PR FROM THE BEACH

Not if, but when: the radical reflection and PR rethink waiting around the corner

Imagine it is this time next year. Or even the year after when all the bugs are ironed out of the new web-enabled devices that will pop into Christmas stockings this December. Your organisation has some visitors arrive. They are all wearing Google Glass. What do you do? Ask them to remove their eyewear or accept that your interactions are likely to be live-streamed or captured on video to be shared with their stakeholders? 

Or you're serving in a restaurant. The customers come in, again, with wearable transmitting devices. Do you quietly present them with their meal or, as was the case last year, create a scene that ends in physical assault because the augmented-reality digital eye-wear cannot be removed?

In the same way that ten years ago the developments on the web disrupted the way we communicate and interact with others, bringing us to today's point of ubiquitous mobile engagement, the next wave of wearable (or implanted) devices  will change forever not just the way we communicate, but the way we live. I wonder how many people, organisations, businesses and governments are ready for this shift?

 

There are countless scenarios that can be conjured when you think about the effect the next wave technologies will have on our lives and, from a professional standpoint, they are scenarios that all public relations and communication practitioners should be rehearsing before they find themselves, and their organisations, 'always on'.  It is a big leap for most - a leap highlighted by the recent instruction to journalists not to tweet from a press conference. Even today this is a redundant instruction, but how would the organisation concerned react to the press conference being live streamed through a device such as Glass? The journalist attends a press conference as the representative of others. The expected delay between briefing and publication is the assumption of the host, based on older communication speeds and use of technology.  As a journalist, my expectation would be to get the information back as soon as possible, and, if that means as it happens, then all the better.

The reality is not what shall we do if this happens, it is actually what are we going to do when this happens - and that 'when' is just around the corner. It's not just Google Glass either. Many companies are working on wearable devices and the next 'next wave' is likely to include invisi-wear, such as contact lenses, implants and the like. Unlike today when people at least have to speak to their phone, pretty soon you simply won't know who is communicating 'elsewhere' when you meet as the process will be seamless and simultaneous.

I meet with a lot of people who debate and discuss their 'social media strategy'. Frequently it revolves around tactics on the big networks - Facebook, Twitter and the like rather than creating a digital strategy that underpins their organisational and communcation goals. Rarely does it include Google+ or Hangouts and it inevitably involves a discussion around how to convince the organisation involved that today's communication channels are chaotic, concurrent, confused and cannot be controlled. 

Over the last ten to twelve years I've said many times that the available technologies we have at our disposal don't simply transform the way we communicate - they transform the organisations themselves. That's where the biggest changes occur. Individuals and organisations that meet with success in social communication have inevitably undergone this transformative process from the inside out.  They have a clear understanding of their role, provision or service, they have identified the communities that are critical to their licence to operate then set about forming networks of engagement mutually beneficial for all those involved. Yet even those organisations will find themselves disturbed once again by the device-shifts ahead as the reality of what we do rather than what we say becomes the primary organisational asset it should have always been.

As a matter of urgency, I would hope that practitioners convince their organisations to focus on their inner workings and deliverables. To focus on their employees and how to equip them to be 'always on'. On their suppliers and customers and agreed levels of acceptable shareability. 

As the mobile phone is replaced in its ubiquity by the wearable or implanted device the question every public relations professional should be asking is this: how ready are you for the technology waiting around the corner and the change it will bring to your organisation?

Why Tongariro eruption should ignite New Zealand's infrastructure plans

The beginning of August saw Pacific Fibre close its doors after valiant attempts to finance and construct a second cable to secure New Zealand's connections to all things web. At the moment we have only the Southern Cross cable to keep us going, which to me seems utterly foolhardy - if not reckless. 

Sorry state of Facebook news shares

Facebook published its 'top 40 list of most shared stories today - and what interesting reading it made. Dominating the shares were stories via CNN and the list, unsurprisingly, has a heavy US bias. It will be interesting to see how this Facebook list has changed in November 2012 when the social graph apps have been in use for more than a month or two.  I suspect we'll see more European media shares for starters, with a bunch more online channels.  Sadly, I don't expect to see much change in the type or style of the majority of stories that are shared - performing cats, oddball photos and laughing babies have dominated news cycles for decades. Online channels just show that some things never change...

Cri-du-coeur for real communication as Cloud outage crashes confidence

Last week - and this weekend - saw major outages at Amazon and Sony. Gamers hoping to get down to some serious wins over Easter were struck by the fail - highlighted here on the Playstation blog, while Amazon's super fail affected sites far and wide, most notably, Quora, Hootsuite and Reddit.

Amazon's latest health reports show that things have improved since the problem occurred and, realisitically, this kind of thing is bound to happen as increasing numbers take to the Cloud as a means to manage server demand. Mistakes happen, sites get attacked, someone unplugs the wrong connection. What counts is the ability to keep customers, users and other stakeholders informed, up-to-date and confident that you can fix the problem as quickly as possible.

If your web presence is your main communication channel and you are rendered invisible by someone else's crash, what can you do?  Hidden among the acres of copy written in the last few days, probably the most useful is over at ZDNet, where Phil Wainewright has some salutary lessons for the user.

