PR FROM THE BEACH

No accident that ACC boss stands out

In marked contrast to the woeful Fonterra performances on mainstream media of late, the new ACC chief executive Scott Pickering did an excellent job on Q&A this week following the latest privacy breaches within his organisation.

Unlike his predecessors, this new CE appeared in control of the situation, was able to explain but not excuse, describe what was being done to redress the situation and outline the way ahead for the organisation.

He was properly briefed, had the facts - as he saw them - to hand  and responded well to interview questions designed to throw him off guard. 

I hope that all the wishes he articulated for ACC and its customers come to fruition as it would mean that the organisation that he described as part of New Zealand's DNA will have regained some of the social capital lost so spectacularly in recent years.

Long may he keep working on listening and re-establishing public trust and let's hope too that some other organisational leaders around the country learn a lesson or two about interviews from this fresh-faced CE.

Air New Zealand talk social media on social media

Couple of good clips from Air New Zealand this week. Firs one below takes a quick  look at their use of social media. The second is Rob Fyfe talking about how the stories, the channels and the way they intersect change approaches and engagement.  It's long, but worth sticking with.

 

Making it personal: The Air New Zealand Brand - wierd wacky or inspired? by Rob Fyfe from Creative New Zealand on Vimeo.

Beware Geeks Bearing Gifts

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet thoughts from beyond the Grave

Over at Farmville, people are busy putting the finishing touches to their Haunted Houses ready for Halloween.  Me, I've been looking at digital footprints for one reason or another, and I have to say I've been struck by the number of organisations that have sprung up offering digital services for the dead.

I haven't had a proper play around with it yet, but must say that the Futuris.tk site is very intriguing - here you can send a message to loved ones, posted out when you are dead, or 'future-blog' your thoughts now 50 years ahead. Others like Entrustet, Legacy Locker and My Web Will all look to managing your digital assets once your big Switch Off has occurred and - if there is absolutely no chance of a reboot - your loved ones can activate all the 'deactivates' that will be necessary once your chips are finally down.  Facebook will enshrine your loved one's page for you, if you wish, but if, in real life, you have no close mates or family that can prove their relationship with you to Facebook then, rest assured, your party photos will live forever.

Spooky then, if you have diligently mashed your applications to auto-tweet during your living hours and a spam comment somewhere knocks it into action long after you've gone. Imagine the stick you'll get for not being a proper contributor to the conversation - it's bad enough now if you go quiet for a week or two!

My thought for the day on this one rests with those in the business community currently thrashing out digital strategies - and anyone else who has harnessed the power of their employees as brand advocates on their behalf. Imagine this. You have been asked to run a tweetstream talking about your place of work. You die. It doesn't. Who owns it? Who closes it down? And what if your digital footprint actually has financial value - in the same way as artists, writers, authors and other creative types have assets that increase in value after their demise, so too might the value of that Flickr stream you are so fond of. And if it does - who gets the cash?  If there's a digital will, then there will be a way.

For most, this probably won't seem like a particularly worrisome problem - a bit like cyber-security concerns seemed a few years ago - but believe me, as more advocates are born, so will they die. If I were to blog my thoughts today for use 50 years ahead, I guess it would include a brief sentence: "Remember I suggested you work out how to deal with the digital assets of the dead - bet you wish you had now!"

It has also got me thinking about the point at which people will - to put it bluntly - shut up. Are we going to experience a rash of 'death blogs' as one by one we shuffle off this mortal coil?  Unless they are really from beyond the grave and offer insight into a life beyond, then reflections of what dreams may come from the living - while they remain with us - will, I fear, simply be dead boring. Like the wonderful tombstone above, found here, there must be a time when we simply have nothing more to say.

PS: Would Vampires really want to engage with their Stakeholders?

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...

Buzz off Google

It isn't often I have a gripe at Google, but they really haven't thought the whole Buzz thing through at all. While some people like it, many others don't as it 'invades' their email system - something most people believe, rightly or wrongly, to be private. Fortunately, Google has started to listen to the hundreds of thousands of voices raised in protest over the whole thing. Interestingly, they are adjusting things slightly but in reality, I wonder how much they feel they have to adjust anything at all, given that Google puts the majority of apps out there for users for 'free'.  One to watch I'd say - but at least it is easier to turn Buzz off now, which is a great improvement on its launch last week.

Looking forward to the RiVER

Over at PRiNZ, a new continuing professional development programme, RiVER is about to be launched and I'm very excited about it - it gives practitioners a flexible and easy path to develop their skills and demonstrate their value to their organisations, clients and employers.

I am going to be delivering a webinar for members to explain the 'how to' on February 4 so am planting a registration widget on the site in this post for a little while to test if it works, then it will be gone.  To find out more about RiVER and PRiNZ, go to www.prinz.org.nz on Thursday this week and follow the links.

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. 

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.

When the Ghost in the Machine needs to back off

So this weekend Facebook decided that it would make some decisions on my behalf, selectively editing my friends' updates, information, quiz results, likes (but not dislikes as there is no button) et al. Today, Google launches social search so I can retrieve information from my public social graph that will take me one step nearer to the most recommended coffee shop this side of the CBD - but only if the Google machine considers it relevant based on decisions it has made about me - and you - as determined by our online profiles.

Marvellous isn't it. Clever almost beyond words. Deeply impressed that they can mine the data so efficiently. But one major thing has slipped the minds of the great and good - I don't want them editing my information or the news that comes to me, be it social news, mainstream news or an update from my Great Aunt Edy (if I had such a relative).  We had enough 'editing' of information during the reign of mass media. Information was power and selective distribution fed the hierarchical business models that have been collapsing around our ears the last year or two.

I am more than happy for them to find the information - but deliver it whole, unaltered, unchanged. Let me decide. The kind of selective editing currently being proffered is not about being a helpful 'free' service provider. It is about behavioural control, social selection for influence and steering users towards content that will power advertising revenue and stimulate a little mouse action. Methinks it is time to make sure that today's ghosts in the machine don't surreptitiously remove  the 'social' from social media and replace it with 'remote control'.

That marvellous Orwellian phrase 'Big Brother is Watching You' is now surpassed. Great Google and Fearsome Facebook will simply tell you what they think you should know.