Another conversation from a marketer who thinks they can control the message. Sigh. I wonder what his company’s customers would say if they heard him saying, “I have more control then my customers do.”
Many marketers and businesses think they have control, and they don’t. It’s a marketer’s classic error to think they have control. I find it funny that this is an illusion that many large companies have and all of the smaller companies follow suit. Small to medium enterprises are the organizations that can least afford this pompous attitude.
Whenever I hear this opinion, I can tell someone hasn’t spent significant time in sales. And that’s a problem because marketing supports sales. It’s also a very good reason why in a downturn, marketing is the first to go. They don’t understand relationships.
Just because your company is talking doesn’t mean anyone is listening. Buyers rarely pay attention or voice anything when things are going right. They only care when their needs aren’t met. Yes, their exceptions to the general rule (Apple and Harley Davidson comes to mind, though my Harley Road king was not a great bike. Yet don’t these companies serve and fulfill needs, not message vacuums?).
We must always remember that buyers have the wallets… Money is the ultimate control. Companies have to serve consumers in order to get them to purchases. In essence, companies are trusted to resolve a need. I’ve sold more than $35 million of marketing services to companies, and I can tell you it wasn’t because of message control. It was because people trusted my companies could do the job. In that sense, I totally agree with Doc Searls: There is no market for messages.
When companies don’t serve customers and start shoving product (and messages) in controlled atmospheres, they ultimately fail. They forget that no company starts or continues without a sale. What was assumed to be control was granted by a buyer in trust. It can be taken away when trust is violated. And customer bases erode.
What social media has done is accelerated the process, but buyers were voting with their feet (and wallets) a long time before blogs started. Think Sears, Detroit auto, IBM consumer products, AT&T phones, on and on.
Let me apologize for using video (four minutes) instead of writing this out. A bad case of Carpal Tunnel tonight prevented full blog post writing. I will write up a full piece on blogger relations for Media Bullseye in the next couple of days.
At the behest of several followers on Twitter (follow me here), here’s a primer on Wikipedia astroturf and reputation management. Wikipedia entries are generated by readers who post entries on topics they care about or edit entries with or in need of more information. The power of Wikipedia cannot be underestimated. The site is currently the number 9 most visited site in the world according to Alexa, and is always a perennial Google search favorite.
Articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by r eliable sources).
That means companies, campaigners, PR firms and other hired guns cannot edit themselves (or clients) or add their own entries. To do so is considered Astroturfing. Most notably, Microsoft got busted astroturfing on an open-source entry, prompting a public outcry against the ethics violation.
Astroturfing is a slang term for false PR or fake social media in the blogosphere. No PR or marketing person wants to be dubbed an astroturfer. Wikipedia (not normally a great source) dubs astroturfing as, “formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising that seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior.”
Compared to this definition, astroturfing in the blogosphere can be considered three shades slimier. Much of the ethical bantering in the marketing and PR blogosphere tends to revolve around astroturfing or corporate social media-related incidents. And these incidents tend to have a mushroom cloud hovering above them.
A lot of companies engage in astroturfing, most claiming ignorance when they are caught. But believe me, no one should engage in this practice because if caught, it forever taints your brand reputation. So don’t be quick to muddy the waters. And if you think you can edit Wikipedia addresses anonymously, think again. Wikiscanner demonstrates how editors trace IP address owners.
Wikipedia Reputation Management
Is there such a thing? Difficulties in protesting WIkipedia postings openly and honestly have gotten to the point that most of the major PR firms allow their current wikipedia entries to be half-false.
Because of the encyclopedia’s adamant policy against corporate-based information (representing a conflict of interest), companies have to suck it up more often than not. WIkipedia will only create unbiased entries.
In order to be successful with a contested entry, lots of third party information has to be provided. So companies have to cite legal documents, public records, journalist accounts, and other points of view published on the Internet if they want to contest an entry. In many cases, companies will not be able to provide this kind of factual accounting to write their ship. In fact that’s what caused Microsoft to engage in its astroturfing incident.
