PR FROM THE BEACH

What were they thinking? State Services Commission 'bans' tweeting at press conference

I thought it was a hoax when I first read the tweets from journalists at the State Services Commission press conference today - they had, apparently, been banned from tweeting. Then, later this afternoon, out came the story via the Herald and Newstalk ZB that this had, indeed, been the case.

It is beyond me that those in charge of this press conference could be so impossibly behind the times. Aside from demonstrating a complete lack of understanding as to mainstream media operation, how social networks, particularly Twitter, break and drive the news, not to mention the seismic culture shift of the last ten years, surely common sense would tell you that to 'ban' journalists from doing anything when you've called them together is a bit like the old red rag to a bull?

A few years ago, New Zealand's State Services Commission were actually quite innovative when it came to social and digital policy.  Obviously something has gone wrong - very wrong - for this to have happened today.  I would recommend a refresher course in basic communication management along with a PR101 session for all those involved.

So has the first Cyber War begun?

Amazon has now had a blip, Mastercard and others have experience distributed-denial-of-service attacks and Saturday's UK Guardian announces that the hackers claim the first global cyber war has begun.

Back in 2006, when I first stumbled on the film 'V for Vendetta' you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who would go along with the conspiracy theories that fuelled the plot. After all, they would say, nothing like that could possibly happen in this day and age - we're much too smart. And besides, ordinary folk just don't get off the benches and do that sort of thing. Interesting then that the Anonymous group, alleged to be behind the attacks, has adopted the Guy Fawkes mask from the film as their collective avatar as they ostensibly stand up against the demise of the WikiLeaks site and arrest of Assange. But are they the 'ordinary folk' behind the mask that they purport to be? Elsewhere the hackers have been described as ordinary people rising up to 'right the wrongs' they perceive to have occurred. There are definitely some serious wrongs going on in this sorry saga, but I do wonder if these 'ordinary hackers' are sincere in their stand for 'the people's rights' , whether they have stopped to consider the consequences of their actions or whether they are merely keen to exercise a little anarchistic muscle.

It might seem inconsequential for most of us - something happening beyond our control out there in cyberspace - where, let's face it, many mostly go to check Facebook, chat on Twitter or email out some Christmas greetings.  Truth is, even if claims of the first global cyber war have been exaggerated, the implications of the online actions of all those involved - from WikiLeaks, to Governments, hackers to downloaders - are considerable.

I've written about this before (back in 2007) and again more recently following the China hacks and we all need to be concerned, aware of what can and can't be done in such circumstances and also - most importantly - that the web is not the bastion of free speech that many of us would like to believe it to be.  Frustratingly, not many people seem to care and, worryingly, there is very little collective business, individual or organisational will to address the problems this sort of denial of service can cause or to address the social and economic impact it will have on the real ordinary people who will find they can't get their money, or buy food or operate within a system increasingly dependent on online interactions. Somehow I can't see the hackers themselves coughing up the cash refused to the hungry, cold pensioner because 'the computer says no'.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the players who withdrew services from the WikiLeaks site did so to maintain their political licence to operate, rather than to ensure everyone toed the line when it came to site terms and conditions. Shame should rest on the political masters who may have engineered such reactions.  I am also convinced that at least some of the hackers currently dealing out 'payback' are doing it because the WikiLeaks affair provides a useful sandbox environment that allows them to see just how far they can get. Now, as always, two wrongs don't make a right.

As with all wars, the innocent are the ones caught in the middle and even a cyber war will see casualties mounting. Sadly, I suspect the first great loss will be the opportunity the web provides for Freedom of Speech. Another bleakly Orwellian view I can glimpse is that Freedom of Thought would be the next human right to bite the dust as first the governments, then the web giants, then the hackers seek to control - from behind their respective and particular masks - what we say and do online and off, as well as what we are allowed to hear and see.

 

It's NOT ok to feed the oglers

Long story short, the ladette website nzgirl has launched a 'campaign' purporting to 'raise awareness' for breast cancer, paying $1000 dollars per 50 photos of readers' breasts uploaded to their site.

Over the years we've had astroturfing, greenwashing, pinkwashing - and now we have boobwashing. The site claims it's all in a good cause. The site fails to say exactly which breast cancer charity they will be paying the money to. They also trumpet the fact, via Twitter and elsewhere, they have 'removed' advertising around the publication page. Yeah right. Big deal. It is still a cynical and distorted means to drive traffic to the site - the only 'awareness' raising being done here is for nzgirl, its website and the long-term ad rate it will be able to charge on the strength of distorted visitor numbers.

I've lost several nearest-and-dearest to breast cancer and currently count among my closest friends two survivors and one mid-fight.  I asked them - and those around them - what they thought of this slapstick and juvenile enterprise, thinking maybe it was just me, maybe I'd got a bit set in my ways. Their unanimous verdict was the same as mine - it is unethical, undignified and unacceptable.  

nzgirl has accused detractors and critics of being 'PC' - well yes, I am - Perfectly Cynical in my view of the means, motives and outcomes for this pathetically purile publicity promotion.

