Six lessons learned

This blog has helped me to reach some useful conclusions about how public relations should make best use of the internet. Here are some of the main themes that have emerged:

1) Get to the point
Whether for better or worse, much of the blogging community is beginning to naturalise the "Tweet ethic"- limiting one's message to 140 characters. Some bloggers specify that even press releases should be kept to this length! Whether taken to this extreme or not, the amount of data on the internet is such that that if you do not keep your messages short and sweet, it is likely to be filtered out.

2) The breaking edge
Twitter is a very useful tool for environmental scanning. Not only is it very easy to search, but news, gossip and feedback breaks on this format before it appears anywhere else. PR professionals trying to establish an online voice should not underestimate this increasingly prevalent communication medium, especially given it's recent use in reporting world events (eg. in Gaza and Mumbai).

3) Transparency and honesty
PR agencies and their clients will be smoked out and punished if they try to dupe their online audience, and since new laws were passed in the UK, flogging or astroturfing will carry a legal penalty as well. Therefore PR professionals must exercise utmost caution when trying to create online 'buzz', and must make every effort not to misrepresent themselves or their product.

4) Let go - The best buzz comes from others
Corporate efforts at creating a 'viral buzz' with a carefully sculpted marketing message are likely to backfire. The best buzz is created by those who take your product and interpret it themselves. In the nomenclature of Wikinomics, mashups and remixes are what the internet does best, so let it happen!

5) Social media aren't for everyone
Different products and different messages have different amounts to gain from social media efforts. Some products (like the Wii) are well suited to this communications environment, while others will seem out of place.

6) Learn what works
Scan Digg, Delicious and other sharing sites to see what kinds of articles are being given preference. The online rules of newsworthiness are a little different from print and broadcast media!

I'm sure I haven't covered everything here, so please use the comments to add some more observations of your own...

Wikinomics - A short rant (part 2)

Read part 1 here

According to Tapscott and Williams, the second way in which the internet is transforming news reporting is by allowing the internet user to be an editor of news content. Content sharing websites like Delicious and Digg enable users to receive customised feeds of news stories which they like. Tapscott and Williams argue that the collective logic of multiple web users is making the traditional role of editor obsolete, and they ask the question: Are the editors really in a position to best the collective judgement of their audience?

To answer this question I went over to Digg to have a look at what Digg users were Digging...















Perhaps I'm completely out of step here but what of the bombing of Gaza? Climate change? The global financial crisis?

I'm not saying I haven't already clicked on the sex shop story and sent it to all my friends (here's the link if you're interested). Like every other web user I'm all over twisted funny stuff like that. The point is that I need editors to save me from the trivia, and to force the more boring - yet undoubtedly more important - stuff down my throat.

PR of course loves the trivialisation of news. We thrive off pithy features, funny research and non-events. In this respect the phenomenon of user-as-editor will play into the hands of PR practitioners, provided they know what kind of stuff has internet mileage. A good place to start is to look at sites like Digg or Delicious to find out the features of a viral story. But none of this helps the case of mass collaboration as a reliable organiser of news and content - in the case of Digg, what we get is a peek into the grubby mind of the internet masses rather than a rewarding and informative news experience.

I don't believe that this particularly hurts the Wikinomics thesis. The book documents many cases where the principles of openness, peering, sharing and thinking globally have brought about staggering advances in business, technology and education. However, readers of Wikinomics should be careful not to get so caught up in the rhetoric to believe that mass collaboration makes absolutely everything better.

Wii the People

The whole point of PR is that a message is best coming from some elses mouth, not yours. Offline, this can translate to endorsements by celebrities and media outlets - which is all well and good, if we grant that these voices have credibility.

However this Christmas, Nintendo had the good fortune to receive one of the most glowing, energised and downright newsworthy endorsements of the season for their Wii computer games console on videosharing website Youtube. The plaudit, uploaded on Christmas Day, came from a child who is being called The Wii Scream Boy. Before you watch this video, I advise that you turn your computer speakers down a little.



Perhaps "glowing" isn't the best word to describe what you have just seen. There is actually something quite spinechilling, even evil, about that noise and that devilish little dance. But this is precisely why the video has become the viral holiday hit, receiving nearly 200,000 Youtube views in only ten days, ample online and offline press coverage (including airtime on ABC and Fox), and of course the obligatory Youtube remixes - all without PR execs at Nintendo having to lift a finger. Compare this to the flopped PSP viral, where Sony staff worked a little too hard only to have their efforts lampooned across the net.