Wales said the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a “white paper” on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside Web site and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles’ discussion forums.
This is an OK way to handle it, and you should make sure any counter points are posted on the corporate blog in case someone searches your site for more information. You also have to combat the Wikipedia results that Google will serve. For an excellent read on Search Engine reputation management I recommend this post from Andy Beal, “Ten Ways to Fix a Google Reputation Nightmare.”
There’s a ton of market research coming out revealing continued increases in consumer use of social networks and other social media forms. Most of these numbers show the United States is experiencing numbers that put it in the early majority phase of the adoption cycle, as outlined in to Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory.
54% of Americans use social networking sites, chat rooms or message boards to socialize.
54% of those surveyed said they are creating their own entertainment content by editing photos, videos or music.
45% are making the content for others to see.
45% have a profile on a social networking site.
38% of Americans are watching TV shows online.
The Deloitte “State of Media Democracy” report holds the most bullish numbers I’ve seen to date. While they represent a sampling of the population (more than 2,000), the numbers are hard to deny. Other studies confirm the trend.
eMarketer offers more conservative, but still very high usage numbers, estimated that 38% of the population uses social network sites regularly.
Through friend Jim Turbin at Ignite Social Media (a great blog, subscribe now!), we have access to another study. According to the report by Strategy Analytics, more than one billion broadband users will be actively using social media applications by 2012, which is only 5 years from now. Currently, there are estimated to be 373 million users worldwide.
An October Forrester study claimed that 60% of active web users look to blogs and user-generated media as “more trustworthy” than corporate web sites, press releases, etc.
What Does Early Majority Mean?
All of these numbers show higher usage numbers, and that social media has become an acceptable content form for a significant portion of the U.S. population. It’s apparent that Americans see participatory media as a viable alternative to their already existing set of media options. It doesn’t mean that old media forms are going away (at least most of them), but the competition for consumer eyeballs has intensified.
I became intimate with Roget’s Diffusion Theory at Georgetown University as part of my graduate work. Early majority means the era of early adopters is over, that the innovation in question has hit mainstream consumption. The innovation is no longer perceived as risky or brand new, and has become accepted within the adopting culture as a viable alternative.
One outcome of the early majority phase for social media can be increased usage across more risk-adverse and conservative segments of society. So folks who are not necessarily afraid to try things, but want proven services will start dabbling.
For example, my 85 year-old grandmother joined Skype last week, and my 67 year-old father in law has active Facebook and Flickr profiles. Neither of these two are big technology wizards, but they are both active readers and use the Internet.
The future is never certain, and social media adoption rates could stagnate today, or even retreat. But it’s quite incredible to see numbers in the 30-60 percentile range. One must wonder where the numbers will be by July 4th. And dare we ask, will we be looking at the late majority phase by the end of the year?
While we like to focus on the business impact, there’s a larger trend demonstrating social media’s dramatic new influence on traditional media. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that fan generated media plays an increasing role in sports coverage.
In several respects, what the Internet-based blogs — or “fan-generated media” — chatted about in 2007 mirrored the major story lines of the stick-and-ball sports that dominated newspaper pages and TV ratings, according to Kathleen Hessert, the company’s founder.
But in other instances — such as the remarks that cost Don Imus his wildly popular radio show — bloggers were ahead of the mainstream media, buzzing about the comments disparaging Rutgers women’s basketball players for days before it became national news.
We’ve seen some great sports blogs arise in the past year, including several player blogs like Curt Schilling’s 38 Pitches and Gilbert Arenas’ All Star Blog. A Technorati search yesterday revealed 1,076 blogs related to the Red Sox. Here in Washington, there are 295 blogs dedicated to the Redskins. These blogs have provided great venues for fans to voice their opinions about their teams. And capture a larger community perception about the stories they care about.
Ultimately, the media serves its readership (though some will say they serve their advertisers). That’s why all publications worth their salt have editorial missions.
By monitoring their readerships’ content — and more important their commentary — reporters can better serve their readership with stories they care about. In fact, the story can offer greater context and authority to the larger issue because a reporter is a professional subject to editorial review and fact checking, at least the better publications (Photo taken by me at AT&T Park).