To me, it is sadly proof that the young and the bright among us can still manage to stoop to the nasty, tawdry 20th (even 19th) century Phineas T Barnum stunt school of cheap publicity.

nzgirl has succeeded in creating a circus today with the media as ringmaster and the unwitting - and probably well-meaning -  supporters the dancing bares.

In many ways, it's a sad indictment of our society. Long after the circus has left town, the oglers (probably the same ones who line the streets for the Boobs on Bikes debacle every year) will still be pushing up the visitor numbers at NZ Girl, which has effectively bought itself a peepshow for a few grand. New Zealand girls and women deserve better than this, as do all those who have and continue to battle this disease.

 

PS: I've come back to this post this evening, having read two other blog posts on the same subject. First from Lance Wiggs and second, via @CateOwen's tweet, some great observations from Boganette. Both well worth a read.

Would you join 'National Naked Scanner Opt-Out Day'? TSA faces People's Revolt

Today, Wednesday 24 November, has been dubbed 'National Naked Scanner Opt-Out Day' in the USA in protest at the new full-body scanning devices now installed at airports across the country. Travellers crossing the States on one of the busiest travel dates of the year - tomorrow being Thanksgiving - are being urged to refuse the scanner and opt instead for the even less pleasant invasive pat down.

Essentially, the public's agreement for the intense security measures employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is being withdrawn and the issue is leading, slowly but surely, to a withdrawal on the part of the public of the TSA's 'licence to operate' - in short, it is a real public relations crisis.

Having been travelling the last few weeks, crossing the USA, UK, Europe and finally Hong Kong, the issue of airport security and the way in which it is handled has been much on my mind.  Although I had my share of adventures, I did not experience anything like the search suffered by the six-year-old boy in the YouTube video below.  Social media is being used as the catalyst to encourage people in the USA to take part in the 'opt-out'. How effective it will be, I really don't know - fear plays a part for travellers who are loathe to do anything that might draw attention to themselves, not because they are plotting some ghastly event, but simply because they don't want to undergo the humiliation, rudeness and downright nastiness displayed by some of those responsible for 'heightened security'. It is interesting to see that the 'fear' barrier so cleverly and effectively erected by the powers-that-be since 2001 is now being dismantled as people lose patience with a system that tags them as 'suspects' and subjects them to humiliating and very personal scrutiny just for heading off to visit Grandma.

What has happened, I believe, is that the balance has been lost.  Security in Auckland is tight but polite. We understand the need for vigilance but nobody is treated like a criminal just because they are travelling - something which is, unfortunately, often the case at USA airports. In Hong Kong, Zurich and Geneva again, security was tight, but passengers were treated with courtesy and responded with cooperation, a match which, if anything, speeds up the whole process.

Somewhere along the line, the powers-that-be in the USA have got so absorbed with the implementation of security measures, they have forgotten the purpose - to catch the baddies, not harass the travellers. Even Hilary Clinton has been added to the list of those unhappy with the process. The sad fact is the real 'baddies' will find ways through even the most ingenious and stringent security measures as they have proved in the past. Meanwhile the rest of us suffer indignities, delays and humiliation or, as is the case with the organisers of Opt-Out day, work out a way to redress the balance and have their voices heard.

 

Internet Access a 'human right'? Finland finishes first in making it work

Today, Finland becomes the first country in the world to enshrine internet access as a legal right for its citizens. This piece from the BBC provides a quick overview of what has been accomplished, and follows on from the BBC survey earlier this year which identified access as a fundamental right. The Finns passed their bill in October 2009 and the aim is to provide citizen access to 100mbs - by right - in 2015.

Last year, France declared in its courts that internet access was a human right and other countries are following suit - but Finland wins the game today with its activation of last year's law.

Here in New Zealand, where we still struggle with connectivity, an effective duopoly of provision between Telecom and Vodafone with a few minnows struggling upstream, means the statistics are not so good. In Finland, 96% of the population is already on line. With a population of 5.3m, that's not so much bigger than us, yet Statistics NZ's number release in April this year advises that only 1m Kiwis are active broadband users, 80% are regular users but rural populations are still struggling along on dial-up.

There was a reasonable and robust programme of digital engagement under the last NZ government. Since John Key and the Nationals were elected, there has been far less emphasis and discussion on how we can ensure that the digital divide is bridged - and bridged quickly.  Areas of access, digital literacy, digital education have all faded into the background. Sadly, basic infrastructure is lacking along with the will to change and despite our much vaunted Kiwi ingenuity, I fear that unless there is some real leadership, we will soon find ourselves far behind other countries in the world. And it is very easy to 'slip behind'.

Technology is a key enabler. It facilitates education, change, progress and problem solving. Access in itself is not a 'human right' but making it a 'legal right' certainly helps us all to improve the level of human rights around us.

