PR from the Beach

Air New Zealand talk social media on social media

Couple of good clips from Air New Zealand this week. Firs one below takes a quick  look at their use of social media. The second is Rob Fyfe talking about how the stories, the channels and the way they intersect change approaches and engagement.  It's long, but worth sticking with.

 

Making it personal: The Air New Zealand Brand - wierd wacky or inspired? by Rob Fyfe from Creative New Zealand on Vimeo.

More Power to the Neighbourhood

We should never underestimate the power of the neighbourhood and how simple community actions can change disaster to hope, dictatorship to democracy, isolation to engagement.

These last few weeks we have seen the power of local action resonate around the world but it has to be said that for many people, involvement with their local neighbourhood is, well, far from what it should be.  A cuppa and a chat next door is, in many places, a thing of the past with next-door-neighbours simply strangers who share the same postcode. The excuse? Mostly the excuses are reasons for not going round - that we're busy, we work odd hours, there's a lot going on, they're not around when we are and so on. Often what we need is an excuse to go round in the first place and break the ice.

An inspired 'excuse' that helps us to reconnect with our neighbours in New Zealand will be running this weekend. Neighbours' Day, an initiative by Lifewise, has gained remarkable traction and hopefully, this coming Saturday and Sunday will see people popping in and out of neighbouring houses, enjoying street parties and other events designed to stimulate local community engagement.  

In times of trouble - and I can't help but think of Christchurch and its suburbs here - our neighbours are the first people we will need to both help and depend on. Surely though we should be involved in untroubled times as well?

In our uber-connected lifestyles, we are often better friends with people we have never met on Twitter or Facebook than we are with the people next door.  I know that I for one will switch off the net next weekend and head down the road armed with muffins and a determination to get to know the whole street that little bit better.  If you want to do the same, then you'll find a raft of ideas and suggestions here. You never know, we might just bump into each other en route.

Tweet thoughts from beyond the Grave

Over at Farmville, people are busy putting the finishing touches to their Haunted Houses ready for Halloween.  Me, I've been looking at digital footprints for one reason or another, and I have to say I've been struck by the number of organisations that have sprung up offering digital services for the dead.

I haven't had a proper play around with it yet, but must say that the Futuris.tk site is very intriguing - here you can send a message to loved ones, posted out when you are dead, or 'future-blog' your thoughts now 50 years ahead. Others like Entrustet, Legacy Locker and My Web Will all look to managing your digital assets once your big Switch Off has occurred and - if there is absolutely no chance of a reboot - your loved ones can activate all the 'deactivates' that will be necessary once your chips are finally down.  Facebook will enshrine your loved one's page for you, if you wish, but if, in real life, you have no close mates or family that can prove their relationship with you to Facebook then, rest assured, your party photos will live forever.

Spooky then, if you have diligently mashed your applications to auto-tweet during your living hours and a spam comment somewhere knocks it into action long after you've gone. Imagine the stick you'll get for not being a proper contributor to the conversation - it's bad enough now if you go quiet for a week or two!

My thought for the day on this one rests with those in the business community currently thrashing out digital strategies - and anyone else who has harnessed the power of their employees as brand advocates on their behalf. Imagine this. You have been asked to run a tweetstream talking about your place of work. You die. It doesn't. Who owns it? Who closes it down? And what if your digital footprint actually has financial value - in the same way as artists, writers, authors and other creative types have assets that increase in value after their demise, so too might the value of that Flickr stream you are so fond of. And if it does - who gets the cash?  If there's a digital will, then there will be a way.

For most, this probably won't seem like a particularly worrisome problem - a bit like cyber-security concerns seemed a few years ago - but believe me, as more advocates are born, so will they die. If I were to blog my thoughts today for use 50 years ahead, I guess it would include a brief sentence: "Remember I suggested you work out how to deal with the digital assets of the dead - bet you wish you had now!"

