PR FROM THE BEACH

The Hunger Games ahead: will governments offer social protection or social jeopardy?

Earlier this month, the United Nations Committee on Food Security met in Rome. Among the many grave warnings they issued was one concerning the effect of extreme weather on the United States' crops and grain reserves - extreme weather that, when described, was a lot like today's Hurricane Sandy.

 

A combination of rising food prices, extreme weather, falling grain stocks and overconsumption has led to the warnings that we will all face a global food crisis in 2013. The UK's Guardian newspaper had the most rounded report but there was slim coverage of this critical subject to be found elsewhere.

The official reports from the CFS meeting - here - include strong recommendations that governments must ensure that social protection is available for citizens to ensure an adequate supply of food and nutrition. All well and good - but social protection measures need planning now, not when we get into 2013 and find our cupboards bare or discover that the price of basic foodstuffs is so high it cannot be purchased.

Over the last four days, we have seen presidents and candidates, mayors and congressmen urge people to safety, told them to listen, told them that danger was coming. Hopefully, the result of the warnings will be that loss of life and injuries are kept to a minimum. Without the warnings - and the necessary actions being taken - it would be a very different and far more tragic story.

Here, on the doorstep of 2013, should there not be similar warnings about the oncoming problems with food pricing and availability? Will we see social protection programmes established to help those who will, without doubt, find themselves in direst need? Somehow I think not.

In New Zealand we currently have a government that has a slash-and-burn approach to any policy or provision that smacks of social justice or social protection, with disenfranchised young people unable to get the support they need and families struggling in difficult economic circumstances faced with losing what little support they have.  We are not alone in this with millions around the world dealing with austerity measures, hardship and - right this minute - food crises of their own. 

A long time ago, politics and government became about power and holding on to power. Protecting power so political parties could continue on their particular ideological way.  If, as a global society, we are going to tackle the real and common problems we all face - this year, next year and the years beyond - then political protectionism has to stop and be replaced with social protection for the people, by the people.

In 2008, I highlighted some of the problems ahead with regard to food poverty and food shortages. That's four years ago and nothing has improved. My very real concern is that it is starting to look like it's too late to take cover on this one.

Knowledge Engines inch us closer to Wikipedia immersion

Google's announcements today of its latest projects - the Knowledge Graph - sounds fascinating but takes us closer to a world history written according to Wikipedia. Google admits that much of the 'knowledge' powering their new search results - see their video below - is sourced from Freebase, bought by them in 2010, who in turn got heaps of data from Wikipedia and other data bases around the web.

My question is, if the source information is pulled out of areas such as Wikipedia - which is, despite their best efforts - still prone to inaccuracy, 'editing-out' and edit wars - how long before our history and the things we are 'allowed' to find are either rewritten, rubbed out or removed from actual experience or alternatively distorted by indiviual perspectives that can manipulate the systems?

It all sounds very useful and I am sure it will be. But - and it is a big but - the Knowledge Graph is filled with bear-traps and Orwellian group-think. It might seem that our knowledge is 'extended' by this -  I fear wisdom is being left behind.

 

Returning to the Beach...

I have to confess I have sadly neglected this blog over recent weeks, simply because there has been a lot to do offline and, I have to confess, I do spend more time on Twitter than I should when I get round to blogging. Probably not the best approach, as there is a lot more to be said than can often be contained in 140 characters, but I have an early New Year's Resolution to be more regular in terms of updates on here.  

One thing you might like to have a look at is the Global Alliance survey on advocacy and the future of the profession, which you can find here and which I would urge you to complete if you are involved in public relations and communication management.  The survey is only open for a few more days - so take a look and help shape the future of the profession. For the sake of transparency, I am currently secretary of the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, so I am hoping that as many practitioners and academics as possible will take part.  The survey results will inform part of the agenda for the next World Public Relations Forum in Melbourne, Australia, which will take place this time next year.

We need more than Kiwi ingenuity to be ready for kick off

I know there are huge life-and-death concerns in the world right now but, at a local level, I find myself worrying more and more as to whether or not we will be ready for kick-off come the Rugby World Cup on September 9 this year.

I love New Zealand, I love rugby, I love Auckland and Invercargill and all the places in between. I also know it is tantamount to treason to profer criticism of either New Zealand's ability to do something or rugby. But looking around, I am not confident that we will be ready to the standard the rest of the world expects come the big day. 

