Step into my minefield. Because, yes, I am going to comment on the Kathy Sierra/meankids blogstorm, and I already know that many of my friends will not agree with me. But I will soldier on.
I’m appalled that Kathy Sierra got death threats, as I would be about anyone who got death threats. I think the posts about Maryam Scoble and Ms. Sierra were vile and wholeheartedly agree with the critcisms of them. They cross the line. Legitimate, satirical criticism of the ideas of a public figure is one thing. Personal, vicious attacks are another. Especially under a cloak of anonymity.
I feel for Ms. Sierra, and anyone else who has been the victim of similar abuse and threats, and in no way want to dismiss their feelings or encourage on- or off-line misogyny. However, the public linkage of the anonymous death threats to the meankids site contributors disturbs me. It is trying these people in the court of public opinion, where, let’s be frank, the standards of evidence are not so strict.
"Tell me sir, when did you stop beating your wife?"
Now, I don’t know any of the antagonists in this tale particularly well other than through their public writing. I’ve exchanged a few emails over the past couple of years with ChrisLocke, mostly about our mutual obsession with the television show Battlestar Galactica. I worked with Jeneane Sessum once on a teleconference organized by mutual friend Toby Bloomberg. That’s it. I don’t know Frank Paynter, Alan Herrell or Kathy Sierra personally at all. Until this disaster, I would say that they were all highly respected in the blogosphere. Now?
The wisdom of crowds has been replaced by the rule of the mob, which has tried and convicted Locke and friends, without really bothering all that much about the other side of the story. That this other side includes the fact that they were part of the meankids, and some were part of the successor uncle bob (or whatever it was called), doesn’t seem to be in much dispute. As such, perhaps they share responsibility, whether they wrote the posts or not, for the unpleasant posts about Ms. Scoble and Ms. Sierra.
But it is a gigantic leap to then link them, by name, to the anonymous death threats. To be fair, Ms. Sierra’s post did not accuse them, but the inference is definitely there. And that’s pretty much what the blog mob went with. Everything got muddled together, and the rush to judgment was intense.
One could be guilty simply by association. For example, BlogHer, mentioned in Ms.Sierra’s post, came in for a little mob abuse. Read BlogHer co-founder Lisa Stone’s excellent response.
I even got my small share simply because I had linked to meankids once, in its very early days when it had some amusing stuff related to the whole Locke/Tara Hunt blog spat. The site didn’t stay at that level of satire, and I soon stopped reading it. Nevertheless, on Monday, someone left a snide comment on my blog implying that I was involved. I corrected that assumption immediately in my comments, but started to think: What does this mean for linking, for the conversation, if you run the risk of being held accountable for the actions of another site? Especially as in this case, when it diverges from what you liked, and linked, initially.
Now, let’s turn from the rule of the mob to the offensive posts themselves.
Did meankids get a whole lot meaner? Apparently. Was bad judgment used? Probably. Do dark corners exist on the Web that exploit women, children, minorities? Absolutely. Is hate speech alive on the Internet? No question. I spent 10 years of my career working in the Internet and spam filtering industry and I can assure you, I have seen just about everything you can imagine. And some stuff you can’t.
Were the posts about Ms. Scoble and Ms. Sierra vile, beyond the pale, bordering on hate speech? Absolutely. Did they "ask for it," simply by being public persons? Absolutely not, and anyone who makes that argument has missed the point completely. They don’t deserve such abuse and neither does anyone else. However, as Michelle Malkin pointed out, it happens all the time. Public persons have to deal with everything from spoof and gossip Web sites to obscene snail and email, stalkers and the occasional death threat. Sometimes, it is intended to be funny and unfortunately crosses that fine line between humour and hate. Sometimes the material is simply hurtful. And sometimes, it is as, or more, unpleasant than the photoshopped images of Ms. Sierra.
When we blog under our own names, bloggers become public figures . When you become a public person, you give up some small measure of your privacy in exchange for recognition, celebrity, fame, etc. For most of us, the exchange is a positive one; we get more than we lose. Most of the time. But we can’t pick and choose what parts of recognition we want, and what parts we don’t. It just doesn’t work that way. It’s like the movie star who drives his way to the top, gets the fame and fortune he wanted, and then complains that the fans invade his privacy.
It’s not right that we have to deal with trolls and hate speech and all those other things that come with being a public person. But absent a complete and total cultural shift, we have to deal with it. It is part of the price. We only can choose HOW we deal with it.