It has also got me thinking about the point at which people will - to put it bluntly - shut up. Are we going to experience a rash of 'death blogs' as one by one we shuffle off this mortal coil?  Unless they are really from beyond the grave and offer insight into a life beyond, then reflections of what dreams may come from the living - while they remain with us - will, I fear, simply be dead boring. Like the wonderful tombstone above, found here, there must be a time when we simply have nothing more to say.

PS: Would Vampires really want to engage with their Stakeholders?

A F-Fone from Facebook? Thumbs down from me

A recent rumour in Techcrunch has led to all sorts of speculation as to whether or not Facebook will  launch its own mobile phone operating system. Given the standard of spelling and invective on Facebook, I think we could usefully call this potential development the 'F-Fone'. 

Because of the privacy issues spawned by Facebook every day, I wouldn't trust such an operating system one jot, nor would I be inclined to call someone who was running it on the basis that my number would probably be harvested without consent and end up shared somewhere in Farmville. In fact, other mobile developers might do well to build in an 'F-Fone' detector application so that we could be alerted and hang up.

Facebook launched Places in the US in August and in the UK over the last few days, rivalling mobile apps like Foursquare and Gowalla. With mobility on the rise, a phone operating system is not beyond the bounds of possibility and no doubt makes commercial sense.  I just hope for all our sakes that people are not gullible enough to use it due to the amount of data likely to be harvested in the process. If you have any doubts about their ability to harvest information from people who do not want to use the Facebook platform, check out their community page fiasco, which I blogged about here.  My vote for an F-Fone? Thumbs Down. F-fingers crossed it stays a rumour.

 

Measuring Public Relations

Last week saw the 2010 PRINZ Conference, Taming the Tiger, and delegates were lucky enough to have Jim Macnamara on hand to talk through his thinking on measurement and evaluation. It was great to see so many people taking diligent notes throughout his presentation and I hope that it encourages more people to make sure they have a robust and effective evaluation process in place for their programmes. His presentation concentrated primarily on media evaluation and measurement which is really only part of the work we undertake in public relations.  The main purpose of our work is to build and sustain relationships between organisations and communities, and media relations, especially old-school, mainstream media relations, is only one small part of that purpose.

I do find it truly bizarre that the nonsense that is AVE persists as well as the measurement of website 'hits' - I can't wait for the day when both disappear into the ether. Jim Macnamara spent a lot of time debunking both, although some of the research he quoted I personally believe only serves to support the myth that either of those two activities are remotely useful.

While tweeting about Jim's presentation I was sent a message asking what to use instead of AVE and so there are a few simple responses to this below - it is what I've been doing for more years than I care to measure and although simple, it is an approach that provides accurate reporting on the success of programmes.  

• Set your outcomes and measure to those. If you are looking for an improved relationship, then benchmark your existing relationship with research before commencing your programme, monitoring how each phase of activity moves you nearer - or further away - from your desired outcome. 
• Set precise objectives for each phase of your programme and evaluate whether or not they have been achieved. 
• Make sure that each objective contributes to the over-arching outcomes you are working towards.
• Use qualitative and quantitative analysis in your reporting.  There are many tools and techniques out there that will produce the data you need to track your programme and its effectiveness.
• If you are working online, again - know what you want to achieve and why. Don't just throw Facebook pages at it and hope that will do the trick.
• Understand and identify the communities with whom you hope to build and sustain relationships
• Understand and identify where, when and how they get their information. Don't expect them to come to you - you need to go to them.
• Keep your focus. Don't get too distracted with peripheral activities or groups that do not form part of your objectives and outcomes.  Be watchful, mindful and concerned, but stay on track.
• Remember that research, planning and evaluation are a continuous process and need to be looked at holistically, rather than as siloed activities. Each stage informs the next.