Below is a great TED video from Hans Rosling from 2007, which looks at progress through the eyes of a very creative statistician, who demonstrates that change is possible, nothing is impossible - but we do have to be able to distinguish between goals and means if we are to make any progress at all.  I hope that our own New Zealand government uses Finland as a credible and praiseworthy example as to what is possible in the area of digital access and starts sorting out an infrastructure that will allow everyone here to benefit in the same way as the citizens of Finland.

Cow pat energy could boost data storage?

The latest research paper from Hewlett Packard puts a whole new slant on digital waste.  Their idea? Use waste from the dairy industry to create 'natural energy plants that could power data storage centres. Apparently 10,000 dairy cows would produce 1GW, enough to supply electricity to the farmer and the assigned data centre.  Interesting thinking - wonder if there is the will anywhere to put it into action? Certainly could boost NZ's economy and make good use of those troublesome dairy emissions! Seems like an opportunity to me.

The Tweet Imperative: Practitioner Beware

Little story today about problems at a tween star's autograph signing, but one with major implications for communicators who regularly use Twitter to advise, inform and attract people to events.

There are different versions of the story around - one says the executive was arrested for not tweeting when told, while another says it was because he tweeted too much, drawing a large, over-stimulated, hormone-fuelled crowd of screaming teens.

Whatever the actual situation, practitioners and communicators everywhere should take careful note of this one. For example, how does 'being ordered to communicate' sit with free speech? What if, in your professional opinion, tweeting would make the situation worse? And what impact would that have on your organisation's reputation? 

Equally, in a 'non-democratic' environment, what if you are 'ordered' to tweet something that will put others in danger? And for the journalists who live tweet material - what if your story is the catalyst that causes chaos? What liability would mainstream media assume?

This is a small story about an action taken - or at very least suggested - by some US police officers. Its implications however, are enormous, not necessarily at this moment, but certainly as we rush towards the future. Bet there are a few people out there live tweeting events as I write. As the event manager are you at some point, going to be held responsible for what they say or the actions their tweets precipitate?

I know it's a consideration that I'll be building into programmes from here on in. 

Another Tsunami warning and NZ Civil Defence communication still looks scarily inept

As I write, we are on another tsunami advisory following three more Pacific earthquakes, this time around Vanuatu. Whether the island will suffer the same terrible devastation and loss as Samoa and parts of Tonga we don't yet know - we can only hope that all are safe and that no lives are lost.

Here in New Zealand, I have been watching the Civil Defence communications with keen interest - more so than usual following recent events. I am flabbergasted that they are still relying on static web updates to communicate urgent information. Surely all major organisations must be aware that in today's communications environment if they don't fill the information void themselves, then someone else will - and in a crisis situation this in itself will add to misunderstanding, miscommunication and life-threatening mistakes.

Ironically, next week is Disaster Awareness Week, when we are all supposed to knuckle down and make sure we are prepared for the kind of natural disasters we have seen so frequently in recent months. Part of the Civil Defence advance promotion package includes a 'media kit' for participating organisations designed to help them disseminate 'key messages'. All the advice is centred entirely on old-school traditional mainstream media without the slightest acknowledgment that other forms of communication exist. The advice is also expensive as it suggests local media advertising as a major tactic. Will such a tactic add to a local programme given the extensive advertising campaign already running on national television? I don't think so.

If I was to name one single benefit of the online environment, it would be the ability to harness the power of social media tools in crisis communication. Sadly, the Civil Defence department doesn't seem to have grasped this, even though other emergency services around the world have seen, experienced and utilised the power of digital communication. Come on guys - at least tweet your updates. You have my phone number because as a conscientious citizen I registered to be part of the 'early warning system' (which didn't happen by the way) - send me a text to say 'Stay off the beach' or 'Grab your emergency kit, it's incoming' or even a reassuring 'All's well'.  Simple really - and achievable at a fraction of the cost of the advertising currently recommended.

When infrastructure is wiped out as a result of a disaster - natural or otherwise - then we would have to work with whatever is left - sounding a drum, banging the rocks or tapping out Morse code. But for advanced warning - while we are all still switched on, plugged in and open to send and receive facts - using digital engagement to communicate could save thousands of lives. Simply hoping someone might pass by an old-school web site and pick up infrequent updates will leave us all sinking in a sea of inertia.

Where is the Chorus of Disapproval?

Well I for one was staggered at the news that Chorus engineers are likely to be turned from employees to owner operators. In the much vaunted 'current climate' isn't it a bit thick to be turning long-standing employees out into the cold to survive on their own? Particularly as these are the very employees who are supposed to be key players in the creation the new infrastructure that will power our 'knowledge-led digital economy'.  The opportunities to train apprentices will be diminished; those who sign on to be owner-operators will be spending time learning to be small business people rather than getting on with the engineering work and as for the rest of us? We won't benefit from better prices or service or infrastructure. No. The company Chorus has 'subbed' the contract to will simply make bigger profits at our expense and at the expense of their workforce. Shame on them.

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.