PR FROM THE BEACH

Don't worry about owning social media - just defend it

There is a blog post today from Text 100 about 'who owns social media', which came to my notice via @creoceo.  In this case, they suggest this 'duel' is between public relations and advertising. Personally, I think they might just have too much time on their hands. This week we remember those who died in Tiananmen Square. A week in which China was so keen to minimise global and domestic memories of this protest and the subsequent slaughter they snuffed out access to social media channels like Twitter and others. Given this situation, surely to goodness any social media discussion should be revolving around something more productive than 20th century-style turf wars?

For more years than I care to remember I have been trotting round various countries helping public relations practitioners and others understand and come to grips with the disruptive technologies that make up the social media environment. Every time I advise them that as practitioners, we are the navigators in this environment, working alongside those we are helping to build the relationships they need to operate. We need to understand the channels, know how to work them, understand when and why to engage with them - and it is vital to our work that we do this. But I don't own social media - nor would I want to. I am far more interested in it remaining a suite of unfiltered, direct, open access channels that allow me to listen, engage, act and build with those communities I work with and alongside.

What I have become passionately concerned about is the lengths that some are going to in order to block access to the channels, or disrupt them, or switch them on and off according to political whim. This is of great concern and, I believe, should be the burning discussion among practitioners - not 'who owns it, ads or PR' - what a very old fashioned discussion!

Twenty years ago, a student jumped the barriers in Tiananmen Square and tried to stop a line of tanks. He stood, bravely and passionately, for free speech and, momentarily, for freedom itself. The world seemingly chose to ignore China's actions that day - or at least, let them get away with it. It would seem that 20 years on, the actions taken to curb, restrict and crush free speech, this time on the internet rather than the streets, have also been ignored.

For all those social media advocates out there - these actions are ignored at our collective peril. If access can be turned off and on by political whim, who really gives two hoots about who *owns* something that by its very nature is unable to be possessed. Our concern will be that we can no longer access, connect or share with each other. That to me, is of considerable significance. Discuss.

All eyes on the skies as the hunt for a 'New Earth' begins

In case you've missed it, the Kepler Mission is scheduled to launch today. And in case that is lost on you as well, Kepler is on the hunt for habitable planets. Much has been made of the possibility that a new 'Earth' will be discovered as this first ever mission capable of unearthing 'Earth' size planets takes off for the great beyond.

I will never cease to marvel that humans have the ability to remove themselves from this planet and head off looking for new ones. As Orion wheels overhead through our long summer here and Betelgeuse blinks its way into the evening, I find myself regularly watching for the space station to pass by - awestruck that someone is up there, possibly having a cup of space tea and a ship's biscuit after a hard day at the control panel.

People can do such great things. Our collective human tragedy is that we can't seem to harness the brilliance and ingenuity we possess to bring peace and prosperity to this Earth, which, for the moment at least, is the only one we've got.

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.

The Mac makes 25, The Pope makes YouTube

I grinned to myself on Friday when the much reported 25th birthday of the first Apple Mac was celebrated. Soon after its launch in 1984 - and at least a couple of months after Stephen Fry and Douglas Adams were tapping away on their milestone machines - I was sent to cover the first Apple Mac being used at a local school. Seemed like most of the school budget had been blown on it and the teacher in charge was immensely proud.  I've mentioned before that our old garage was something of a Mac museum before we upped sticks and moved here and I spend more time every day with my current Mac than any other piece of kit so I am a sucker for 'nice' Mac stories, especially now they are having such a rocky ride in the mainstream media. 

I can also remember 25 years ago reporting on local churches in that same London borough. The churches issued a collective warning that too much TV was bad for you; so the news, again on Friday, that The Pope  has launched his own YouTube channel demonstrated once again how time has changed the way we approach and utilise technology.

I suspect that 25 years hence, we will simply access a direct conversation with a virtual pope via eye-vision. You might give the idea short shrift, but who knows?  After all, less than a generation ago the marriage of YouTube and a Pontiff would have been almost impossible to conceive.

Conning the consumer - is today's petrol hike simply unjustified profiteering?

I am stunned to see that the petrol companies have hiked the price of petrol in New Zealand yet again today - making a 10c rise in less than 48 hours. Yesterday's reason was apparently an increase in the cost of refined petrol. At the time of writing nobody has offered a reason for today's lift.  Given that the price of oil is still lower than it has been for some time and is approximately US$10 less than it was a month ago, I can't help thinking that the petrol companies are taking us for a ride (no pun intended).

When the barrel price lifts, the pump price rise is instant.  When the barrel price falls, the pump price fall either doesn't happen or follows quite some time after.  Now the barrel price falls still, but the prices go higher. As for explanations of this behaviour, they are few, far between and sketchy at best. Hardly the transparent and trustworthy environment that large and small businesses are encouraged to adopt if they wish to survive in these trouble times. Most of us are simply left with the feeling that it is all a remarkably successful con trick. Someone, somewhere is making a sharp buck, that's for sure. Either they are oblivious to the reported conditions that we all face and are happy to profiteer at our expense or there is something very wrong with the management of these companies if they are so cavalier with their customers. I'd love to know which it is.

Fed up with your own country? Well here's a virtual one for you inhabit

A New Year invitation to become a citizen of what is claimed to be the world's first virtual country - not a virtual world - is out there for all to accept.  Wirtland (pronounced Virtland I believe) was established in August 2008 and Cristopher Luengo, the country's external relations manager is currently busy with a ning site, connecting on Linkedin and other social networking platforms.  It will be interesting to see what relationships he forges, whether public relations will be at the heart of Wirtland's 'international diplomacy' and what GDP tally results over time.

