We are fortunate to have a top notch pair of Washington lobbyists, Elizabeth Frazee and Sharon Ringley of TwinLogic Strategies, helping Blog with Integrity on a pro bono basis.  They made the initial connection to the FTC for the Town  Hall webinar on the 10th, and earlier this month when I was in DC on other business, they set up a day of meetings  on Capitol Hill.

Our goal was to let policymakers know that, at the grassroots level, bloggers are committed to transparency, disclosure and self-regulation.

We also wanted to show our support for the common sense approach of applying existing law, combined with self regulation, to new technologies, rather than rushing to new, possibly unnecessary legislation. Only if the existing laws cannot adequately address the public’s interest, should we look to new laws.

This is exactly what the FTC has done with the endorsement guidelines. It intends to apply existing law about a certain type of content – a commercial endorsement — to a new form, blogs and social media. We need to let it play out.

On the Hill, we met with staffers for key congressional committees, including commerce and small business. At the FTC, we met with members of Chairman Leibowitz’s staff, and were honored when the Chairman made time to spend a few minutes with us as well. Everyone seemed genuinely interested in the campaign and our ongoing educational program.

Of course, the cynic in me knows it didn’t hurt that we weren’t actively lobbying for something specific.  Most of the time, congressional and agency staffers juggle meetings with interested parties looking for a specific outcome.

We just wanted to make the connection.

What changes do I think the Obama administration will bring? That’s the meme with which I was recently tagged by David Wescott.

Hopefully, there will be a slew of political and policy changes that will make this country a better place to live and less of a joke overseas. Hopefully, we will edge closer to universal health care. Hopefully, the badly-listing ship that is our economy will right itself, the slip-slide of the Supreme Court to the far-right will be reversed and we’ll find a way out of the Iraqi conflict sooner rather than later. But those are all simply hopes for change. There are many more factors at play than one man, one administration and a stirring call to change, “Yes we can.”

What interests me from a marketing and social media perspective is a fundamental change that has already happened that makes these hopes realistic. As David says in his post, Obama understood that the instant communication and connectivity made possible by mobile and social media technologies fundamentally changed the nature of the game:

President-elect Obama didn’t create this change. He’s said so himself. He simply understood its existence. He used the tools people use today to communicate with each other, and by doing so he convinced us he knows politics is not a lecture.

Now he has to prove he gets it, and I’m not just talking about social media. We’re long past the point where you convince people you get it by publishing a blog or putting together a spiffy YouTube channel. They’re just tools. He’ll have to listen and respond. (emphasis mine, not David’s)

Ah, that’s the key. Use the tools to listen. And respond. Not simply to broadcast your point of view.

That’s the real interactive change I see in an incoming Obama administration. The key players — all the way up to the man himself — actively use the tools themselves. One of the top transition stories this week has been whether Obama will be able to keep his beloved Blackberry. An NPR segment yesterday described Attorney General designate Eric Holder as a “technology junkie.” It’s been widely reported that Obama intends to have a laptop in the Oval Office, another first.

Contrast that to an increasingly disconnected, soon-to-be-former President GW Bush who admitted in 2003 that he doesn’t read newspapers and the stunningly uninformed Sarah Palin who couldn’t recall the name of a single newspaper she reads.

This means that there’s a better than average chance that the incoming administration “gets it,” that they understand that our democracy requires a conversation with the American public, not a benevolent (?) dictator deciding what is best for the American public.

It isn’t that they used Twitter in the campaign or that the weekly address to the nation will be archived on YouTube. Both of those things are cool, but politicians have been embracing online tools, with varying degrees of success, for some time now. That’s not the change.

The change is that these communication tools, which are so much a part of our lives, are also part of theirs. These tools that we use to stay informed, to collaborate, to converse, to respectfully disagree, to battle it out, to reach consensus, to connect are their tools too. They don’t cut themselves off from the rapid flow of information. Like us, they revel in the hum of the Blackberry that says new email has arrived.

For all these reasons, I want to believe, I really do, that the first and most important change of an Obama administration is that the President-elect understands that the President is the representative by, for, and of the people. Our proxy, not our replacement.

–

Final snarky aside: Of course, it helps that Obama was actually elected president, versus being named president. I can see how the Bush administration got confused there.

–

Oops. Forgot to tag some others. I’d like to read what KD Paine, Elisa Camahort Page and Doug Haslam think. What changes will an Obama administration bring?

Like so many, I’ve been following the Elliott Spitzer mess since the news broke Monday. I’ve restricted most of my commentary to Twitter as I don’t really have anything new to add. Others have already done a terrific job commenting and analyzing the disaster. Among others, check out Huffington Post for great columns by Nora Ephron and Chris Kelly.

But this morning, I read what has to be my favorite commentary on the whole debacle, including the inordinate amount of attention the news media paid to this story. Sure Monday was a slow news day but by Wednesday there were other events in the world.

