PR FROM THE BEACH

#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.

 

It's NOT ok to feed the oglers

Long story short, the ladette website nzgirl has launched a 'campaign' purporting to 'raise awareness' for breast cancer, paying $1000 dollars per 50 photos of readers' breasts uploaded to their site.

Over the years we've had astroturfing, greenwashing, pinkwashing - and now we have boobwashing. The site claims it's all in a good cause. The site fails to say exactly which breast cancer charity they will be paying the money to. They also trumpet the fact, via Twitter and elsewhere, they have 'removed' advertising around the publication page. Yeah right. Big deal. It is still a cynical and distorted means to drive traffic to the site - the only 'awareness' raising being done here is for nzgirl, its website and the long-term ad rate it will be able to charge on the strength of distorted visitor numbers.

I've lost several nearest-and-dearest to breast cancer and currently count among my closest friends two survivors and one mid-fight.  I asked them - and those around them - what they thought of this slapstick and juvenile enterprise, thinking maybe it was just me, maybe I'd got a bit set in my ways. Their unanimous verdict was the same as mine - it is unethical, undignified and unacceptable.  

nzgirl has accused detractors and critics of being 'PC' - well yes, I am - Perfectly Cynical in my view of the means, motives and outcomes for this pathetically purile publicity promotion.

To me, it is sadly proof that the young and the bright among us can still manage to stoop to the nasty, tawdry 20th (even 19th) century Phineas T Barnum stunt school of cheap publicity.

nzgirl has succeeded in creating a circus today with the media as ringmaster and the unwitting - and probably well-meaning -  supporters the dancing bares.

In many ways, it's a sad indictment of our society. Long after the circus has left town, the oglers (probably the same ones who line the streets for the Boobs on Bikes debacle every year) will still be pushing up the visitor numbers at NZ Girl, which has effectively bought itself a peepshow for a few grand. New Zealand girls and women deserve better than this, as do all those who have and continue to battle this disease.

 

PS: I've come back to this post this evening, having read two other blog posts on the same subject. First from Lance Wiggs and second, via @CateOwen's tweet, some great observations from Boganette. Both well worth a read.

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.

 

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.

Beware the cloudy crisis

After a bit of a blogging break on here, it is quite amazing looking back over all that has happened in the last few weeks. Probably the event with the most impact on the majority of ordinary folk was the Icelandic volcano eruption - and it is one close to my heart at the moment as my young 'uns are off on their first solo to Europe.

My worry isn't for delays and cancellations. No. My concern lies with the decisions taken to fly through the ash cloud. I fully understand the commercial imperative and also the significant personal difficulty travel delays and disruptions cause (having been on the end of them many, many times in life).  However I think most would agree that a delay is better than a disaster. Wouldn't you? Yet this situation presents passengers - and society - with a real trust dilemma and that should be of concern to us all.

The aviation authorities suggest dangerous flying conditions still exist but are now frequently contradicted by the airlines who say no, it is all just fine. In this situation, who should we, as users, trust? Whose word carries more weight?  As a complete layperson in the science of it all, but a frequent traveller, my concern isn't the 'St Elmo's Fire' scenario, but the 'wear and tear' that will result from persistent ash cloud fly through.  I know how gravel roads, dust and grit affect my car, so, as a layperson, I guess that similar or greater damage will result on aircraft exposed to the volcanic ash over time.  Nobody seems to be commenting on this possibility, yet to me, it is a serious potential risk.

If this extreme wear and tear does take its toll, I wonder how the first airline to hit the ground will react? Without wishing to be a doom-monger, it is very scary stuff. A European plane falling out of the sky is more likely to land on a populated area which means we are not just looking at the loss of life on the plane, but on the ground as well. Surely gainsaying aviation authority advice is a gamble not just with an airline's reputation but with people's lives? Me, I'm with the aviation authorities - stay on the ground and eliminate the risk - no commercial profit is worth a single life lost or endangered. Let's hope the airlines keep thinking this one through with the public interest uppermost in their minds and stop downsizing the optimum particle size in order to upsize their profits.

Cow pat energy could boost data storage?

The latest research paper from Hewlett Packard puts a whole new slant on digital waste.  Their idea? Use waste from the dairy industry to create 'natural energy plants that could power data storage centres. Apparently 10,000 dairy cows would produce 1GW, enough to supply electricity to the farmer and the assigned data centre.  Interesting thinking - wonder if there is the will anywhere to put it into action? Certainly could boost NZ's economy and make good use of those troublesome dairy emissions! Seems like an opportunity to me.

The Tweet Imperative: Practitioner Beware

Little story today about problems at a tween star's autograph signing, but one with major implications for communicators who regularly use Twitter to advise, inform and attract people to events.

There are different versions of the story around - one says the executive was arrested for not tweeting when told, while another says it was because he tweeted too much, drawing a large, over-stimulated, hormone-fuelled crowd of screaming teens.

Whatever the actual situation, practitioners and communicators everywhere should take careful note of this one. For example, how does 'being ordered to communicate' sit with free speech? What if, in your professional opinion, tweeting would make the situation worse? And what impact would that have on your organisation's reputation? 

Equally, in a 'non-democratic' environment, what if you are 'ordered' to tweet something that will put others in danger? And for the journalists who live tweet material - what if your story is the catalyst that causes chaos? What liability would mainstream media assume?

This is a small story about an action taken - or at very least suggested - by some US police officers. Its implications however, are enormous, not necessarily at this moment, but certainly as we rush towards the future. Bet there are a few people out there live tweeting events as I write. As the event manager are you at some point, going to be held responsible for what they say or the actions their tweets precipitate?

I know it's a consideration that I'll be building into programmes from here on in. 

Media sharks miss out on a great bite

When I first came to New Zealand from the rough tabloid environment that rules the UK, I found the news reporting here rather charming. It was polite, sometimes bordering on the reverential and always, always, tied firmly to local affairs.  Even my sons remember the five minute slot awarded to a child's lost goldfish on the main TV news.

These days I find I am bemused by the mainstream media's news priorities, particularly on the broadcast side. Take yesterday. Great story on a shark at Kelly Tarlton's that performed an 'emergency c-section' on a female, releasing four baby sharks into the tank.  Alright, so it isn't earth shattering stuff, nor is it likely to change the world.  But it is interesting, diverting and, for New Zealand, most definitely of local interest. Was it covered on broadcast media here? No. Other mainstream? Barely.  Does this matter? In the great scheme of things, probably not. But I'd guarantee that online sources, NZPA and others reaped great rewards from their coverage of this diverting tale as the intrigued and curious searched for pictures of the newly-released newborns.  The world's a pretty grim place at the moment and to hear of a shark doing a good deed - well, it's a hopeful kind of thing. My unscientific poll today, covering about 350-ish fellow Kiwis indicated that at least 75% were wanting to know more and frustrated by the lack of coverage.

At present, the mainstream news agenda here seems over-punctuated by news from the US, but not the wider world. The focus is on the shallow, not the deep (yes, I know this shark tale is somewhat shallow, but they do live in the deep), the mundane rather than the extraordinary. Which is a shame, because with just 4.5m people to cater for, mainstream media has a potential for influence here greater than in many other places. Given that social media has revolutionised the news environment and given that all mainstream media outlets are in decline, one would have thought those in charge might capitalise on such potential advantage. Evidently not.

Shake it up guys - we expect more. Get your teeth into the news we want to hear and you might just be amazed at what you unleash.