PR from the Beach

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.

 

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.

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.

Beware Geeks Bearing Gifts

It's that time of year when people dress up and pretend to be something else. The trend begins around Halloween, then on towards Christmas there is almost a perpetual parade of cowboys, pirates, fairies, elves and magical creatures that - in fiction - can provide all manner of blessings and benefits but in reality, well, they're just pretend.

So a word to the wise as we approach the season of giving. Beware geeks bearing gifts, particularly in the realms of social media and you truly will have yourself that merry little Christmas.

Over the last few months I've stumbled over several sites promising all sorts of miracles for those who buy their social media wares. If you are thinking of using social media and expanding what you do online, good on you. But,  if you are one of the small to medium sized businesses that these sites seem to be aiming at, my Christmas wish would be that you think very carefully and consider the points below before you load up a shopping cart full of exciting looking goodies and click 'send':

1. Social media is not about numbers. It is about people communicating with each other, building relationships and working together. If someone promises you 'thousands' of Facebook or Twitter followers they don't understand the environment and are likely to lead you astray. Expensively. This is not a popularity contest and 'follower' numbers don't buy results.
2. Social media takes time. Yes, you can get a 'message' out there quickly, but, in the long term, the relationships you forge will be the measure of your success, not how speedily something went 'viral'.
3. Look carefully at any site that purports to be run by 'social media gurus' or 'experts' or 'specialists' but features blog posts from 'admin' and has no real people associated with the site.  These are signs that you need to be very, very careful before you part with your hard earned cash.
4. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. That's been my message to, well, thousands of people now over the last ten years or more. Understand what you want to achieve, who you want to build a relationship with and why and how you are going to sustain and build that relationship - then start thinking about your strategy and then the tools you might use. Don't start with tactics first and work backwards. That's another Trojan Horse.
5. There are lots of genuine people out there who have solid experience in this area. If you are setting out to buy in help, be careful. Talk to real people. Hear some real stories. Don't buy 'off the shelf' - it won't work because your needs are very different to anyone else's - as are the needs of the communities you will serve.  And serving and service is a vital component of this space.

So, to recap. Think about what you want to achieve first, don't think it is about numbers and popularity  because this is the real world, not high school. Talk to real people, hear some real stories. Scrutinise all geeks bearing gifts. Remember at all times that just because someone is dressed up as Father Christmas, it doesn't mean you'll definitely find Santa underneath - it might just be a pirate or a cowboy looking to take you on a ride to nowhere.

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.

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.

Measuring the Social Web

I have a long-standing gripe that public relations practitioners do not do enough to measure and evaluate their programmes and campaigns. There are all sorts of reasons for this and I don't intend to go into them here, because quite frankly I believe most of them to be excuses rather than reasons. Interestingly, a recent AMEC survey turned up some interesting statistics on the subject as did one from the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management. I believe the general reluctance of practitioners to get to grips with measurement and evaluation is, in part, because they don't know how - or where to start looking.  Recently, AUT has set up the Oceania Centre for Social Media research and I have added a paper on Measuring the Social Web. It covers the basics, it is free and it is a starting point. It also has references to other sources on PR measurement and evaluation that I hope any practitioner struggling with this area will find useful. Happy reading.

A rose by any other name might just sound silly

Loved this week's story from BBC and others on the UK's most unfortunate names. During my years as a journalist I constantly encountered unusual, unfortunate and amusing names. This story prompted me to recall, among others, a young lady called Courtenay Fish and another child I once heard of who had been named Ikea. When we came to name our children we approached the task with caution, having realised that if our first child was a girl, we both liked Amy.  Which of course would be really silly teamed with our surname of Arrow.  Temptation was removed as our firstborn was a boy - and - rest assured, we steered clear of Bowen.

That said, yesterday's news that the most ancient English words had been unearthed led me to wonder does it matter anyway? Language changes so fast, particularly English, would these word associations simply evaporate over time?  Perhaps.  But I think there is still life and laughter to be found in unlikely nomenclature.

When the Celebrity CEO is the brand, the Celebrity CEO must communicate

It seems that the communicators at Apple are not being as switched on and savvy as their neat little gadgets. As I've mentioned before, I have been an Apple girl since the first ones appeared many years ago and while I am devoted to the kit, I have not always felt favourably towards the brand - or its often arrogant approach to its users.

Steve Jobs has made headlines this week because he will be - in the eyes of the users at least - AWOL at the next (and last) MacWorld gathering. Speculation is rife that this is due to the state of his health and pundits predict dire times ahead should he be found to be ill again. Over at the UK Telegraph, they estimate his worth to the brand at $20 billion.  A few bob in anyone's book.

Whether or not he is ill, whether or not he ever pops up again for a lively presentation, his team really should be sorting out the problem of the rumour mill, currently grinding up a crisis for the company ready to replace the issue at hand. For a company working in the technology sector and alive and kicking in the social web, Apple really haven't got to grips with the issue of transparency, trust, engagement and discussion. You and I might be able to take a few days off when we are under the weather, but we are not our organisation's brand-king. Like it or not, Steve Jobs is perceived as the man holding the Apple. He has let it go before and each time it has ended up bruised windfall at the bottom of the tree. So if the wind of change starts shaking the branches, all the stakeholders need to know whether they should be prepared to duck.

If you are going to create a celebrity CEO, give them fair warning. A celebrity CEO is no less at risk from the perils of any other type of celebrity. They are perhaps more so as they carry the responsibility of the business as well as the perception.

In today's business world, if a company opts to tie its brand to the chief, the chief has to fulfill customer expectations and in Apple's case, that means being accessible to the people who engage with the company.  Sadly, this means that even a dose of flu needs to be dealt with publicly and honestly. Unfortunately, Apple has a pretty poor record on this score, being great with successess, but not so good with the tough stuff.

Apple's current situation is a good lesson for any practitioner. Make sure you - and your CEO - understand your communities. Developing understanding and trust is two-way - remember to learn to trust your stakeholders enough to be honest with them (and be brave enough to see this through - it takes courage and commitment). Be clear about your approach and what you will do to ensure safe succession, stakeholder alignment and clear communication - all of which will help both the CEO, should difficult times be ahead, and the community the organisation serves.