It’s short so I’ll give you the whole thing. From Famous Mark Verheidens of Filmland:

The Helicopter Shot…

I’m watching MSNBC as I write this, and they’re
twenty minutes into live helicopter coverage of NY Governor Eliot Spitzer’s SUV
driving across Manhattan so he can theoretically resign. Forget all the other
issues involved… my question is, do these news folks really think there’s a
chance Spitzer’s gonna run? (posted March 12th)

So I am in the middle of writing a fairly serious post about customer service, and then I found this video by the writers of the Colbert Report on YouTube.

Enjoy.

Tags: WGA, writers strike, Colbert Report, pets, cats, dogs

I twittered about the Pencils 2 Media Moguls campaign earlier this week, but today United Hollywood posted an amusing video promoting the campaign.

Enjoy!

Tags: Pencils 2 media moguls, WGA, writers strike

The writers are doing a great job communicating their story on the Internet. I wish them luck, and will be doing what I can as a fan to support them. If you want a good summary of the issues, watch these two videos.

And check out these sites:

• Fans4writers
• United Hollywood (sign the petition)
• Writers Guild of America West
• Writers Guild of America East
• Pencils down means pencils down

The issue is resonating particularly loudly in the fandoms I follow, chiefly the Whedonverse and Battlestar Galactica. Joss Whedon has posted on Whedonesque multiple times and Ron Moore of BSG just started his own, personal blog (versus the scifi.com one he sporadically posted to last year.) And of course writers Jane Espenson and Mark Verheiden, whose blogs I read on a regular basis anyway, have been covering the strike in their usual articulate fashion.

Tags: WGA, writers strike, Whedonverse, Battlestar Galactica

Facebook. It’s hot. It’s become one of the most popular social networking sites mere months after opening up to the masses. It’s cozying up to, and getting tons of cash from the big boys.

But what does it want to be when it grows up?

Some of its recent actions suggest that it’s a little confused.

If it wants to stay the adult equivalent of the college facebook, then I guess it makes sense to have a terms of service that requires that people use real first and last names on their accounts, a security measure that has its roots in Facebook’s beginnings. And to boot off people using pseudonyms. But then it won’t really be an inclusive social networking site, will it? Lots of "people" who would join, and bring their rich social interactions, will find someplace else to (net)work and play.

If it wants to enforce its own definition of obscenity on the entire community, in direct contradiction to US law, by banning photos of a legal act, breastfeeding, while allowing things like pro-anorexia groups, the company certainly has the right. It’s not smart to alienate current and future customers, but it is their playground,so they can set the rules. They have every right to define obscenity as something that would make a 16 year old boy uncomfortable… in a bad way. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Facebook. It has tremendous potential as a social networking platform. But even as its valuation rises, it seems to be making short-sighted business decisions that will ultimately affect its future growth.

Personally I like the fact that I know my friends on Facebook are real, live people. I’m not likely to befriend an avatar. And I’m not a big fan of anonymous blogging. However, I do engage in other networks like Twitter with folks using pseudonyms. Sometimes I know their name "in real life" and sometimes I don’t. And I don’t care. Wouldn’t the smarter decision be to allow pseudonyms, but require that it be acknowledged in the profile? Transparency. You have the right to know that Jon Swift is a pseudonym before you friend him, but it is ridiculous to require his real name. His online friends don’t require it. Why should Facebook?

And the obscenity thing. The legal definition of obscenity is complex (and by the way, doesn’t even apply to breastfeeding in public which is legal in all 50 US States.) In the US, we rely on the Miller test. Facebook on the other hand appears to be applying the frat boy test. Or something. Truly, they have to straighten this out. Either  Facebook supports free speech or it doesn’t. And "doesn’t" is a really bad business decision which doesn’t have to be made explicitly. Inconsistent application of community standards accomplishes the same thing.

It’s time for Facebook to grow up. Think about the long term implications of its actions. Understand that the seemingly trivial issues of breastfeeding moms and anonymous avatars are fundamental business decisions that ultimately will affect its ability to become the preferred public social networking platform.

Or not.

UPDATE: The Facebook account of political humourist "Jon Swift" has been restored.

UPDATE 11/2: In this corner Microsoft and Facebook. And in this corner Google and everyone else. Ding Ding. Yesterday the Internet was abuzz with the Google OpenSocial announcement, and today the kids at Facebook are looking at a whole new world. They still have the users and a very powerful Big Brother in Redmond. But they can’t afford to keep making stupid mistakes. Because it seems we have a viable alternative.

Tags: Facebook, Jon Swift, Facebook bans

I promise, I do have some actual marketing content in this post, but before I get back to the Roadmap, I’ve got one more comment "for the road" about the absurdity that is our national presidential elections.

You may recall my comments in earlier posts about how the media always seems to pay inordinate attention to the appearance and demeanor of female candidates — hair, make-up, nature of their laugh. You know, the really important stuff that tells voters whether a candidate is qualified for elected office. You know, more important than the issues facing our country like the war, health care and the economy.