The Wii Scream video is a media/press win, an authetic hearts and minds triumph, and in terms of sending out a crystal clear marketing message (ie. your child will go absolutely spare if you get him one of these) it really couldn't be any better. So have Nintendo PR people simply been sitting on their backsides waiting for Web 2.0 to give them a lucky break? Or is there something more calculated about all of this?

I was undecided until I saw another viral win for Nintendo from earlier in the year: Why every guy should buy their girlfriend Wii Fit.



After watching the video carefully - and painstakingly tracking its spinoffs - I have had to conclude that Wii Underwear Girl (and to a lesser extent Wii Scream) must be the result of intelligent design.

I'm not saying that Nintendo set these videos up - they are, broadly speaking, authentic*. Rather I'm referring to the way in which the design of the product itself has impacted on its media exposure. Unlike most other consoles (which to me connote teenagers sitting alone in darkened rooms) the Wii's "space stick" and pressure pad controllers spark the imagination and encourage outward expression, lending the product particularly well to these kinds of web 2.0-friendly displays and to media interest in general. Its almost as if the Wii's unusual interfaces were designed specifically with its reputation and future media-worthiness in mind.

Indeed it seems like environmental tracking played a real part in the design of the Wii, even down to choosing its name. When Nintendo's American public relations manager spoke about the console back in 2006, the sentiments were of participation and revolution - strongly echoing the "We the people" ethic of social media websites like Youtube and suggesting that the PR brains at Nintendo knew where they were going long before the product hit the shelves.

So which other products are particularly well suited to our modern media environment? And are there limits to the sorts of products which social media can help to promote? Comments if you will...and a Happy New Year to you all!

*although, the people in the Wii Fit vid do actually work in advertising, and the video was intended as a portfolio piece demonstrating how to make a kick-ass viral. However, neither were in the pay of Nintendo nor was the company aware of its making. And the girl is actually the guy's girlfriend. Either way the video has had over 7,000,000 hits.

Wikinomics - A short rant (part 1)

In the first year of my undergraduate degree, I wrote an essay in which I crowed about how much free music I was downloading off the internet, and how this was the start of some drastic shift in production and society at large. Although it received a fairly good mark, I eventually admitted to myself that the essay contained some fairly half baked ideas and, acknowledging that file sharing amounted more or less to theft, I locked many of them away.

Only now, having read Wikinomics, am I tempted to release the information anarchist that has been quietly hotboxing my bad arguments cupboard for the last few years.

"You're free to go. Dom Tapscott and Anthony D Williams say you haven't been doing anything wrong and that as a N-Gen citizen you're actually helping to renegotiate the definition of copyright and intellectual property. Now find me a pirate copy of Chinese Democracy."

Of course the book isn't just about filesharing, and it's considerably less half baked than my first year sociology essay. Wikinomics is about the potential of peer production in a world where information flows more freely, and people can collaborate more easily than ever before thanks to the internet. Check the Wikinomics blog or read the book if you want the details. I'm going to concentrate on the ideas which relate most strongly to news production and thus to public relations.

In Wikinomics there are two key ways in which news is changing as a result of the internet. Firstly, internet users are becoming producers of news, creating content on blogs, Wikipedia, Twitter and the like. Secondly they are becoming editors of preprepared news content. I will talk about the former in this post, leaving discussion of the latter for another time.

Tapscott and Williams cite the Wikipedia page about the July 7th London bombings as an example of how Wiki technology can organise information about an event more quickly and effectively than standard news gathering agencies. They state that cocreation of news by various internet users will give rise to "balance, fairness and accuracy" in news reports, as well as making them "more dynamic".

I have already expressed excitement on this blog about how multi-layered news content can make the media experience more dynamic. However, it does seem a little optimistic to assume that accuracy and balance (read 'journalistic quality') will naturally arise from citizen reporting. This is especially the case if organisations are excluded from the conversation, as Wikipedia has stipulated they should be, and if there is no quality control on the information being published. Certainly public perceptions of user-created news are relatively poor. The BBC website received widespread criticism for its use of Twitter during the Mumbai attacks, with some users feeling that it had sacrificed its journalistic integrity by using Tweets as a news source, and not sufficiently differentiating it from other content.

So in line with another one of my previous posts, it seems that mistrust is rife on the internet - both towards organisations and individual users - with people continuing to value more traditional media sources. Mass collaboration can work where people have a clearly defined task, and don't have political axes to grind or conspiracies to propogate. Unfortunately news sites have no such direction, and like a sweaty crevice, provide fertile breeding ground for rumour, speculation and prejudice. This, understandably, is a turnoff for many people seeking quality news coverage.