I agree with Michelle Malkin, and as a die-hard liberal, you know how hard that was for me to write. From her blog post referenced above:
"My response to this and other endless slurs and threats–most empty, some serious–has been two-fold:
You can also choose to not be a public person. By blogging anonymously or in a gated community. Or by not blogging at all. But if you want the goodness that comes with being a well-read, well-respected blogger and expert in your field, you’ve got to be prepared for the badness. And as we’ve seen, it can get pretty bad.
And there is a corollary to this: you can’t just get upset about bad behavior when it affects your "friends." You have to be just as willing to stand up and say it is wrong when it is your "enemy" being attacked as when it is your friend.
Now, today is "stop cyber bullying day," and I think that’s a terrific idea. But the problem is, we have to do things for more than one day. If you are appalled at violence against women, don’t just write a post and make some noise this week. Do something tangible next week, and the week after that, and the week after that. Instead of selling your old clothes on eBay, donate them to a local woman’s shelter. Volunteer. Cancel your subscription to Maxxim. Whatever.
Cyber bullying bad? Sure it is. Stop it. And don’t limit your definition of cyber bullying to just those behaviors that you don’t like, done by the people you don’t like. Cyber bullying doesn’t have to be obscene or profane. It can simply be throwing your weight, and your words, around with an intent to dominate the discussion.
I’ve used Twitter for a few weeks now. While I am still far from being a zealot, I have found more value in the service than I initially perceived. As I noted in a previous post, it can be a good way to tap into the collective mind. Assuming of course that the folks you are twittering with have them. Minds Of course, everyone on my Twitter friends list is brilliant.
I’ve also subscribed to a few Twitter news feeds (BBC, Techmeme), and find that this is a useful way of getting the news headlines, not unlike the old ticker.
What I find most disconcerting is also the thing that I find both the most interesting, and ultimately what (IMO) makes Twitter useful as a social network.
It is this: Following the thread of the conversation is not always easy.
And I don’t mean because sometimes (often?) it is mundane stuff like what people ate for breakfast and where they are driving or what animal they’ve changed their Twitter icon to.
Apart from the short form, text-message like nature of Twitter, the other thing that distinguishes Twitter from other social networks I have been a part of is that all Twitter-ers aren’t part of the same group. Those of you that use Twitter already know what I mean. For those that don’t, I’ll try to explain.
Basically, I have a group of Twitter friends whose messages I follow. That’s my reference group, and I see all their public Twitters. But many of my friends have different friends than I do; they are part of other, different groups. Yet, if my friend posts a public Twitter in response to something that I haven’t seen because the original poster is not on my list, I will see it.
Let me make it more concrete. Sam is my friend. Sally is my friend. But Sam and Sally do not know each other. At least on Twitter. Sam posts something erudite and brilliant in his 140 characters. I respond with a public Twitter. All my friends see it, including Sally. But Sally has NO IDEA what I am responding to. That’s the disconcerting part.
But Twitter lets her follow the trail of my friends to see that it was Sam who said the initial brilliant thing. At that point, she can decide if she’d like to add Sam to her Twitter friends.
And that is the interesting part of all this Twittering — how it lets us expand our social networks exponentially. I’ve "met" some folks on Twitter that I might not have otherwise.
So, count me in the column of folks who appreciate the social networking value of Twitter. I will continue to post occasionally and follow the conversation as best I can.
But… I still don’t know how much value it has a business tool, and whether the value outweighs the potential or perceived productivity issues. I worked in the Internet and spam filtering industry for 10 years, and I’ll bet that the web filters will block Twitter, if they haven’t already. Even if there is long-term business value, the perception of time sink will drive many businesses to prohibit at-work Twittering. They won’t wait for things to shake out and a broader value to surface. And please don’t shoot the messenger if I’m the first person who has brought this up. Right or wrong is not relevant; it’s just what’s bound to happen.
This week, I joined the Ning PR group started by Tom Murphy. Report in a few weeks as I explore the world of Ning.
Well, I’ve been twittering for the last week or so, and I am going to put this one squarely in the "different strokes for different folks" category. It just doesn’t consume me the way it clearly has somanyothers.
I don’t blog in bursts. My posts tend to be longer, essay-type posts, rather than short newsy commentary. So, Twitter couldn’t be a replacement for my blog. That said, I do see two benefits to a Twitter network of reasonable size. First, it should tend to cut down on the one-two line emails, either to one individual or a group of friends, and the one-two line back-and-forth comments that sometimes occur on blogs. Instead, just "twit it." Second, if you are looking for a source or a reference, and just can’t find what you need, Twitter allows you to tap into the collective mind more quickly than other tools. So I’ll keep "twitting" once or twice a day and watch where it goes. More thoughts from Elisa Camahort, Jeneane Sessum, Phil Gomes.