Today's New Zealand Herald  looks again at the financial cost of hosting the event here. Me, I'm worried about the cost to our reputation.  There's the big tent thingy going up on the waterfront, the stadiums that are not equipped to deal with the demands of the world's sports and other media, there's the inoperative countdown clock  just opposite Britomart. Then there's the whole business of accommodation, transport links to venues, overpricing, no eftpos at stadiums and (whispers) the normal potential for the weather to be atrocious in September and October.

Whether we like it or not, the world has high expectations of international events of this kind and looking around the country four months out, I wonder if we will meet those expectations or fall dreadfully short. We rely on people coming here. Tourism is, we are told, one of our economic cornerstones. Yet this showcase event looks scarily unfinished at a time when we should be adding polish to the preparations, not still struggling with the infrastructure.  The long term risk to our reputation is far greater than the initial financial deficits being reported. If those coming - or not - for the Rugby World Cup - are not happy with the provisions and preparations for their arrival our tourism industry will be affected for years to come. 

It is naive to think that it is just a sporting tournament even though that viewpoint is the one most heard. If you have any doubts about that, cast your mind back to the debacle in India last year during the Commonwealth Games. September's event is a world showcase for the entire country so we need to see some leadership - and some real action - in order to be ready for those we have invited to come. 

If I had invited visitors from across the world to come to see me in September, the rooms would be ready, beds counted, meals planned, transport sorted and entertainment organised.  All that would be left to do four months out would be a tidy up in the garden just before they got here.

Looking at the event from the inside out, it all looks very piecemeal, disjointed and uncoordinated. From an event management point of view, this is not a good look, nor good operational practice. I am willing someone, somewhere to create a rounded picture for fans and visitors alike of what they can expect - something that doesn't exist at the moment.  

Looking at today's picture, I fear it will take a heck of a lot more than Kiwi ingenuity between now and September to give the rest of the world the welcome it expects - and deserves. Because there is an awful lot more to do than just tidy up the garden.

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.

 

Can you deal with a crisis? Now's your chance to test your mettle

One thing that all PR and communications practitioners should have a go at - before it happens - is handling a crisis. A plan is all well and good, but until disaster actually strikes, you have no idea how you, as a person, will respond to the demands that crisis communication brings.

I was delighted to see that PRINZ is staging a crisis communications exercise on November 9 in Auckland. The simulation will put participants through the mill and they can see how they will cope as the 'crisis' unfolds and gain some direct experience as to the things we all need to learn in order to successfully tackle such situations.

It's all well and good thinking 'oh, I'll be fine' - but believe me until you are in a 'live' situation, the pressure, reaction speeds, decision making and leadership skills required in a crisis communications setting cannot be adequately imagined. Although a simulation isn't the absolute 'real thing', it is an incredibly valuable experience.  Every practitioner will handle at least one crisis in their career, so it is worth making sure you are equipped to deal with the one you're likely to get.

There have been several major events around the world this year - some man made, some sparked by nature. The common denominator among all of them is the need for fast, expert and appropriate leadership and communication.  I'd would recommend that if you are in Auckland, have never experienced a crisis, or it's been a while since the last one you handled, then November's simulation should be a firm date in your diary.

If there was such a thing as compulsory training in public relations and communications management, then this would be the one session I believe everyone should take, no matter how junior or senior they might be.

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.

 

Scattering the Seed - Will Diaspora exile Facebook? There's a sea change ahead

The new kids on the block are all set to make their first sprint into a new type of web. I know - we've heard that before, but I wonder if the boys from Diaspora will be one of the few to make it. A dozen ago, the lads from Google had not yet grown into the mighty men they have become in today's world and, although I'm not sure if they can take on the web giants, I wouldn't be surprised if a decade down the line, Diaspora has scattered at least a sizeable proportion of the 500 million Facebook users into another type of web engagement where we manage our own social graph.

Next month sees the release of their 'first sprint' and post-September 15 (a date often cited as Google's birthday by the way) I suspect we will see some interesting conversations.  October will see the rest of us able to have a play with the ideas they have come up with during their 'northern hemisphere' summer.