For the moment, this remains good news for the PR industry, which retains privileged access to trusted media outlets. But equally it cuts off opportunities for all of us in terms of getting continuing access to highly integrated, multi sourced and interactive news content. So if trust is the issue, how can this be addressed?

Simply, providers of internet information services should encourage greater accountability of their users. In the same way that journalists can be held accountable for information they publish, so too should any internet user who claims to be in possession of the facts. A good first step has been made by Twitter, which encourages people to set up accounts in their own name and to use photographs of their face as a profile picture - a progression from the shifty alter egos that riddled the old web. Of course this need for transparency extends to public relations practitioners, for as long as PRs are creeping around on the internet posting misleading items under false identities the wound of mistrust will continue to gape (and we'll continue to be banned from Wikipedia!).

Merry Christmas!

Holy f***ing s***t – I was just in a plane crash!

Not my words, but those of one Mike Wilson, as he records his brush with death on Twitter. His message, sent via mobile after his Continental Airlines flight skidded off the runway at Denver Airport, seems to have been more widely reported than the crash itself, and is being held up as evidence that the tide of news reporting is in some ways turning. This use of Twitter follows its widespread use during the Mumbai terror attacks, to bring front line experiences to a worldwide audience before conventional news outlets.

In the case of the Denver crash, it is significant that first comment on the crash did not come from a spokesperson for the airport or the airline but straight from a member of the public via the increasingly reported microblogging site. Indeed Loic Le Meur comments that when a Continental Airlines spokesperson was questioned on CNN, he had few answers for reporters (annoyingly I can't find this footage on Youtube).

Public relations practitioners will need to adapt to this new form of news reporting by recognising the need for greater transparency, accuracy and speed in their interactions with the media. Also key in this new reporting environment will be the need for swifter resolution of issues as they occur on the ground.

Of course, when it comes to relatively unmediated content like Twitter, there are obviously issues of trust and professionalism. There are no codes of conduct and no formal professional standards because everyone who posts on Twitter is doing so in an amateur capacity (to illustrate, have a look at the photo above, taken on the scene by Mr Wilson - not amazing is it?). For this reason Twitter is unlikely to replace traditional news outlets any time soon .

However, noone is really talking about one type of reporting replacing another. The most exciting opportunities lie in rich, multi-layered content, and the relationship between user generated and traditional news agency content should be complementary. Along these lines, Dan Thornton over at 140Char.com, makes the case for news websites to integrate microblogging into their reporting of stories - something I personally find a very exciting prospect.

Is news fine as it is, or could it benefit from more interactivity? Would you trust a member of the public to bring you front line news or would you rather wait to get it from a journalist?

Flogging

Following my earlier post about corporate blogging, I thought I'd better give a bit of attention to so called flogging. Often mentioned in the same breath as astroturfing, a flog is a blog which which has been set up by a company to promote their product or service, but which does not make its promotional origins clear to the reader.

Historically, corporate attempts to exploit the blogging format in this way have backfired. Back in 2006, PR agency Edelman got in trouble for setting up flogs for Walmart. The graph below, taken from themeasurementstandard.com, illustrates just how much negative PR the exercise generated for Edelman (red means bloggers saying bad stuff about Edelman - click for a larger image).
















Shortly after this debacle, marketing company Zipatoni and their clients Sony were widely derided for a cringeworthy flog site and viral video, while McDonalds were pulled up on two flogs which accompied their 'Monopoly' promotion. All of these sites have since been pulled.

In May of this year, the practise of flogging was made illegal in the UK under the new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (pdf). The new regulation outlaws “Falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer”.

And yet some marketing types still consider astroturf and flogs to be valid marketing tools and just another form of advertising. We are, the argument goes, already subject to so many misleading messages in our media, and flogs are really no different - The important thing is to be skilled in recognising when people aren't who they say they are.

Hmmm, maybe these people have a point. Lets test our skills in spotting astroturfers by having a look at this blog post. See if you can spot illegal posts by Carphone Warehouse's representatives in the comments section. Now imagine yourself as director of Carphone Warehouse and feel the rage.

Surely in an era of corporate openness, this kind of thing is bad form whichever way you look at it? Given that its probably just a matter of time before you're smoked out, can flogging or astroturfing ever be a good look for a company or PR agency? Comments please!!