PR FROM THE BEACH

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.

Where is the Chorus of Disapproval?

Well I for one was staggered at the news that Chorus engineers are likely to be turned from employees to owner operators. In the much vaunted 'current climate' isn't it a bit thick to be turning long-standing employees out into the cold to survive on their own? Particularly as these are the very employees who are supposed to be key players in the creation the new infrastructure that will power our 'knowledge-led digital economy'.  The opportunities to train apprentices will be diminished; those who sign on to be owner-operators will be spending time learning to be small business people rather than getting on with the engineering work and as for the rest of us? We won't benefit from better prices or service or infrastructure. No. The company Chorus has 'subbed' the contract to will simply make bigger profits at our expense and at the expense of their workforce. Shame on them.

Expenses error? Pah! Clapham Omnibus Man would be in Clink!

Politicians in the UK have been in the spotlight for the last week or two after revelations concerning the abuse of expense accounts. Seems like most of them have been 'at it' and the original protestations centred around the whole affair being 'a problem with the system' and 'the system needs overhauling'. Well I'm sorry, but no system includes claiming expenses on something that is already paid off and I can't believe that anyone with a real sense of public duty would for one moment imagine that this or some of the expenses claimed were legitimate.

Had any ordinary citizens - the Man on the Clapham Omnibus for example - made such claims they would have been banged up for fraud. And how on earth did these expenses get past the Inland Revenue? Ordinary employees face reels of red tape when it comes to 'perks', 'expenses', or 'company benefits' with the laws on company cars a classic example.  How the MPs have got away with it all this time is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps the real perk of being a British MP is that you can blatantly circumvent the laws that govern everyone else?

Stephen Fry made some good points about the media coverage of the scandal when he was interviewed for Newsnight but even though I agreed with his observations on journalists' inclinations when it came to their expenses, MPs are servants of the public and as such should always remember the money they have to spend - or claim - comes from the hard work of others via their taxes. Something is rotten in the State of Britain - and requires some urgent sorting out.

Will Iceland's summer election warm the nation's economy?

After the food shortages of last year, the riots and then the 'pots and pans' or Saucepan Revolution in January, Iceland heads to the polls this weekend. The election is a direct result of citizen protests triggered as the Icelandic economy went into melt-down. 

Tomorrow's election (April 25) - is an election which, according to some, has delayed the payments from the IMF promised during the meltdown period last year. Many Icelandic bloggers have been charting, reporting and commenting on the quiet revolution that has been underway, so much so, that a list of bloggers deemed to be 'enemies of the Progressive Party was recently published by the DV newspapers. One longtime blogger, Alda, was saddened to be left off the list - she felt her place should have been assured by this post which provides insight into some of the background to the crisis through the lens of the film, Dreamland, in turn based on the book Dreamland: A Self-Help Manual for a Frightened Nation by Andri Snær Magnason. I would heartily recommend you read Alda's post (and her blog generally) as the story of Dreamland is one that I believe has been replicated in many places around the world - and that in the months ahead, we will see similar situations arise in many small nations.

There is daily talk of 'the recession' as if it is an amorphous doom, arriving unannounced and bringing with it these unavoidable consequences. Mainstream media makes it easy for us to believe that 'the recession' is as sudden and out of the blue as a previously unspotted asteroid. But this is not the case. The financial troubles that abound - in Iceland and elsewhere - are primarily the fruits of unethical, profit-driven, greedy sharp practice. Judgements made in the interests of the shareholder, not society.  Where companies are making workers redundant, I seriously question the validity of the redundancies blamed on the 'recession', convinced as I am that many are using it as an excuse to cover up previous mismanagement of their organisations (and I would include the public sector in that as well).

I hope that after the election, the people of Iceland can begin a new era with leaders capable of rebuilding the country's economy as well as relationships within the wider global community. I hope that out of this, they are able to redefine business models that meet their needs without putting the security of their citizens at risk in the future. I suspect it will be a long road and my earnest hope is they get the support they will need. And I hope too, that some time soon, the amorphous recession will cease to be blamed by all and sundry and instead, the economic behaviours that brought us to this point in history are investigated, highlighted, outlawed and changed for the better.  If not, many more Saucepan Revolutions will begin to bubble and before long they will boil over into streets worldwide.

Scaring us into recession

Wise words from Phil O’Reilly this morning on breakfast when he suggested that we might just be scaring ourselves into recession, with a lot of help from mainstream media.  The more people are told the sky is about to fall in, the more they will expect it to be so.  As a result, spending stops, demand falls and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Mainstream media has hyped a story that has been running since September 2007 (and a bit before that). A little less hysteria might be the best way forward. It will be interesting to see the results of the ‘jobs summit’ on Friday this week.

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.

Selling hot air - should we believe everything the physicist says about Google?

I was taken by the digibabble about an alarmist piece published by Times Online, centred on the observations of physicist  Alex Wissner-Gross who suggests that a single Google search generates 7g of CO2, versus around 15g for a tea kettle. He also, as pointed out in a thoughtful piece in the Washington Post by Jason Kincaid, was the co-founder of CO2Stats, which sells software that will help you make your website 'greener'.

Personally, I think all forms of CO2 trading are deeply suspect and everytime I read about a new phase in its history I am again reminded of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'.  Generally, is CO2 trading undertaken for profit? Yes. Does someone somewhere take 'commission' on the trades made? Yes. Does CO2 trading allow a quick fix rather than change behaviours? Yes.

But this company doesn't do CO2 trading and in fact is quite clear about what it does - and doesn't - do.  In its FAQ it states:

"CO2Stats is software that (1) helps to make your site more energy-efficient, and (2) provides your site with automatically-purchased renewable energy (from audited wind and solar farms) each month. CO2Stats software meters the energy used by your servers, visitors' computers and the networks that connect them in order to calculate how much energy is required to make your site green. You can monitor these calculations in real time by clicking on your Green Certified Site™ badge. "

It goes on to explain that they only from audited wind and solar farms and everything is all green and ethically lovely - but it is still a 'for profit' enterprise that will set you back between US$4.95 to US99.95.  Obviously there is a sliding scale of green-ness and it would seem you can be 'a bit green' at $4.95 or 'super green' at just under $100.

This sort of programme seems very similar in nature to the convoluted 'financial products' dreamed up over recent years which have recently come crashing down to earth as stocks have fallen, trust undermined and promises left unfulfilled.

I think what we have here is a very clever use of mainstream media designed to prick the conscience of your average net user, driving them to the good physicist's site in order to prompt them into believing they should be buying this software if they want to stay green and clean. After all, why change your actual behaviour when $4.95 will see you right?

I don't often have much sympathy with Google, but in this case I feel they have been used to grab headlines which in turn are being used to drive traffic - the very thing the esteemed young scientist was supposedly warning against. Or maybe I missed something?

I don't doubt the statistics reproduced in the articles (which I believe were generated from his research) but I do find myself wondering about the transparency and motivation behind the piece.  Attacking Google by combining some credible looking stats, the words 'green' and 'environment' plus a scientist's title and 'new research' and you have a sure-fire way of stirring up mainstream and online media conversation and driving traffic - not to mention the profits of a relatively new start up.

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.