In a phone discussion, Chris Heuer commented, “It’s really great. Because now with social media the media has more source material. Before they pretty much were limited to PR sources, the wires services, and police reports for story generation.”
In life, when you endeavor to write a book and subsequently serve its readership, you make personal sacrifices. For me, I have largely given up following sports, in particular baseball and basketball. It’s my hope that when (or if) Now Is Gone winds down to re-engage as a fan, and perhaps re-purpose Now Is Gone time into a sports blog.
My personal favorite sports blog is 38 Pitches. An old Schilling fan from my years in Philadelphia, I always felt the media gave him a bad rap for being too vociferous. 38 Pitches, which regularly has hundreds of comments on each post, lets Schill call it like he sees it. Oh man, does he ever.
Schill has called out the media, his colleagues and himself, regularly. He highlights experience of pitching, and a players viewpoint of the game, giving us a rare view of a future Hall-of-Famer’s experiences. In the process he has become a hero, and now the media reports on his views as an industry leader as opposed to a loose cannon.
On Twitter, a few friends highlighted their favorite sports blogs:
Sports Media Challenge provided the Washington Post much of its data for the story. The company also maintains an index of top sports blogs. Check it out!
Global neighborhoods continue to evolve. Social media grows in every country, but in unique ways as each culture and political system allows. A trip trip to Egypt revealed a vibrant and unique social media scene dominated by Facebook.
Internet access in developing countries like Egypt usually occurs on mobile phones, the primary access point for most users. Simple text-based platforms like m.facebook.com make social media easy and natural. New mobile phones sold today in Egypt offer the social network as a menu option, a great means of driving data traffic for local carriers.
Some of the friends I made in Egypt thought millions of local citizens were on the network. Indeed, within the Egypt network there are more than 300,000 members alone (Total population is close to 80 million people). And not everyone joins they’re local geographic network. There are country and culture specific applications, like Quran Verses.
Other forms of social media like blogging are gaining popularity in Egypt, too. Arabic blogs take precedence, but there are some English blogs as well.
Unfortunately, the Egyptian government, led by President Mubarek, monitors posts. Sources said that bloggers who criticize the government have been visited in the middle of the night, and sometimes disappear. This continues the Mubarek regime’s censure policy. So Egyptian blogging has its dangers, too.
My new friends also indicated that almost all age groups are enjoying Facebook. But my visits to three Internet cafes revealed a primary user audience in its 20s and 30s. One cafe seemed to be filled with hard core gamers and video users. Pretty cool.
The world of social media allows pundits, citizens and even the neighborhood traffic cop to position themselves as an expert. Often, experts can claim authority, write manifestos and command attention, even though their thoughts are based on opinion rather than fact. Social media enables virtual gurus.
In many ways, this aspect of social media makes it an attractive communications option for business. They can discuss matters with their stakeholders directly and leverage their subject matter expertise to build value. Consider that Bob Lutz started GM’s Fastlane blog so he could cut out the media and talk directly to consumers.
At the same time, businesses who are beginning to explore social media forms and possible consultants will find many vapor gurus. For example yesterday, Chip Griffin stated that blogs don’t need RSS to be successful. Or that you don’t need comments to make a blog. In that case, publish a web 1.0 newsletter on your web site.
A blog without an RSS feed limits itself from potential viral activity and long-term growth. It’s a foolish marketing move to publish without providing as many distribution mechanisms as possible. Otherwise an organization loses the ability to update customers in a form they want. Consider how Cisco has seen a nine times increase in PR readership using RSS.
On the comments front, Griffin cites Marc Andressen’s blog as an example. Others use Seth Godin. Both of these figures are national celebrities who command attention by simply saying something. Nowhere in Griffin’s comments discussion does he offer an example of a small to medium or even a large corporate social media initiative that’s been successful without comments. Just the rock stars.