Enough about Twitter. BlogHer Business is this Thursday and Friday in NYC. Registration closes tonight at midnight. Lots of great sessions, including one on the social media press release. It will be interesting to see if this panel can answer my question about how the proposed new formats help us deliver better content.
And finally, my fellow Battlestar fans — has it rocked this month or what? Reminds me of the show I initially fell in love with more than it has in a while, although I have not disliked this season as much as others have I am of course totally spoiled for the last episode. Email me if you want to know <evil grin>
I attended the New Comm Forum session on the Social Media Press Release, but lucky for you, I am not going to report on it. Othershavealreadydone so, and quite frankly, not much new was said. Read this blog, read Chris Heuer’s stuff, read Todd Defren’s blog PR Squared, read Brian Solis, Kami Huyse and Robert French. You’ll have the gist. Of both the session and some of the questions raised.
I’m still of the mind that this new format is a solution in search of a problem. Not that there isn’t value in providing links to additional information. Or del.icio.us pages for background. Or images without requiring the writer — journalist or blogger — to navigate multiple levels of security just for the privilege to access the "stuff." All of this is terrific… for the reporter who wants it. For a story that merits it.
But it just seems so complex. Unnecessarily complex.
The fundamental problem with public relations is a content problem. Bad, poorly targeted pitches. Poorly written press releases. Worse, content-free, news-free, jargon laden releases. I want to know how this new format will help solve this problem.
When I asked this of the panel at New Comm — how does this format make a better pitch, help the journalist write a better story, I got two answers. One which I am about to reject, full stop, in this post. And the other edging toward a real response.
First, the answer I do not accept. The gist:
Absolutely, content is an issue. But we are separating format from content in this discussion, they say. Focusing on format, and how this new format benefits companies, bloggers and journalists by making releases more accessible, easier to find in search engines, easier to parse.
To which I politely say, bull. Search engine optimization is in NO WAY a sufficient answer. I cannot count how many odd sounding Web sites I’ve stumbled across in the last few years because folks were "optimizing" instead of focusing on telling a good compelling story on their Web site that would drive someone to, umm, buy something. And we want the press release to follow suit? Why? The current format is causing enough problems, with companies shoehorning non-news into releases with a big TA-DUH. I really don’t see why we need a new format that can be just as content-free as the old. But with links.
Now, the better answer.
It was an example of a pharmaceutical company which issued an important release, but in the usual fashion. Images and so forth were reserved to credentialed members of the press who contacted the company. However, the topic was of vast interest to many, many bloggers who had to resort to whatever clip art and images they could find to illustrate their posts. The story would have been far better served if the company had made their materials widely available.
YES!! This tells me how the new format helps tell a better story. Let’s stay here for a minute.
With all my skepticism, I actually do think the proposed new formats could help us solve the press release content problem. They make us chunk up the story, so if you are looking, you can clearly see if there is no there, there. But only if we are looking. Willing to let it help us tell a better story. If all we are worried about is SEO and whether we have a del.icio.us page, we will not get there. And quite frankly, if we make this a "big thing," corporate PR departments are going to run for the hills. I know. I managed one for years.
We have to embrace this in baby steps. Instead of presenting this as THE social media press release, we have to think about it as a toolkit, a process.
First, let’s open up the corporate media room. Understand that releasing a few images without authentication won’t kill the story for the more exclusive media outlets. Hold those back for the top targets, by all means. The bloggers and third tier media won’t care. They’ll just be happy that they got what they needed without standing on their heads.
Now, let’s keep the baby and the bathwater, and deep six all the jargon. Stop "leveraging synergies" and start "working together." Convince our clients and our companies to communicate in human language. Preferably with a minimum of BS, but yeah, I know….
Everybody benefits from clearer writing. Make sure there is some real news, and tell me WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN WHY and maybe HOW.
And if in all this, a different, "social media formatted" press release makes sense for your audience, whether journalists, bloggers or both, by all means, go for it. But let’s not leave corporate communicators with the impression that they have to go all the way to the (all caps) SOCIAL MEDIA NEWS RELEASE in order to get this right.
They don’t. All they really have to do is understand that the world now contains a whole new class of reporters, bloggers, and that all their reporters, whether bloggers or professional journalists, appreciate open, clear, honest and hassle free communications.
At New Comm Forum, about half the folks I know were already Twitter addicts, and the other half could be summed up as "yeah, we’ve heard of it but WHY?"
Well, peer pressure still works, so most of us that were not using it already have been messing around with it today, myself included.
