wordymouth.com

David Letterman’s crass joke about Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter is really no different from when Don Imus called a group of women essentially whores. You call my teenage daughter promiscuous as a joke, and all politics aside, I’m going to loose it. Before you start commenting already, set aside your political views for a moment — table the right-wing anger and the liberal defense — and let me explain why Letterman will never apologize.

First off, a crisis or faux pas like this can usually be smoothed over and reputation repentance achieved within 24 hours. I can, and have, helped individuals who have stepped in it walk away pretty much unscathed after making a crass or stupid comment or jumping into the blunder pit. Reputation management techniques exist to make something like this better. Hell, I probably could have helped Imus; it just would have taken longer.

No, Letterman doesn’t want any reputation repair for his remarks. Why? Because he needs to generate controversy. He needs someone to talk about him, good or bad. Letterman’s show is being beaten by an upstart, Conan O’Brien. And Letterman needs people to talk about him to boost the ratings. It’s an age-old strategy; attract attention by being a bad boy, or by doing something controversial. Letterman must generate attention at all costs and take a gamble that in six months the audience will only be talking about him and not about his bad deed. Unless, of course, no one is left watching the program. Letterman will never apologize; he may come close, but only close enough to keep the attention coming his way.

Newspapers, and to some extent television, have been struggling as viewers and readers drop. Yet most of the news content produced in the United States comes to us from traditional media supported by advertising. So even as traditional media struggles to maintain a shrinking business model, the hunger for content remains. People want to read news and are accessing it through Google and breaking news from Twitter.

photo credit: dno1967

A suggested business model entails charging for online news content. However, I don’t always want the entire local newspaper. I may only want a couple of articles, or I may only want specific categories of news. This limits the value I would obtain from purchasing the entire collection of a single day’s newspaper or a month of access to a specific newspaper’s website.

A new business model may come from the news monitoring services, such as iMonitor, Vocus, SM2 and even Google. Allow subscribers to search for specific news or monitor specific categories and purchase clips or access based on points or a subscription plan. Bundle various news sources together and allow subscribers to create online newspapers based on their interests.

Only care about sports? Pay only for a collection of sports clips. Interested in your specific business or industry? Only pay for that subscription. Micro payments, coupled with archived versions of stories - complete versions in PDF form or just text - could jump start journalism and allow for a steady flow of income to pay journalists to continue investigating and reporting on news. Of course, this idea would require a bold stroke and lots of cooperation. Perhaps a collective like the Associated Press could organize such an effort or a group of large newspapers.

Clearly offering content from various sources could empower users to build online newspapers for their internal PR and marketing efforts, or just give them unlimited content for reading on their Kindle or iPhone. Is this a good idea, has somebody already done it? Let me know what you think.

photo credit: John_Stephen_Dwyer

Much like when Moses had to go back up the hill to collect a new set of commandments after he smashed the first batch, everyone was submitting some good ideas on Twitter when lo, Twitter crashed. Sara Evans (@PRsarahevans) started off the discussion asking “What are the 10 Commandments of Social Media?” All of the posts can be found under #10comm. Anyway, before everything halted, there were some excellent suggestions for a list of Social Media’s Ten Commandments.

1. @stephkordas: “Thou shalt be human/conversant/transparent.”

2. @AlKrueger: “Thou shalt not send auto-dm to new followers telling them to check out a website or your blog.”

3. @nicroames: “Thou shalt engage in the conversation, broadcasting your stuff is not social media.”

4. @jillelswick: “Thou shalt be interested in people you’ve never met.”

5. @TamarahLand: “Thou shall re-tweet, thou shall not covet thy follower’s tweets.”

6. @abrahamlloyd: “Thou shalt answer at least one question a day from someone asking for help, advice, comfort, or direction.”

7. @mkaPR: “If thou be a star on Twitter, thou shalt be open and follow regular people too.”

8. @wordymouth: “Thou shalt not commit character assassination.”

9. @jcberk: “If you mess up, own up. Then do better.”