Measurement and evaluation is not hard. It is an essential part of what we do and any practitioner worth their salt should make sure that they build a system that allows them to track and report with ease. If you are unsure what to do and are in New Zealand, then come along to one of the PRINZ sessions (that have been running for years now) that will help you create a system that works for your organisation and if you want some help with where to start measuring online activity, here's a paper I put together a while ago that might be a useful starting point. Download Measuring_the_social_web 

The bitter taste of chocolate coated influence

This is not a whine brought on by lack of chocolate. But it is a worry about the way 'influence' is being trumpeted and overly paraded in the social media sphere to the extent I am once again reminded of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Earlier this week, in a bad mood caused by other matters, I grumbled when I read a tweet from the local branch of a global confectioner on Twitter to a blogger who had benefited from some free chocolate, apparently sent following her commentary on the palm oil debacle and the company's subsequent 'recovery' in social media channels. I was delighted for her that she had received the chocolate and hope much 'nom. nom, noming' was going on at her base. I would also add that she conveyed surprise in her blog at the arrival of the goodies. I was, however, intrigued.

Supply of freebies in the blogosphere is dependent on the supplier's perception of the recipient's 'influence'.  In the US, restrictions have now been placed on bob-a-blogs, elsewhere I suspect they may materialise soon.  But what I find interesting is not the supply of freebies, but the perception of influence. You see, in my house, I am the primary chocolate buyer. The filler of supermarket trollies who lumps in those palm-oiled bars for my confectionery-loving crew. I also have an extensive network - not on Twitter - of fellow trolley-fillers, who in turn perform outreach 'within a tightly formulated purchasing tribe' (to add the sparkle of some current corporate blather-speak).  But which do you think is potentially of greatest influence? A person who blogs about how well a company has done in the social media sphere or a person who actually buys the products? 

At this end of the week (having cheered myself up with some purchased chocolate) I have been playing with Klout, another Twitter analytics tool that, along with many others, advises users as to their influence on the network. Apart from the fact it doesn't seem terribly accurate and doesn't correlate terribly well with other similar analytics tools, it makes great play of the 'influencer' numbers, telling you how you should try harder, do this, retweet that, ask this question and so on.  A couple of weeks ago I was playing with Twitter lists - a seemingly benign mechanism for organising groups of people - that was almost immediately tainted by a feverish outbreak of a seemingly high school mentality of popularity.

I know that many of those 'influencers' in the social media sphere will probably baulk at this, but my worry is that all this talk of influence takes social media down a wrong turning and into a dark alley.  The biggest bonus awarded to us all by online interaction was the removal of filtered communication. We had been stuck with commercial mainstream media models - well, for centuries  - and over the last fifteen years we have seen the gradual erosion of their control. (Which is one of the reasons Rupert Murdoch is so mad, but that's another post entirely).  There is a real and present danger that the benefits of social media, the open channels, the acceptance of newcomers and the willingness to actually listen to someone else (and I mean properly listen) will diminish and content, instead of having the power to change things will become another platform for marketing spam.

Statistics show us the millions of people who are engaged online, using all sorts of tools to connect with each other but there are still millions more who have no access to the tools, technology or concerns of those intent on filtering who says what to whom and when, but who may well end up permanently out of the loop.

I've been working in this space for many years now (despite Klout's assessment of me!) and I know that if your intention is to genuinely build community, you don't put barriers in front of people - you make them welcome. You make them feel they are part of the team, rather than the one who never gets picked. 

Introducing pop charts, lists, influencer ratings, most popular this, most fantastic that simply replaces the old filters with new ones, removing individuals from the conversation. Voices that should be heard won't be heard - or considered important - because they haven't made this week's list or carry last week's Klout.

Much is going on online to make people feel unwelcome, unwanted and unnecessary, which is very sad indeed. If it continues as it is at present then countries who do much to block internet access and content won't have too much to worry about as the egos, seekers-of-influence and experts will put sizeable numbers off joining in in the first place.

Influence is subjective. A relationship has action. Build a real relationship with real people that have real 'reach' in the real world. That'll build the chocolate sales and keep the jobs alive far more effectively than seeking social media plaudits.