Here are my thoughts so far: Yes, this could be a gigantic time sink, but I can already see one application — if you are trying to find a bit of information or perhaps a reference to someone who can help you out with a specific issue, Twitter lets you put the question immediately to a large group of people.
I moderated a panel on viral marketing at New Comm Forum: called Viral Marketing: It’s the Message Not the Media. We started with a basic definition of viral marketing, and then used case studies to illustrate what works and what doesn’t. A big thank you to Andy Abramson, Gary Goldhammer and Chris Heuer for joining me on the panel.
I’ve uploaded a PDF of the presentation but here’s the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version:
In order for an endeavor to be viral marketing, it has to be both viral (spread exponentially and usually with some urgency) and marketing (have a clear and understood business objective).
You don’t have to use video, provided you’ve got a good story and you are reaching out to the right people, but video certainly magnifies the effects of a message.
The key is to tell a compelling story to the right community.
The best campaigns include one or more of the following Cs: comedy, charity, contest.
Examples and case studies included Weird Al, Will it Blend, Google, Campbell’s Chunky Click for Cans, Xbox Colony and AXE.
BONUS LINKS: Not in the presentation, because I got the email minutes before the panel started, SciFi Channel just launched a viral campaign for Battlestar Galactica. Fans can use a whole library of sound and video clips to create their own short Battlestar videos and exec producer David Eick will showcase one during an upcoming episode.
In the Q&A at NewComm, we discussed how this campaign will probably do quite well while similar efforts from car manufacturers have backfired, with folks creating highly negative videos. The difference: SciFi is tapping into a tremendously loyal fan base that is already making their own video mashups. This contest just gives them another outlet for their creativity. Plus easier access to the materials they need to make the videos. And yes, my son Douglas and I have already started scripting our offering!
Instead, I am going to focus on a couple of topics, starting with virtual worlds like Second Life. I do have an avatar, and have wandered around a bit, but Second Life didn’t personally grab me the way it has so many of my colleagues. My 6-1/2 year old son was more enthralled than I was.
So when it came to discussions about the viability of virtual worlds as an environment for marketing, as you can imagine, I was a bit of a skeptic. While I’m not crazy about the versioning terms Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, the best way to explain it is that virtual worlds are Web 5.0. We just aren’t there yet.
However, I now believe, more than I did before New Comm Forum, that we will get there. Two things combined to get me there: my son and the New Comm Forum session on Second Life presented by Kami and Linda Zimmer.
First, last weekend, my son discovered Nicktropolis, a virtual world hosted on the Nickleodeon Web site. In Nicktropolis, he can engage with other children and the Nick characters like SpongeBob, Patrick and the Avatar, play games and earn currency which he can then use in various shops throughout the world to furnish his own room. He played on this for hours, and it made up for his previous disappointment that he was too young for Second Life.
More importantly though: he is actively engaging with the Nickleodeon brands in the course of the play. These familiar characters are a large part of the attraction of the world. For him, and this new generation of "digital natives," engaging with brands will be an accepted part of his virtual experience. Now, I certainly hope commercial engagement won’t be all there is, but it will be an integrated and integral part of the experience, not the "sore thumb" that it often appears right now. Because the people playing will expect and understand it, and the companies marketing in the virtual worlds will do a better, more organic job.
Companies will do a better job in large part due to the effort of pioneers like Linda and Kami, who will help us understand how to fit in and "play by the rules" in this new community, this new culture. In their session, they did a great job presenting both the current realities of Second Life as well as the longer term potential for marketers.
One of the things they covered was how useful Second Life is proving to be for education,and particularly distance learning, allowing students to experience the personal interaction with the professor and fellow students that they otherwise miss. And then someone asked about porn. Because porn is pretty rampant in Second Life. You can certainly avoid it, but it is there. That’s one of the reasons Second Life is an adult world.
And I had an AHA moment.
The porn industry is an early adopter of new technologies. First to video, first to the Web. And now among the first to virtual worlds. In part of course, because it keeps getting kicked out. Pushed out of movie theaters onto video. Filtered out on the Web by products like Cyber Patrol.. But also because it is pretty good at following the money. If the commercial pornographers are there — if they think the audience will turn up – virtual worlds absolutely have the potential to deliver returns for more conventional marketers. In fact, I’d bet on it.
AHA:
We’ve got a "leading indicator" in the porn industry.
Virtual worlds like Second Life will be second nature to the new digital natives like my son, at home and at school.
Engaging with companies and their brands in these worlds will be no big deal. Provided of course that the engagement is actually engaging, ie entertaining.