10. @carriekerpen: “Thou shalt listen, and engage. Thou shall not unabashadly shout your message. Thou shalt provide value.”

And there were many more. Including these two, which I think sum up the whole discussion:

11. @abrahamlloyd “Remember that colelctively every tweet, post, link, friend, vid, and pic tied to u paints a picture of who u r.”

12. @wordymouth: “Be true, be open, be willing to listen, be willing to share, always be kind and never hold anything back.”

What would you add? (Here’s another list submitted by @AlKrueger).

There once was a bar where everyone could go and everyone would know their name. The connections, from the joy to the pain, was what made this such a cool place to hang out. You knew you had a friend when you entered that bar because everyone would shout out your name when you walked through the door.

Which leads me to examine the recent quest to add as many followers as you can on Twitter. All of the celebrities are doing it, and now Twitter has limited the mass collection of followers. Adding followers may make you feel special, unique, powerful, but it won’t do much to help you create a community.

Here’s why: Twitter is a forum for tweet-to-tweet communication, a variant on face-to-face, which allows you to build a relationship. How do you maintain relationships with 1 million people. You don’t. You scream out to them and broadcast messages to them, but you don’t ever really connect. The crowd is too large and at best you can only carry on a one-on-one conversation with a handful of people.

If you want to build a following, you must do it one at a time. And you need to engage those followers. It’s the notion of becoming a celebrity: people feel a connection and tell others. For a time the rapid collection of followers may work to draw a crowd, but holding onto that crowd will require much more than just a pretty face and a large following. It’s going to require engagement, care, and the ability to know who’s coming through the door so you can shout out their name.

Last week Robert Scoble sent off the incendiary post PR is Dead and Lame, where dressed as the Incredible Hulk, he proceeded to take umbrage at the bad practice of PR professionals blind blasting out crap to writers, journalists, bloggers and your Mom. It was followed by many and generated a firestorm when Mark Story asked if “Robert Scoble is a Jerk.”

I was planning to take Robert to the wood shed over his mantra because, well, I don’t like to see my profession painted over with a bad shade of black. In defense of the profession there are quite a few PR professionals who do understand that blanket pitches and frankly bad grammar tend to make us all look bad. And quite a few of us don’t use bad practices.

That being said, I fully agree with a couple of points that Robert made in his private note to PR people where he provides a refreshing articulation in comparison to the previous flamestorm. Much of my success in placing stories or promoting a cause has been because I have taken the time to listen, understand and build a relationship.

First off, no one wants to be the guy who has to make a living cold-calling people to pitch them a story. And secondly, we all know that it is counterproductive. Clients love to see that you’ve talked to everyone in the world and statistics that show you blasted out a message to thousands. PR needs to demonstrate that talking to 10 people versus 10,000 often provides better results. So as a profession we have a problem in showing results and measuring success (There’s that common theme again - measurement). Coupled with the inexperience of many junior execs who are struggling to show results and you have a lot of crap being sent to Robert Scoble.

Focused research, taking the time to build a relationship and using tools that strengthen that relationship always trumps the shotgun blast.

Now, A-listers and journalists and anyone else tired of getting garbage could improve everyone’s lot in life if they took the time to share what they are planning on doing next.  Make sure you have a bio somewhere. Tell me what you’re interested in. Provide a roadmap. Not an editorial calendar per se, but a forecast of things on your horizon. Help these young crap stirrers to send peaches your way instead of prunes. Point us to your crystal ball and help us build a relationship.

Tools like HARO, ProfNet (I was on the advisory panel that created ProfNet), MicroPR, et. al., open the doors and allow some insight. They also allow for the building of relationships. These are tools we all should be embracing in our efforts to improve how PR works and how PR pitches are received by other communicators.