When the Ghost in the Machine needs to back off

So this weekend Facebook decided that it would make some decisions on my behalf, selectively editing my friends' updates, information, quiz results, likes (but not dislikes as there is no button) et al. Today, Google launches social search so I can retrieve information from my public social graph that will take me one step nearer to the most recommended coffee shop this side of the CBD - but only if the Google machine considers it relevant based on decisions it has made about me - and you - as determined by our online profiles.

Marvellous isn't it. Clever almost beyond words. Deeply impressed that they can mine the data so efficiently. But one major thing has slipped the minds of the great and good - I don't want them editing my information or the news that comes to me, be it social news, mainstream news or an update from my Great Aunt Edy (if I had such a relative).  We had enough 'editing' of information during the reign of mass media. Information was power and selective distribution fed the hierarchical business models that have been collapsing around our ears the last year or two.

I am more than happy for them to find the information - but deliver it whole, unaltered, unchanged. Let me decide. The kind of selective editing currently being proffered is not about being a helpful 'free' service provider. It is about behavioural control, social selection for influence and steering users towards content that will power advertising revenue and stimulate a little mouse action. Methinks it is time to make sure that today's ghosts in the machine don't surreptitiously remove  the 'social' from social media and replace it with 'remote control'.

That marvellous Orwellian phrase 'Big Brother is Watching You' is now surpassed. Great Google and Fearsome Facebook will simply tell you what they think you should know.

John and Letterman simply Off-Key

I've tried really hard to find something positive about John Key's appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman but, despite my best efforts, I have failed to find one single thing. 

Rubbing shoulders with Obama at the UN - fine. Sharing the Australian PM's bathroom facilities - ok. Announcing plans at the UN - great. Being made to look a complete dork by a two-bit talk show host - fail.

Who on earth suggested that he appeared on this show?  He may be Tourism Minister as well as PM, but I cannot see one scrap of evidence that would lead me to believe his inclusion would boost tourism in any shape or form.  The Herald today suggests that Key considers it a job well done because someone from Montenegro thought it was good. Montenegro? Sorry, but I doubt they will be visiting NZ in their millions.

The 'interview' simply made John Key look daft and I found myself writhing in embarrassment. The same sort of stomach churning discomfort one might feel when a cheery uncle makes a complete show of himself at a family wedding.  Why would someone put the Prime Minister in such a position?

Obama goes on Letterman because he is the US President and it 'puts him in touch' with the voters, particularly when he is campaigning for health care reform in the country. When Obama appears, he is jovial but still retains an air of authority. He is even allowed to sit down by Letterman who, when interviewing his President, shows at least some respect. But our John? Not a bit of it. Key became Letterman's Aunt Sally and whoever 'wrote' those appalling answers for him needs some urgent help and guidance and a real telling-off.

Dreadful misalignment occurred here and even though the interview is being 'talked up', the whole episode did nothing for NZ's credibility and certainly undermined our Prime Minister. Letterman's brand of tacky TV is about entertainment and commercial viewing figures, not leadership. Unfortunately, this meant John Key was made to look a complete clown instead of a thoughtful statesman. Shame on those who thought a TV trivia moment would increase his profile or improve his standing. All it did was undermine what would otherwise have been a reasonable trip.

Treated like a dork - John Key

Treated like a guest - Barack Obama

Two degrees off integration

2degrees mobile ran its 'press launch' this morning, leaving me questioning why they couldn't tell us all at the same time. Why run a 'press launch', when you can tell me yourselves? After all - I am your potential customer and you already know I am listening.

At 9am, when the 'launch' ran, the 2degrees site and blog were not updated with the long anticipated pricing information. As one of 20,000 people the company says pre-registered, why didn't they email me with details instead of sending me a patronising and vague 'we'll send you your SIM sometime soon' message? They have my mobile number too, so text would have done the job. A neat, direct contact that would have had me waiting in line tomorrow morning to look at the phones on offer and become a happy customer. Indeed, had they done so, 2degrees and I would now be holding hands, smiling at each other and starting a lovely new relationship.

But no. Instead, the only information I got was via a brief Twitter stream, presumably from the media conference.