Takeaways
More than ever vapor gurus stress the need to deliver cases studies and real world examples to back opinions up. Chip’s column sparked great discussion, but there were no examples of everyday companies who have had great successes using his suggestions. His suggestions may be correct or demonstrate that there is no black or white truths (just shades of gray), but where are the proof points? For the record, Chip has Fortune 500 experience and says he will back his post up with examples. We look forward to it.
Businesses who don’t want to be perceived or challenged as a vapor guru need to back their manifestos and opinions up with facts. This is no different than traditional marketing or public relations, which should use a healthy dose of case studies to build credibility.
In addition, businesses considering social media consultants should demand to see actual real world experiences and successes. Perhaps that was the greatest aspect of last week’s B.L. Ochman column about discerning the real consultant from the vapor guru. In that column, B.L. published links to several case studies, which she has graciously agreed to allow us to republish here.
These case studies will be added to the Case Studies tab on Now Is Gone over the weekend (Thanks, B.L.):
o Hugh Macleod at gapingvoid has done a spectacular job of marketing Stormhoek wine entirely through blogs and social networking.
o Crispin Porter, who created phenomenal, viral Subservient Chicken for Burger King, but who never did anything as successful, clever or interesting since.
The site has garnered about 14 million unique visitors and 396 million hits to date. It went viral in a matter of hours, simply being emailed to a few friends, who sent it to a few friends, etc. etc. Adweek has a case study here
o ITToolbox, who’ve grown their social network for IT professionals into multi-million business with more than $8 million in ad sales.
o Brains on Fire, who created the Fiskateers for Fiskars, who make crafting tools. Branded mentions of Fiskars products are up more than 400% on a per-week basis since the program began. The program, which now has more than 1,200 members has successfully de-commoditized Fiskars tools and made crafters value them beyond price.
o B.L. Ochman (hey, this is no place for modesty.) I’ve created the first Up Your Budget Treasure Hunt for Budget Car Rental in 2005, the first ever blog-based viral marketing campaign, promoted entirely through bloggers and blog advertising - with no traditional marketing whatsoever.
The results: one million unique visits to the site, 2,000 registered treasure hunters, and over 10 million page views in only four weeks. The clue videos were downloaded a total 43,000 times. There were 19.9 million blog advertising impressions at an average cost of 33 cents (Compared to $1.62 per click on AOL Instant Messenger).
Since then, campaigns BL Ochman & Company have created for clients include:
o Ethics Crisis, where visitors can anonymously confess the most unethical thing they ever did in business and be rated by other readers;
o Clutter Control Freak Blog for stacksandstacks.com, which achieved 1,500 daily uniques within a month of launch;
o Wife in the Fast Lane, a contest for Simon & Schuster author Karen Quinn;
o a blog advertising campaign for American Greetings that achieved clickthru rates as high as 5.7%
o and a soon-to-be-launched how-to blog for a Fortune 1000 fiber maker.
o Oddcast, who’ve produced the wonderful Monk-e-mail for careerbuilder.com, and who recycles their technology into a variety of effective interactive campaigns for a variety of clients.
P.S. Both Now Is Gone and the reviews tab have case studies for my company and personal experiences.
Astroturf - a campaign that cloaks the efforts of an interested entity under the guise of genuine grass-roots public response.
It’s not easy being green. Fake green is easier, until it is exposed and you get “brown.”
There are many others who have written about poor astroturfing efforts - from Walmart Across America to Whole Foods’ “Harobed”. The perpetrators of these efforts to influence through guile have had their hands appropriately slapped, and business goes on. I’m not out to excuse what they’ve done, but rather to explain the origin of the impulse to pull the rug over the mud.
The News of Democracy
In my day job, I see the occasional article critical of my employer. I also monitor articles critical of others in the non-profit sector. And often, the interesting piece isn’t in the story itself, but rather in the comment stream tied to the story. Typically, you’ll find a few comments of shock, horror, dismay, or sympathy. Increasingly, we’re seeing comments that either refer to “facts” or allegations that were not present in the original news item. Sometimes they link to a blogpost, but more often they are unattributed and are posted by an unsigned party.