But what of the providers themselves?  What lessons should they learn? The greatest cri-du-coeur has been that Amazon failed to communicate clearly and effectively with its customers during the crisis. Personally, I'm not surprised.  Without exception, today's web giants are, I believe, appallingly bad at communicating with their users. For many years they were able to shield themselves behind remote access walls, responding only to emails (eventually), with very little human contact (if at all) and, in latter years, using minimal statements on blogs and webwalls to update users in a crisis. But believe me boys, (as mostly boys you are)  a blog post does not mean you have 'communicated', created trust, understanding or cemented the necessary forgiveness to maintain your licence to operate.

Anyone who has ever tried to communicate directly with Facebook, Google, Amazon or other large web corporates will know exactly the level of frustration I am talking about. In a world where instant two-way communication is the lifeblood of a system that champions trust, engagement, transparency and the user as the vital ingredients of the service mix, our web giants are lacking in their ability to generate and maintain the kind of real relationships they tout so readily on the global stage but which they spectacularly fail to deliver at a user level. 

Their technology may be great but the business model - as far as their public relations and communications is concerned - is more akin to the impenetrable walls of corporate non-communication circa 1950. And we all know how that turned out.

Some day soon, the big guys are going to have to wake up to the fact that they can no longer hide behind nerdy geekdom when it comes to good communications practice. If they don't, then some day soon, they'll suddenly find their licence to operate withdrawn by the users, customers and stakeholders they fail.

Fabulous - if fixable - code is not enough. You have to talk, respond and act and engage - just like the rest of us.

#2010 - A Year in Hashtags

Back at work and wading through remaining relics of last year, I realised 2010 was the year in which hashtags finally made it as the early 21st century headline. As I've been explaining them to people for years, it was great to see this breakthrough point. Whatever was going on, the hashtag became - finally - the defining reference point for the collective consciousness if you really wanted to find out what was going on, who was affected and what needed to be done.

Just days away from the first anniversary of the Haitian earthquake, below are the hashtags that will, for me anyway, signal the step-changes and life-changing events of 2010.

• #Haiti - in January, a 7.0M earthquake flattens poverty stricken Haiti. One year on, the plight of the people living there continues to be dire and help is still needed for the thousands suffering appalling conditions.
• #Chile - in February, Chile is hit by a whopping 8.8M earthquake lasting three minutes. Recovery is faster than for Haiti, but 541 lives are lost, tsunami warnings issued and the rebuild continues.
• #Iceland - the volcanic eruption that paralysed Europe and stalled air travel around the world. The volcano's name - Eyjafjallajökull - was much too long for a hashtag, so either #iceland or #volcano became the mustering point as people wondered if, when and how they were going to get home.
• #Deepwater - when the Deepwater Horizon rig blew out on April 20, the hashtag activity was limited to an active - and angry - conversation among those concerned about what was going to happen next. Amazingly, the companies most closely involved at this point, the owners and contractors respectively - Transocean and Halliburton - deftly slipped into invisibility as 'Big Brother' BP stepped in to try to stem the leak. Very swiftly, hashtags changed with #bpoil, #bpspill, #bpceo, #oilspill among the most used.
• #greece and #thailand both crashed in to the trends maps at the end of April thanks to civil unrest in both countries.
• #allwhites and the Soccer World Cup in South Africa provided welcome respite from the disasters and deaths that had dominated the first half of 2010. Some of my favourite Twitter conversations took place in the middle of the night in June as collectively, Kiwi #allwhites fans settled down to watch the matches together and quip about them online. A personal favourite of mine in June was #wprf as the World Public Relations Forum was held in Stockholm, with much tweeting done by all.
• #wikileaks sprung into action for the first time in July, with the first documents hitting the public consciousness. It was a hashtag we were going to see a lot more of as the year progressed.
• #eqnz - September saw the most devastating natural disaster New Zealand has seen in many years. Civil Defence NZ didn't get the hang of hashtags at all, with ridiculously long hashtags being used by the organisation - even when the community had settled on #eqnz. As the aftershocks continue, the hashtag remains a rallying point for Canterbury - and Civil Defence still hasn't got the hang of them!
• #Chile was back in October as the rescue of the trapped underground miners got underway. Here in NZ, conversation was just as hot and controversial around #paulhenry, after the broadcaster resigned from TVNZ.
• #pikeriver - tragically, in November, our own #pikeriver miners were not to have the same triumphant outcome as those in Chile. Like #eqnz, #pikeriver remains a much-used, much referenced hashtag for those still affected by these two major events, even after the mainstream coverage and commentary has moved on.
• #socialmedia was a continuing favourite in December, but #willandkate got a look in along with #secretsantas and, of course, #christmas.

 

Which brings us to #2011. If #2010 was the year of the hashtag, then by my reckoning, #2011 will be the year of the live tweet chat - so watch out for one you might be interested in and take the opportunity whenever you can to join in. And, as a final note, as we stand at the gate of the year, my hope for you is that all your hashtags be happy ones.

 

 

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.