It is a novel concept and Wirtland's latest information suggests Bulgaria is discussing official recognition of this new country without borders. The thought occurs to me that if everyone starts setting up their own virtual countries will we simply transport the problems of the fabric, real world, into the web states that are brought into being?  Or would it be possible to create something new and more workable than the states we have now?  It looks unlikely - after all one of the first activities of the Wirtland community seems to be running a 'Miss Wirtland' contest. Not necessarily something I feel might change either the virtual or real worlds. I can think of other things I would want to do first - especially as they seem to be quite earnest in their endeavours.  If they put up an entry for the Eurovision Song Contest then I'll know it's a gag.  That said, is online dominion the logical next stage for Web 2.0?  Or would any 'new country' simply descend into the kind of digibabble that we find on Twitter and similar tools?

Anyone who is not happy with their own country can become a Witizen and will get a passport and other documents to prove they belong.  The creators stress it is not a virtual world, in the same sense as Second Life, but a sovereign country that simply has no borders.  So if you fancy emigrating online, now's your chance, before the virtual 'land rush' begins.

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.

Dropping a clanger in space - as non-recoverable as the US CEOs' Congress blunder

My heart went out to the astronaut who dropped her toolbag during a spacewalk earlier this week - see it drift away here. Definitely a non-recoverable position for anyone, but a genuine mistake nonetheless.

The same cannot be said for the CEOs who turned up in their corporate jets in order to beg for cash from an already over-committed US government. What were they thinking?  The Star, among many others, calls it a 'PR storm' and undertaking a rough count up, I unearthed from the last fifteen hours  around 9000 mainstream media articles condemning their rather shortsighted and dim actions - and that is without counting any blog discussions.

Good public relations starts with appropriate action tempered with an understanding of the situation and operating environment. It is also underpinned by a willingness to change behaviour and do the right thing for the communities and publics that provide you with your licence to operate. Fail to do so and that licence to operate, the trust in the organisation, is withdrawn.

You would imagine that these three autocrats would have the wit - or at least the advisors - to enable them realise that what you do has to come before the things you say. These are clever people after all, who hold the fate of millions in their hands.  Yet when they were quizzed as to whether they would sell their jets and take an economy flight home all the hands which should have been immediately visible were nowhere to be seen - instead an embarrassed silence ensued.

Realistically, the money 'saved' by such an action would probably be a drop in the ocean, given that General Motors Corp. CEO Rick Wagoner informed the committee that they were burning through "$5 billion each month."  But - and as always, it is a big but - the CEOs looked like the other CEOs trotted before committees last month; eager to protect their own positions as demonstrated by their actions, rather than the industries and communities they say they are keen to protect.  The US needs its auto industry right now and all is not lost. It has its eye firmly on the emerging markets - Brazil, India, China to name but a few - places where new car ownership has far more potential than existing markets which are saturated and in decline.

Sadly, I suspect the car workers in Detroit will be scraping around for bus fare long before the CEOs in question tumble from the top and hand in their executive gate pass. 

The disgruntled question I am hearing time and again at worker level is why should our tax dollars bail out the corporates who will be axing our jobs and leaving us with nothing anytime soon, while those who make the decision to send us to the streets walk away with enough money to keep a town full of families comfortable over several years?

Pundits suggest that the best route for the carmakers to take would be a Chapter 11 arrangement - think of it as a kind of organised bankruptcy that allows continuance of trade.  Such a continuance of trade that would allow the manufacturers to buy time and buy into the markets that could save their collective futures. A purchase of time in which they might also consider rethinking their business model, the impact on the environment and the ethics of sustainable automotive development allowing the tax dollars to go elsewhere. However, Chapter 11 is resisted apparently because 'it doesn't look good' and 'affects the brand'. 

But probably not as much as a corporate jet fiasco or three million unemployed workers and their families.

But Hadron Collider hits the skids with a £14m repair bill

Replicating the Big Bang doesn't come cheap, but at least those who were worried it might just trigger the end of the world will be relieved.  Scientists now say, according to the BBC, that the repair bill is huge and  the Collider will be out of action for much longer than they thought. It occurs to me they may well be thinking on the quiet that playing Creator of the Known Universe is a bit harder than they thought it would be - but it will still be interesting to see what they come up with when it is operational again, possibly sometime next year.

Amid the crisis, Iceland asks the world: How would you vote?

Before Iceland’s finance and food crisis became so very public, three guys from that country launched a little site with a great big idea - If the World Could Vote.  Anyone can go along and cast their vote and the idea is that the results will provide a snapshot of global opinion as to who would be the next President of the United States if the whole world was to have its say.

I came across it on Hjörtur Smárason’s blog, which I had returned to in order to read his post on reputation, but ended up nipping off to vote, getting thoroughly distracted looking at the world’s current voting patterns for either Barack Obama or John McCain.  The site instigators have joined the dots, so you can bookmark it, get at it through Facebook and other social media channels and, from what they say, it looks as though the idea may be replicated by some mainstream media outlets. 

How appropriate that this has been generated in Iceland, given that the country has been so publicly and dramatically affected by the global financial crisis which had its roots so firmly in US soil.

Some might say the US election is none of our global business.  They might argue that the US is an independent nation and should be subject only to the 'will of the people' and to hell with everyone else's opinion.  Which is just fine and yankee-doodle-dandy if the US maintained its isolationist policies of old. However its economy, international influence, military clout, trade rules and policies have an enormous impact on millions of lives around the world - whether asked for or not - so yes we do have an interest and it is our business. And every US citizen who takes on the responsibility of casting their vote should keep the rest of us in mind.