My son asked me the apparent perennial favorite of eleven-year-olds “If a tree falls in the forest, will it make a sound?” I answer matter of factually, “Well, of course,” because it seems logical that it would make a sound. “But if no one is there, how can you be sure?” I think that I seem to have already had this conversation once with my other son and yet, this time I decide maybe this time I need to think about it a little more. “If no one is there, does the crashing tree make a sound?”

photo credit: rbatina

Twitter now exceeds 6 million users. Friendfeed exceeds 1 million users. Facebook, MySpace and all the rest command an even larger social following. As marketers and public relations firms scramble to lock into the realm, social media has grabbed much attention. Motrin Moms illustrates the power a group of vocal, nee militant, social media users wield to change what appears to them to be an offensive ad campaign. Tropicana orange juice went through the juicer when the consumers in the social wilderness, and apparently everywhere else, rejected it’s new brand identity. As these brands learned, irritate the social media Illuminati at your own peril. Or is this more of a “If a tree falls in the wilderness” scenario?

Ad Age looked at this on March 30, 2009 in an article titled “Using Social Media to Listen to Consumers.” Guess what? Just because an A-lister Twitters disdain for a product, service, another A-lister, or the meal they just ate, doesn’t mean anybody actually hears their scream. Outrage is the name of the game for much of social media. Marketers should take this into consideration before pulling up stakes and rushing home.

“The data is a really compelling reminder that a lot of our target consumers are not the people who are sitting on Twitter freaking out over a packaging design that they don’t like,” said Diane Hessan, CEO of Communispace, in the Ad Age article.

In regards to the Motrin Moms social forest fire, a survey by Lightspeed Research found that almost 90% of women had never seen the ad. This means a small group of people changed the brand identity of Motrin. Futher, of the moms that hadn’t seen the ad, and presumably didn’t Twitter about it, 45% liked the ad, 41% couldn’t care one way or the other, and only 15% said they disliked it. This means that scream all you want on Twitter but the reality is only a few, select, interested group of individuals will care. In fact, according to Nicholas Carlson you’d have a better chance being a slice of Pizza before many would notice you tweeted your like or dislike for something (100 Things More Popular Than Twitter).

Ignore Twitter then? Give up our new Facebook Fan page?

No.

Think of the social media universe as a large and active canary in the mine. The song bird sounds an alarm and you listen and look to find out what might be wrong. Test, sample and test again. Look for irregularities and test again. If the results point to a looming problem, then throw out the rotten juice box. If the tree is about to fall on you get out of the way, but don’t panic unnecessarily if the tree is not in danger of toppling. Go out of your way to listen to what is being said about your product online, but take care not to over react to the conversation. Engage in the conversation and continue testing. Find out if the offense is to be taken with a grain of salt or requires swift action.

I received an email yesterday asking if my Tweet about Media USA dropping the AP Wire was an April Fools joke. It seems an AP editor in Texas was upset over the news that a media company was dropping the wire service. I had no reason not to believe the news: it was posted at Poytner Online, but I didn’t call Media USA seeking confirmation. It was just a bit of news and I passed it on. However, the reaction from the AP Editor shows that traditional media is smarting from the changes rippling through the newspaper industry.

Today, local newspaper editor Thomas Mitchell continued with his engaging series “Information Wants to Be Free, Reporters Want to Be Paid,” which has been looking at the state of the newspaper industry and how to pull newspaper companies out of the tar pit before they die like the dinosaurs. Mitchell’s questions and links to others also pondering the dilemma facing traditional media have been insightful. His blog posts are even more so in light of news Stephens Media may purchase the Austin American-Statesman. If you’re wondering how a Las Vegas newspaper company might change news coverage in the Lone Star’s capital city, then you’re going to want to follow Mitchell’s blog.

Mitchell takes Jeff Jarvis to task for his view on newspapers focusing on local news and forming networks to share content. Essentially, Jarvis suggests newspapers need to become hyper-local, focus on the things they do best and report on those issues affecting their communities. Mitchell argues that newspapers are still the easiest format to browse and that people will eventually remember that.

There still is no place in most cities where advertisers can reach as many potential customers, the Internet is simply too vast, too cluttered. The newspaper is still the most convenient news outlet, the fastest browser available, if you will.

Maybe, if done right. But Jarvis’ point is that everyone can already get the national news almost the moment it happens. Fast breaking news appears on Twitter before the journalists have time to confirm it. The wire appears on Google. If all the local newspaper offers is a reprint of the wire services the next morning, then I have no interest in spending two quarters to purchase old news.

