front and center, he is making a greater commitment in time rather than money. Can you imagine how busy Fritz’s days are? Even as he works to revive a cornerstone of American manufacturing and pillar of the U.S. economy, he also takes the time to participate in Web chats and blogs. The message this sends is impactful.
But how does he do his “day job” at the helm of GM and participate in a meaningful way in social media?
Infrastructure and process provide scale
This shouldn’t come as a big surprise, but it’s not something you hear social media “experts” talk about. Putting processes in place and dedicating resources to “filter and flag” the most important content is critical. Technology alone can’t do this. It also takes a layer of human analysis.
At Waggener Edstrom we will often use various tools including (yet to be announced product) and twendz filter conversations from key influencers and flag the most relevant tweets for response. Fritz undoubtedly has people monitoring the most important and relevant comments and questions which he then responds to upon “arriving at the office or before he goes to bed.”
You’re planning a journey not an event
In PR we tend to spin cycles around upcoming events and product launches. But Fritz’s approach is not a one time, annual or quarterly event. It’s the way companies should be communicating now. You need a strategy, there had better be measurable results but there is no end date. There is no postmortem. You have to iterate and evolve as you go. Social media efforts are something you grow organically not hype up and then walk away from.
But will it work?
GM is in the midst of a PR nightmare. Consumers and taxpayers were outraged at the huge amounts of money given to the auto industry. Despite all the negativity, GM is staying engaged and working to focus the online discussion around its future, rather than the past.
GM was the first auto manufacturer to use social media and Fritz’s outreach shows those efforts are increasing. Through its consistent engagement, GM stays top of mind, participates and contributes to the conversation even if it can’t control what’s being said.
Matt Whiting, Senior Account Executive
No matter how you slice it, astroturfing is a terrible practice. In New York state, it turns out that such deception will get you noticed by the attorney general’s office. As Jacqui Cheng points out in yesterday’s article in the Law & Disorder section, a cosmetic surgery company in New York settled a case after it was caught putting up fake online reviews.
While fake reviews are by no means a new phenomenon, it’s disheartening to see companies continue to believe they will be able to get away with deliberately shady practices that undermine one of the core tenets of model Web behavior: transparency.
Perhaps it’s been too long since VH1’s “Behind the Music” of Milli Vanilli, but it’s time the world learns once and for all that, in the end, deceit just doesn’t cut it.
Jennifer Houston, Senior Vice President
It’s interesting to watch the chatter around Facebook’s decision to turn postings public (by default – you can actually change the settings if you don’t want your wild weekend be public). While I understand the passion around the decision, it has an element of the “duh” factor for me. Facebook is merely fast following a trend that has been building since we began to engage in message boards eons ago: in this post-digital era, we’re just on and YOU are a brand.
Me? A brand? I’m not talking Corn Flakes or Jaguar. I’m talking about the brand that is YOU. Every single piece of content we create (and, by the way, everything is content) – whether podcast, Flickr pic, tweet or (gasp) Facebook postings – all accrue to your brand. Come on, if you’re telling your friends what era of music or hostess you are, you have to be at least a little interested in sharing.
Things to live by for the brand that is you (taken liberally from what we have always practiced with public brands):
- We’re just on. Not sometimes. Not at work or away from work. Just on. Be a good steward of that brand as it follows you (digitally) everywhere.
- Invest in your brand. And be authentic, credible, transparent and honest. Or your brand will lose all credibility. See the above point.
- We’re human. If you do experience a brand stumble, own it. Engage with those you have offended. Be transparent.
- Be your brand in your own style. Don’t choose platforms that don’t authentically suit you. Create content about things you know. Posers lose credibility.
- Give before you get. Add value in your interactions. Give someone a reason to want to engage with you.
Check out our Influence Manifesto to see how we’re evolving our craft at Waggener Edstrom.
Jennifer Houston, Senior Vice President
Cross-posted at PRWeek Insider
Ever hear of Ivy Bean? I hadn’t either, until recently. At 104, Ivy has made headlines with her Facebook page – over 4,000 friends – and her arrival on Twitter – over 16,000 followers.
It’s a great story, but where it gets sticky is with the revelation that the Geek Squad and some journalist actually created her accounts as a stunt.
Outrage?
Surprisingly, no.
Why? This is the kind of story that often consumes hours of news.