This isn’t the work of trained PR professionals who are using every tool (and buzzword) to leverage their clients story. This is a reaction from ordinary people who happen to have passionate feelings about an issue for one reason or another. And yet they don’t sign their names, as though there would be some repercussion for owning that end of a conversation.
In a few of these instances, I’ve known enough of the backstory to realize these “facts” could only come from someone very close to the incident. They are trying to introduce information that is not presented in the story, and that only an interested party with an agenda might know. No PR person involved - just homespun astroturfing at play.
Citizen Reporters?
I do know that newspapers have been slow, measured, and tortured in their response to the internet. Slow and measured seems to be working, as they adjust their business models and editorial schedules to meet the new expectations in the marketplace. The ‘tortured’ part refers to the begrudging nature of loosening the grip of editorial control, by allowing comments. Comment streams on news sites can be a great way to create a sense of community, to increase participation, and to generate additional page views. But it also creates a new backchannel that doesn’t fall within the traditional editorial function, because the community of blog commenters don’t expect the same level of scrutiny the reporters would get.
It’s an interesting decision. Do we allow anonymous comments? Keep an email address on file? Heavily moderated? Who has the time?
In the comment streams I see, alleged “facts” are being dropped into the comments without any attribution. They are being debated just as rigorously as the items specifically cited by the reporter. And rarely is there an admonition to the jury to “strike that last remark,” even though the question has been asked, and the damage done.
The Enemy Within
No one needed to teach these people how to twist and manipulate a comment stream. And I’m not talking about the majority of civic-minded people who want to express themselves - just those who have an additional vested interest, and are pretending to be bystanders. The impulse is within us all.
It’s not necessarily borne of a desire to manipulate. Nor is it shame, or trying to duck the consequences of sticking up for the point in contention. It’s a desire to belong, and have others agree.
If “Jeff” has a personal stake in a news item about a family member, he just wants to have his viewpoint represented. However, if he posts as “Jeff,” then he’s a lone voice. If he posts as “Bryan”, well at least there is someone else agreeing with him out there. And just maybe, “Bryan” can attract some followers too.
We see it in blogs, and in message boards, and we suspect it but often can’t prove it. People logging in multiple times under different names, and carrying forth a sad conversation with themselves. It’s comforting to see agreement, and to know that others who read will feel moved by the level of dialogue and support. It’s borne of a sense of belonging.
Newspaper sites can do us all a favor by recognizing this reality. Yes, it takes a little extra time to moderate the comments. Yes, it is an additional hurdle to ask for an email address for all commenters. Yes, it’s even more time to ensure that the email address is valid. Once past those steps, you could still allow for anonymity, but knowing there is a real person to reach out to if there are additional questions. Those steps alone would cut down on the imposition of neuroses on comment threads. They would also yield editorial gains for reporters who might use the comments to find ancillary sources for follow up stories.
It’s in the DNA
The impulse to Astroturf is in our DNA. It’s always been there, lodged in the part of our brain that makes us social creatures. If we don’t recognize that, we run the risk of enabling non-genuine activity on the sites and communities we build.
This lack of vetting is what places “lowly bloggers” so far down the food chain of news. It takes time and effort to build a reputation for accuracy, neutrality, and consistency. Yet the newspaper sites - by mimicing the conversation of blogs without vetting the content - threaten to sever one of the remaining advantages they own over the citizen journalist.
Chris Brogan and B.L. Ochman had outstanding posts last week providing guidance to companies looking for social media consultants. In B.L.’s post, she writes, “How do you tell the experts from the snake oil salesmen?”
I cannot tell you how timely these posts are. Marketing organizations are increasingly interested in social media, and to keep their businesses going, marketing and PR consultants are hanging the social media shingle out their doors. But they have no or little experience, and have not done the hard work to learn their lessons.
Here in the Washington region, many PR and marketing firms claim to offer social media services. Consider some of my experiences with some of them over the past 6 mos:
Competitor offering full suite of social media does coffee. We offer to train them, they say they don’t need our help. Then competitor blogs the conversation — without permission. Competitor only updates blog once a month, little readership, and a technorati authority of 1.