Last week I blogged here about the community pages auto-generated by Facebook and the headaches that will cause not just for organisations but for the individuals whose status updates are being scooped up and used to auto-populate the auto-pages that nobody really wants.

If Diaspora helps people to 'break free' from the Facebook mindset then good on them. I wish them luck - but I am still a little cautious.  I appreciate that their idea is to decentralise personal and social information and have that information scattered on a 'need to know and consent to share' basis, but I still see problems ahead if they do reach the size of Google.  Google's information reach is phenomenal and I've long questioned such access being in the hands of one party. So imagine a network where the information reach is as big -  but it's not train timetables, company details and maps. Instead, it's all personal. It is all about You.  I understand that security will be tight, built in, bolted on, capable of dancing a jig and making the tea, but ultimately, anything is hackable.

So, watch the space carefully in the weeks and months ahead. It may spark and fizzle into nothing, but sometimes sparks take a long time to ignite. One thing is for sure, there's a sea change ahead. It will be interesting to see who battens down their information hatches and who decides to sit astride the bow and welcome the waves.

A gossipy PS concerning Google's birthday: Often cited as September 15, yet Google has doodled its birthday graphic variably on September 7, September 27 and on Google's Tenth birthday timeline, the company is said to have been registered on September 15. So an interesting choice of date for Diaspora's launch don't you think?

BP Crisis Plan Fail - would yours be any better?

I wasn't surprised to read the Associated Press story that seemed to imply that the BP Crisis Plan - all 582 pages of it, with 52 of them site-specific to Deepwater Horizon - had been gathering dust in a draw somewhere.  One of the go-to experts named in the plan died in 2005, links to resources were null and void and all in all, the plans approved by the Federal Government as recently as last year were, to say the very least, wanting.

I have heard no mention of the Transocean plan, the company that owns the Deepwater Horizon rig, who are continually conspicuous by their absence or indeed, America's Halliburton company, also missing in action and which was working down there prior to the explosion that killed 11 people. It seems that BP, however ill-prepared, is happy to take the blame for this one, even though they are not the only players involved.

The trouble with 582 page reports is that nobody ever really reads them properly. Nor would it seem in this case, do they check the detail, for if they did, surely someone would have picked up that at least one of their experts would not be available in a crisis? Or that the risks had been seriously underestimated? Or how hard it would be to 'fix' problems so far underwater? Or the impact on the environment? The list here really is endless.

As this environmental, social and economic disaster has unfolded, it has been obvious to everyone that someone, somewhere, who should have been responsible for crisis planning has failed in their duty, from the response to repair and re-engineering, to communication and culpability.  Equally, some blame must lie with the departments that passed the plans as acceptable - or perhaps the size of the report put them off a thorough read.

Any practitioner worth their salt knows that you must run a crisis plan regularly, that you audit-check contacts and details with a pedantic frequency and, at the risk assessment level, ongoing evaluation should inform your plan and the varying degrees of risk faced by your organisation, the community and your stakeholders.  How a company like BP, involved in one of the most risk-laden and dangerous businesses on earth could have a plan with apparently so many errors included defies belief.

AP quote BP's spokesman Daren Beaudo as saying: "...the response plans will be reviewed "so that we can determine what worked well and what needs improvement."

"Thus far we have implemented the largest spill response in history and many, many elements of it have worked well. However, we are greatly disappointed that oil has made landfall and impacted shorelines and marshes. The situation we are dealing with is clearly complex, unprecedented and will offer us much to learn from."

I would suggest that they will be learning for years. I also wonder if anywhere else in the BP universe other crisis plans are being checked and overhauled. If I was there today, I would be getting people on to that double-quick-smart. Sadly though, I fear that they are probably oblivious to the need to do this.

I also hope that any practitioner out there  who has not created and run their crisis plan gets on to it today and, if there is an ancient plan festering in a draw somewhere, get it out, review it, check it, run it and practice it like a fire drill so you can test if it works, hunt down where the flaws lie and what you need to do as an organisation to make it work.  Accidents happen but incompetency is avoidable.  Good issues management reduces risk, but sometimes things go wrong, which is why a crisis plan is essential.  A good crisis plan should reduce or eliminate the danger to and affect of any incident on the public, the environment and the organisation and lead to swift recovery for all involved. It should be accessible, understood by everyone and practiced often. BP did not have a good crisis plan. I hope you do.