It won’t happen tomorrow. Or even next year. But someday, and probably sooner than we think.
Finally, a real highlight of Thursday night’s New Comm Forum dinner at Roy’s, along with the excellent company and wonderful food, was our transportation — the longest, most tricked out Hummer limo I have ever seen. Damn thing was so big, it fit pretty much our entire group of 20 or so people. Hopefully someone will post some pix.
Next post: more thoughts on 21st century press releases.
The past few days I’ve been thinking about the mini-blogstorm that erupted toward the end of last week about some comments made by JetBlue’s Director of Communications Jenny Dervin. Interviewed in PR Week, she seemed to imply that advice and comments on how to handle the PR around the Valentine’s Day disaster were not at allwelcome by JetBlue CorpComm. In later comments, she clarified that it was "ambulance chasers" looking for the JetBlue business that were not welcome. Sincere comments and advice were valuable; she just didn’t appreciate people pitching the business while she was in the midst of a crisis.
Putting myself in her shoes, I definitely understand the reaction. Trying to do the best one can in the midst of a serious crisis, you don’t want to hear — even remotely — from people implying that they could do it better. Or looking for your job. That doesn’t mean you don’t want advice, or that you ignore well meaning advice because it’s NIH. And the advice I read in many blogs, from many folks that I greatly respect, was in no way "ambulance chasing." Which I am sure Ms. Dervin realizes.
But she didn’t say it very well. And that’s what I’ve been thinking about. As communicators, we have to guard against becoming the story. It is our clients, our companies that should be the story, not us. In this age of constant and relatively shameless, and necessary, self promotion, this is hard. But imperative.
When how we do our jobs, or who we are, becomes more important than the result we achieve for a client or our company, we’ve failed the client, the company.
Now, I certainly don’t think that Ms. Dervin has failed her company. She and her team have done a good job dealing with a real mess. However, I do know that personally, should something similar ever happen to me in future, I’ll be very careful to not become the story myself.
Shifting gears, Sherrilynne Starkie has some great advice about writing leads. Check it out.
As regular readers of this blog know, in addition to marketing, PR, my family and my dogs, I am absolutely passionate about the science fiction/fantasy genre.
My latest obsession is the SciFi series Battlestar Galactica. I’m also a spoiler-whore of the worst kind You know, the kind of person who sometimes reads the end of a book to make sure she’ll like the ending before getting too invested. Anyway, as I was surfing around looking for material to feed my addiction, I discovered an interesting blog written by screenwriter Jane Espenson.
Espenson was a writer on Buffy the Vampire Slayer,Angel and Firefly (other series previously on my must watch list.). She has written a couple of Battlestar eps this season, including last week’s super Dirty Hands.
To the point. Jane in Progess is written for aspiring screenwriters and is chock full of writing tips. Now I am not an aspiring screenwriter, but I find that many of her tips are equally applicable to my work as a marketing and communications professional.
She’s also a great writer, which makes her blog a real pleasure to read. Be sure to check out this post There’s No Such Thing as Tylium
I’ve been pulling together my notes for next week’s New Comm Forum panel on viral marketing and ran into an item on MarketingVOX that just has me scratching my head.
Now, admittedly, I have a bit of a cold today so perhaps I am unusually cranky but I can’t quite figure out what the breaking news is in Social Media Marketing Works Better When It’s Focused, which reports on a blog post by social media marketer advising folks to target their efforts. I don’t have a major problem with the original post, which seems to be a legitimate effort to introduce the basic marketing principle of targeting to a blog readership. I’m just sitting here wondering how someone at MarketingVOX actually thought the idea of targeting was something new….
It’s Marketing 101 level stuff. Would the headline still be news if you dropped the "social media" part (the toolset part) and wrote "Marketing Works Better When it’s Focused?" Right….
I am continually amazed how many folks just don’t seem to understand the same basic marketing principles apply whether you are using social media tools like YouTube and MySpace or the "old stuff" like advertising and direct mail.
Who is our audience, and what is the best way to reach them? How can we target, or narrow, the message, to a specific segment of people so it will have more emotional resonance for them, thus be more likely to lead to purchase. Even when we have a product with broad appeal, every marketer knows (or should know) that the more you can tailor each message to a segment, the more likely you are to succeed. Your basic value may be the same, but the reason someone is attracted to it might be different. The more you can leverage these differences into uniquely targeted campaigns, the easier it will be for the prospective buyer to understand WIIFM (what’s in it for me).
Scattershot marketing has NEVER worked very well. Why would social media be any different??
Of course, everyone on my Twitter friends list is brilliant. 