My take? When I can get the AP wire on my phone immediately, there is no need for Mitchell to print the wire the next morning. Abandon the reliance on the wire to fill the pages. Move back toward covering the neighborhoods and communities where you deliver your paper. Focus on news about me, or at least, what I’m interested in. Use your web resources to email me when a story appears with my name, or when a story appears that interests me. I will sign up for this.

Dump the old financial news - focus on the local. And why not tell us your newspaper is focused more on the local community? Remind us. Otherwise, we think all you’re covering is old news that I probably saw on Google or watched on TV the night before.

Photo Credit:  MoToMo

Tres Barn Thrash By D’Ago…stiNO

Ben Parr asks on Mashable, Is Social Media an Industry?

If you count standing behind a barn drinking beer and hanging out with your buds, then yes.

Social Media is no more an industry than walking around with sandwich signs selling wares to passersby. Sure you’re sharing your message, but are your really a multi-national conglomerate known for your innovations? Probably not.

Social Media is a communication channel. It is a highly effective communication channel, but nonetheless, nothing more. Innovators who build upon that communication channel may be creating an industry, but by itself Social Media is not an industry.

A phenomenon, yes. A paradigm shift, yes. An industry paying high wages to millions of people, not so much.

I’ve railed against this cheerleading in the past (see Publicity is Ruining Social Media, Get me, I’m Givin’ Out Wings or Cluetrain Rides Again (and misses some arrows).) Cheerleading to support an exciting new model diminishes its relevance. I would much rather see results than excitement for the latest Twitter growth numbers or the amount of friends you now have on Facebook.

I liked this comment from Todd Lucier, “Social media is a space. Providing social media services can be a business an hence an industry if people are engaged in economic exchanges. Industry is measured by economic output, not users or pageviews.”

When you can show me how you’ve impacted the Gross National Product of Spain, then I’ll count you as an industry.

I was talking with Rich Becker this morning about public relations and social media measurement. He reminded me that you can’t just say that because you have posted to a blog and 200 people have read your insights, and quite a few commented, that you have done anything that remotely equates to influence.

Counting words and the number of pageviews does not amount to much. You have to take it a step further. To prove value, you have to figure out how many people were moved to change after reading your blog post, Twitter Tweet, Facebook Status Update, et al.  How many were willing to go out and do something totally alien to how they were thinking moments before? To quote Rich Becker, “If you can move someone to shave their heads, then you’ve accomplished something.”

Social media can direct influence. Companies will be created to improve how we utilize social media. Individuals will become social media stars. Does any of this create an industry? Likely not.

However, the day someone plops down cash to buy one of my highly collectible blog posts and then demands I create 100 more of them, then I’ll change my mind. Social media will have arrived as a bona fide industry.

I was driving into work this morning with the sun shining right into my view of the road. Very bright and blinding.

Sometimes the passion for a new communication model also can blind us from everything else. We forget traditional models and time-tested approaches for forming interpersonal relationships in our blind promotion of a new idea.

Yesterday I had the privilege of talking to a group of professionals who do not use Twitter or Facebook and really hadn’t taken the time to clue into social media. Yes, I know, shocking. Or was it.

For these individuals, person-to-person contact remains a high priority. They just hadn’t caught the fever for the social communication tools. A year ago roughly 600,000 people used Twitter. Today more than 6,000,000 use the service. It has grown rather quickly in just a few months. So forgive my colleagues for taking a slow approach. They still value communication and networking; they just haven’t jumped into the fray.

Peter Shankman addressed a Ragan Social Media Conference last week in Las Vegas and essentially told the group to forget the hype because there is no such thing as social media. There is just communication, period. Twitter extends interpersonal communication. It allows you to carry on a conversation and extend into new areas. Never forget that communication is the key and don’t refuse to meet someone or put them down because they don’t use Twitter, Facebook, Stumble Upon or even email. Social media communication may seem clear to you, but again, you may be blinded by the light.