A second graphic design firm promises a blog template, but has not heard of WordPress
Local “outsourced CMO” suddenly turns into a blogging expert… With no successes or track record.
The list can go on and on… Separating the Wheat from the Chaffe
Some folks believe newcomers shouldn’t be allowed to the table. I disagree. Social media tools can be learned in several months, but it has to be processed and experienced. Most folks get out there and participate on their own name before applying lessons to others. Don’t let a consultant experiment on your dollar. Ask good questions to discern whether or not they’ve done it.
It’s a mistake to accept someone as an expert if they have a blog or have written an article or two. Consider my local competitor that blogged our conversation. They were recently featured in a top PR trade pub offering an “expert opinion” on video social media. You have to dig deeper.
B.L. suggested working with:
- People with clients who actually pay them to create social media campaigns.
- People whose ROI-driven campaigns actually produce traffic and sales.
- People who create campaigns that are more than a clueless ad agency’s flash in the pan, gimmick, soon forgotten stunt or just plain dim.
In addition, you can augment the initial qualification process with the following:
Some social media campaigns are designed to brand and educate as opposed to creating sales. What kind of measures where used? Dive deep and ensure the conversation was predominantly positive.
Similarly if they sell Facebook apps as a panacea, stay away from them.
Ask them if they’ve heard of second-tier social network services like Utterz, Seesmic and Ning. A blank face means they are not staying on top of trends.
Everyone claims to be successful. Look at how they treat their own social media efforts. Do they have a Facebook profile with significant numbers of friends? Successful Second Life or Twitter initiative? Where is their blog ranked on Technorati? Is anyone linking to them, and if so, positively? Again, dive deep.
Lastly, before signing on a consultant, examine their clients’ social media efforts in depth, and demand client references. Don’t ask, “What did you think?” Get into the campaign and find out what really happened and how it impacted their business.
P.S. For those of you who do not know B.L. and Chris, BL is the #1 ranked female marketing blogger on the Ad Age 150. Chris is one of the first established bloggers (since 1998), and a premier social media mind.
P.S.S. Yes, I know Technorati is not a precise measurement tool. Radian6 and BuzzLogic are better services if you can pay for them. Know of a better free tool? Tell us below.
Tomorrow morning AccuQuote, Cisco Systems, The Coca-Cola Company, Dell, Gemstar-TV Guide, General Motors, Kaiser Permanente, Microsoft, Nokia, SAP, Starwood Hotels & Resorts and Wells Fargo will announce the formations of “The Blog Council.” These top global brands want to promote best practices in corporate blogging.
Issues the Council says it will address:
How do global brands manage blogs in more than one language?
What do you do when 2000 employees have personal blogs?
What is the role of the corporate brand in a media landscape increasingly geared toward consumer-generated media?
What is the correct way to engage and respond to bloggers who write about your company?
Here’s an interesting statement from the release:
The Blog Council exists as a forum for executives to meet one another in a private, vendor-free environment and share tactics, offer advice based on past experience, and develop standards-based best practices as a model for other corporate blogs.
That fascinates me. It tells me companies want a discussion without biased commentary from PR firms, bloggers and consultants (like me) that want their business. And at the same time maybe they want to talk about things like when to get support from consultants and PR firms, how to “manage” disgruntled consumers, astroturfing incidents etc., without catching a bunch of grief about being unethical.
In a separate FAQ document, the council stated, “Big companies have unique issues when blogging. There isn’t really any other forum that focuses on the needs of this group.”
I admit that’s probably true. And it’s probably a great idea to vet best practices. Some companies probably feel safer doing that in private.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that these discussions are taking place behind closed doors? Are we back to Command and Control? One thing is clear. Transparency is not going to be at a premium.
A word of caution to the Council. It would be really unfortunate if this council produced a questionable community management principles document. Please be sure to vet best practices with enough members of the communities you want to manage.
As Shel said this morning, “Don’t pitch the conversational network. Join it. Start your own blog… Be part of the conversation so that we bloggers can see who you are and what yo do and what you have to say.”
Chris Brogan