It is very good news that there will be a phone company operating in New Zealand offering us value for money and that the cell phone noose held tight by Vodafone and Telecom has been loosened but somehow the shiny, friendly launch was dulled by the lack of joined-up thinking on communication.

Companies and organisations need to realise that if they are using social media tools to engage with their communities - whether their aim is to generate a purchase or provide a service - they need to engage directly with those communities and not give precedence to old-school mainstream media techniques  mostly concerned with vanity coverage as opposed to real outcomes.

Which do you think is more powerful?  Direct communication with 20,000 engaged, potential customers who will not only spread your message by word of mouth wildfire and spend the cash necessary to support you or filtered communication with commercially-led mainstream media channels, which, if you check your research, will have dwindling influence among your potential and active communities?

For me, 2degrees demonstrated once again that many organisations do not yet understand that they are no longer simply providers of information, but publishers. And, if they start a dialogue with a group of people, they can't suddenly switch off, ignore the first group and pour their hearts out to someone they assume might be more interesting. A bit like those dreadful networking events were people start a conversation with you but look at their watch and turn away if they believe you are not useful enough.

Organisations today do not have to utilise filtered mainstream media unless that media is a target community of its own. Direct, honest communication with no separation at all between your organisation and your community is the way to go. 2degrees made much of NZ's population knowing someone who knew someone. They had a direct channel to a large group of people and blew their advantage. The effort organising the press launch would have been better directed getting the SIM cards delivered on time tomorrow, rather than telling us we might have to wait a week or so. That way, we would be loaded up with $20 top-ups and they would start to put money in the bank on day one. Instead, we will be twiddling our thumbs in indecision, unsure as to whether to wait for the SIM delivery, buy one or stuff the whole thing and sign up with Vodafone for an iPhone instead (I doubt anyone will look at Telecom as an option, but that's another story).

While two degrees can be a precise measurement, in navigational terms, being two degrees off can take you somewhere you really didn't want to go, leaving you lost or marooned. Let's hope 2degrees remembers who it needs to talk to, as I for one would like to see them give it a go.

Don't worry about owning social media - just defend it

There is a blog post today from Text 100 about 'who owns social media', which came to my notice via @creoceo.  In this case, they suggest this 'duel' is between public relations and advertising. Personally, I think they might just have too much time on their hands. This week we remember those who died in Tiananmen Square. A week in which China was so keen to minimise global and domestic memories of this protest and the subsequent slaughter they snuffed out access to social media channels like Twitter and others. Given this situation, surely to goodness any social media discussion should be revolving around something more productive than 20th century-style turf wars?

For more years than I care to remember I have been trotting round various countries helping public relations practitioners and others understand and come to grips with the disruptive technologies that make up the social media environment. Every time I advise them that as practitioners, we are the navigators in this environment, working alongside those we are helping to build the relationships they need to operate. We need to understand the channels, know how to work them, understand when and why to engage with them - and it is vital to our work that we do this. But I don't own social media - nor would I want to. I am far more interested in it remaining a suite of unfiltered, direct, open access channels that allow me to listen, engage, act and build with those communities I work with and alongside.

What I have become passionately concerned about is the lengths that some are going to in order to block access to the channels, or disrupt them, or switch them on and off according to political whim. This is of great concern and, I believe, should be the burning discussion among practitioners - not 'who owns it, ads or PR' - what a very old fashioned discussion!

Twenty years ago, a student jumped the barriers in Tiananmen Square and tried to stop a line of tanks. He stood, bravely and passionately, for free speech and, momentarily, for freedom itself. The world seemingly chose to ignore China's actions that day - or at least, let them get away with it. It would seem that 20 years on, the actions taken to curb, restrict and crush free speech, this time on the internet rather than the streets, have also been ignored.

For all those social media advocates out there - these actions are ignored at our collective peril. If access can be turned off and on by political whim, who really gives two hoots about who *owns* something that by its very nature is unable to be possessed. Our concern will be that we can no longer access, connect or share with each other. That to me, is of considerable significance. Discuss.