PR FROM THE BEACH

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.

 

Do you trust Facebook to get your 'social context' right?

In the interesting video below, a doggedly-determined and earnest 'Face' from Facebook tells us how he would love to get messages from his grandma, his mates, his loved ones all in one place, without the hassle of different devices and methods. In fact, what he would like more than anything is something similar to the treasured 'box of letters' his grandma kept, full of missives from his grandfather.

And then behold! He tells us that now Facebook can ride to the rescue with its all-in-one new messaging system that works like email and, surprise, surprise, you won't have to think at all, because good old Facebook will organise everything for you.

How marvellous. How seemingly thoughtful and benign. Until you stop and realise just what Facebook's organisation of your 'social context' and 'social inbox' will actually mean. If you have any doubts as to where it's heading and what you will miss, track your Facebook news feeds for a week or so and monitor how many updates you miss from your friends.  I think it will be less 'box of letters' and more 'control box' in the long run.

The checks and boundaries being set in this system (launched a week or so ago) may look inviting but the reality is that it is another step towards control of your communication.  If you want to use it, great. But be aware of everything you are signing up for!

 

 

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.

 

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?

Google Wave Wipes Out

The news from Google this week that the Wave has crashed and burned was a bit of a shame.  I had high hopes for this development, but sadly, the platform was just too hard for people to get the hang of.

One of the reasons that the social web - particularly social networking and blogging - has done so well and grown so dramatically in the last five years is because it is easy to do. You don't require a high degree of technical skill, you can point and press and it takes moments to share stuff with others.

Despite the anticipation, the huge build up, the long wait for a Wave invite, once faced with their Waves, most people tended to look at it blankly, realise they had no idea where to start and quietly put it back in the box - a bit like an IKEA cabinet where you can see the screws are there but they are taped so tightly to the packaging you never get round to putting it together.

There were some excellent bits to Wave and I suspect that they will be used elsewhere - the rumoured 'Google Me' might pick up a few or perhaps they will build in some additions to the rather lame Buzz.

I am a big fan of Google's development processes and think they are to be applauded for continually exploring what else we can do (even though I have serious and long-term misgivings about the potential for misuse of power and information that exists around an organisation so large having so much information in its control).  What these clever folk need to always keep in mind is that for the web to work it has to be easy. Geek it up for mass use and you are on a hiding to nothing.

Given we are talking Waves here, Google - and others - need to remember that many on the web are paddlepusses, delighted to play in the shallows but not yet ready, willing or able to take on the big surf.

So perhaps the big lesson for Wave is make sure the box contains clear and simple instructions next time around. The failure was perhaps not so much the product itself, but the communication that surrounded it. Building the anticipation is fine to a degree, but if the why, how and what for is not clearly communicated then expectations are dashed and reputation suffers. Which, if I recall correctly, sits somewhere in Lesson 101 Communications Management...

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.

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.

CEO Fail: Hayward 'wants life back' yet could have fixed BP in 2006

Like many, I have watched in horror at the unfolding BP disaster. The loss of life, the environmental damage, the illnesses reported among the clean-up workers - it really is unbelievable. From a professional perspective, I am staggered at the way the crisis has been handled by the company, epitomised by Tony Hayward's latest throw away comment 'I want my life back', documented in the video above.

A couple of years ago, as he was rising to the challenge of leading BP, Hayward commented at a town hall meeting in Houston, in the wake of a Texas refinery blast that killed 15 and injured 170 people: "We have a leadership style that is too directive and doesn't listen sufficiently well".

Indeed. And although at that time he was heir-apparent to the BP CEO's throne it would seem that after a couple of years at the helm, very little has changed. And this to me is his biggest failure in this crisis. He recognised the shortcomings of the organisation, but failed to fix it. That was his opportunity to avoid the crisis he is in the midst of right now.  Change the organisation. Improve practices. Keep your people and those around them safe. Make sure that the communication processes and the relationships you need to manage a crisis are in place, long before you need them. This is not just about 'making a crisis plan. A real crisis plan involves isolating and identifying what is wrong with your organisation - and fixing it, before it blows a hole in your company and the innocent lives of others. To acknowledge deficiencies and fail to act on them, well that's just negligence.

You can't be aware of, and say this : ""We have a management style that has made a virtue out of doing more for less. The mantra of more-for-less says that we can get 100 percent of the task completed with 90 percent of the resources. Which in some senses is okay and might work, but it needs to be deployed with great judgment and wisdom. When it isn't, you run into trouble."

"The frontline operations teams, I think, have lived too long in the world of making do and patching up this quarter for the next quarter...rather than really thinking about how we are going to maintain a piece of equipment for the next 30 or 40 years."

...and expect everything to be ok with no action required. Yet those are Tony Hayward's words from December 11 2006.

I see they have drafted in Cheney's old press spokesperson, Anne Womack-Koln 'to deal with the media'. All a bit late for that I'd say. In today's world, it is the CEO's responsibility to front up to all stakeholders, not just the media. The actions of the company prior to the disaster are paramount and the actions of BP prior to this event are wanting to say the least.

Tony Hayward is not one of life's natural communicators and whoever is advising him through this crisis would seem to be seriously lacking the abilities needed in this situation. Putting aside his lack of any obvious support, he is supposedly a CEO, which infers the ability to lead, change, act and resolve. Unfortunately, the problems apparently inherent within the company are as widespread as the surface oil slathering its way up the coast. Both require drastic action and the scars from both will remain for years ahead. Somehow, I don't think Hayward will ever get his wish.

Mind the GAP - Proof Positive of the need to measure public relations?

Findings from the latest GAP study have been doing the rounds over the last day or so, with commentary primarily centred on the use of social media. More interesting for me was the data they had pulled together on how communications professionals were dealing with measurement and evaluation. 

With 382 communication decision makers participating in this latest University of Southern California project, it was interesting to see that those who offered up their activities for scrutiny spent an average of just four to five percent of their total budget on formal evaluation. This makes for an interesting 'PS' to my last post, particularly as the study suggested that corporate participants felt that higher spend on measurement and evaluation meant higher standing with the CEO. 

As the GAP survey summary put it "In other words, the greater the investment in evaluation (as a percentage of the total PR/Communication budget), the greater the likelihood the CEO believes PR/Communication makes a bottom-line contribution."

I don't consider this to be a surprising finding. In fact, it teeters into the realm of Monty Python's 'bleeding obvious'. However, because there are seemingly still so few practitioners operating robust evaluation programmes, perhaps it will take more research findings like this to convince them to get on and do what they should have been doing all along.

I did find myself weeping into my afternoon tea when I read the 'top five metrics' revealed by the research as, still there at 'No.5',  was 'Total Number of Clips'.  Now who in their right mind would take that seriously as a measure of organisational performance, reputational health or relationship strength? 

Obviously, there is a huge business opportunity here for evaluation-savvy professionals to corner the market with great ethical practice, reported well and demonstrating the value of the work undertaken. As professionals, we know that the work we do has value, improves the organisation and its relationships and creates positive change.  So why are professionals so shy about demonstrating this through good research and reporting practices?  The old excuses of cost, fear and uncertainty as to what to do have no place in today's operating environment. 

GAP stands for Generally Accepted Practice and the research is published every two years. The final report from the 2009 study, which outlines best practice, will be released soon. From the reports so far, I fear that we are a long way from best practice in measurement and evaluation, even though it is entirely possible, affordable and achievable.

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