The answer: Authenticity.
Regardless of what voldemort-like forces conspired to bring this woman into the digital age, Ivy has been prolific, using her Twitter and Facebook pages to interact with people from around the world. In other words – she is a character in her own right. Ivy’s tweets and updates fill out a story we’re all part of – the search for real human connection.
In the world of Influence, authenticity is crucial.
That’s especially true when dealing with problems. This mother’s day, FTD had an unfortunate meltdown, failing to deliver flowers to mothers around the country. As a mother, all I can say is, “grrrrr.” What’s worse, they fumbled the response. The Twitterverse was ablaze with, well, heated tweets.
Finally realizing people were upset, FTD offered a whopping $10 off. Resulting in a response that was too little, too late and demonstrating a surprising lack of understanding of the emotions associated with the celebration of Mom. And emotion is 9/10 of their business!
People have plenty of choices about where to get their content (and flowers), which companies to engage with, what organizations to interact with. You can have a well-dressed pig, you can have a decent understanding of who you want to reach, but, at the end of the day, if audiences don’t trust you and feel connected, then you don’t have anything.
Heather Snow, Integrated Communications Director
AdAge reported today that Google is selling ad units that allow marketers to stream their 5 most recent tweets across the AdSense network. So, in place of a traditional display ad, a recent tweet appears. Clicking on the tweet/ad takes the visitor to the company’s Twitter feed. @TurboTax is the first advertiser to sign up.
At first blush, this is an interesting concept, and a great example of meaningful integration across disciplines and platforms — definitely one to watch. Though not without some potential issues to iron out. A few thoughts:
Transparency. This is a new one for advertising — a paid media placement that isn’t scripted. Risky perhaps, but for many brands, a window in need of opening.
Human voice. Presumably the AdSense clients’ Twitter feeds aren’t being penned by copywriters, and as we’ve been hearing, on social media it’s the human voice that drives influence and credibility.
Copyright & Permission. OK, so what happens when @TurboTax retweets a follower’s tweet. As discussed in the case of the Mark Cuban saga, a person’s tweets are in fact subject to copyright if they are original thoughts. In Mark Cuban’s case, fair use comes into play because he’s a public figure and does not make money on his Twitter messages. But what if @TurboTax (or any other AdSense client) retweets a tweet posted by a private entrepreneur who uses Twitter to prospect for business leads, and this retweet is filtered through the AdSense units — mightn’t this run risk of copyright infringement? And even if it’s determined to not technically be copyright infringement in a given circumstance, aren’t a lot of individuals going to be irked to see their tweets or twitter handles pulled into a brand’s advertising without their permission?
Content. The AdSense units are a vehicle for reach; the Twitter feed a vehicle for authenticity and transparency — but at the end of the day, content is going to be what drives influence and determines ROI.
An AdSense feed such as this could be a very effective use of the medium and content (permission issues aside):
This, not so much:
Ged Carroll
I spent last week in Barcelona, teaching a course on interactive marketing (part of an executive training program run by La Salle Business & Engineering School). It was an interesting and hectic few days. Here are some things I learned about the Spanish market:
-
- The Spanish media landscape is huge and complex. For example, the country has more than 500 local radio stations.
- There is a great amount of interest in blogging, and the ghost-writing of posts is not unheard of. Blog sponsorship was cited as a way for organizations to be involved in blogging without placing a lot of demand on internal resources.
- Transparency was a huge area of discussion as marketers juggle the demands often put on them.
- I got a general sense that Spanish marketers are more willing to embrace brand marketing than British marketers are.
- There is a sentiment that Google is too powerful. One agency professional admitted that they paid more attention to Google’s Web site guidelines than to their client’s requirements.
- As in the UK, online measurement is a challenge. What’s more, many measurement and monitoring services, like Radian6, don’t yet cater to the Spanish-speaking market.
- Social and digital media techniques in Spain are being driven by advertising and marketing agencies; many feel that PR agencies ‘don’t get it’ and are too tactical in their outlook.
- London was perceived as being a creative hotspot; working in London carried a lot of cachet.
Someone asked me how far Spain is behind London in terms of online marketing. I explained that I don’t think Spain is behind; it just has a different approach. Spaniards have adopted the Web and interactive marketing techniques in a way that makes sense for them.
I look forward to going back in the future and seeing how things evolve.