Well, I must extend kudos to USA Today and reporter Maria Puente for an interesting story on the front of the LIFE section this morning about how style is "an issue for ’08".   The story presented a pretty balanced view of the media’s obsession with the candidates’ (and especially Hillary’s) looks.

But the best was the sidebar on page 2 of the section that dissected what all the presidential candidates are wearing. Absolutely priceless. Absolutely perfect. Here are just some of the gems:

John Edwards

[...] Earlier this year, Edwards was captured on camera fussing over his hair. Then there were jeers when it came out that he spent $400, twice, on haircuts. But Edwards laughed off the criticism, spoofing the kerfuffle with his own video (featuring Hair from the Broadway musical).

Rudy Giuliani

The former New York mayor gets applause for finally giving up on the comb-over and accepting the realities of male-pattern balding. Now if only he could spiff up those oversized, un-stylish suits he sometimes wears.[...]

John McCain

[...] Then it was reported on Radar Online.com that he was miffed at his staff for dressing him like a metrosexual in a "gay" V-neck sweater over a T-shirt. McCain’s campaign did not return calls seeking comment, then or now.

Mitt Romney

[...] Romney criticized Edwards on the haircuts, but then it came out that he had spent $300 on a makeup job before a debate. [...]

Go read it.

Now back to the roadmap. You remember, the Marketing Roadmap

The media landscape is shifting. Right in front of our very eyes. Customers are increasingly taking control of their own brand experiences. Generating the content, deciding what is important. Targeting by behavior is more effective than demographics. It’s not just about viral, it’s about spreading the right message for the right result.

Now, if you’ve been active in social media marketing for the past few years, none of the above is news to you. At all. You already know that the traditional lines between PR and marketing are blurring. We aren’t talking in isolation to influencers (the media) and customers. Intermediation is no longer the name of the game. We can, and must, talk directly with our customer, who is simultaneously both influencer and buyer. Forget about messages. We have to connect with people. Honestly. Authentically. No bullshit.

If you’ve been doing this for a while, you understand how important this new communication is to our brands, our companies, our survival. You’ve sucked that social media kool-aid right down. You get it.

But it can be hard for people to put their heads and arms around when faced with it for the first time. And there’s no real way to cut the learning curve down. You just have to jump in.

Now, I am always suspicious of business experts who don’t actually do what they write about, so I viewed Larry Weber’s new book,  Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business, with a bit of a jaundiced eye. Sure, he has the PR background but I’m not sure he even has a blog…  How much could he really know about marketing to the social web without doing it? Without being in it?

Well, I can’t answer that question, but I just read an excerpt from his new book in BrandWeek, and while I’m not sure I’d get much new information from the book,  I was pleased with the 12 steps he outlined for companies to follow toward an interactive future.

Which makes me think his book might be a good intro for brand marketers and PR execs.  Budget is tight right now, so I don’t plan to buy the book, but I’d love to hear from my readers if it is any good. And of course, Larry Weber, John Wiley & Sons, if you send me a review copy, I will read it.

Books are pretty much the only things I do review here.

Tags: Larry Weber, John Wiley & Sons, national election, gender, sexual politics, politics, social media, Web 2.0

Just one more side trip, friends.

First, to express my delight that Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No hanging chads in Norway I guess.

And to share with you what has got to be the most absurd moment in the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign to date. As you may remember from my Sexual Politics post last week, I am continually dismayed by the amount of attention paid to female candidates’ looks. Well, CBS has taken it one step further and actually had the nerve? stupidity?  to comment on Hillary Clinton’s laugh. And actually not her laugh, but more specifically, the absence of her "cackle" during a recent MSNBC interview.

On Talking Points Memo, Steve Benen writes:

I was particularly fond of the way CBS tried to distance itself from its own report. The senator’s laugh, the report said, is "overly analyzed." Apparently, it’s so excessive that CBS finds it necessary to note its absence.

In related news, Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech yesterday in which he didn’t answer his cell phone; Mitt Romney answered questions without abandoning a position he held five minutes prior; John McCain hosted a town-hall forum in which he did not refer to anyone as a "little jerk"; and Fred Thompson went the whole day without responding to a reporter’s question with, "I don’t know anything about that."

And just think, the election is still more than a year away. How much weirder is it going to get?

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize, politics, presidential election

There was a lot more to BlogHer than a bit of a fuss about public relations, including seeing so many old,  and meeting so many new, friends. Since I am bound to leave someone out if I do a list, know that I was so happy to see or meet you, and was sorry I missed so many people that I know or read. Next year….

This post is going to cover a variety of things, from the unconference on Sunday to politics and why the major media didn’t come to BlogHer.

In fact. let’s start there. Joanne Bamberger of Pundit Mom and  Jennifer Pozner at  the Women’s Media Center have done an excellent job of summarizing the issue: the national media didn’t bother with BlogHer, with 800+ women bloggers in attendance, even though a major policy effort, BlogHers Act, was a key element of the program and Elizabeth Edwards was featured in the closing keynote. Yet a week later. everyone finds time to go to Chicago for YearlyKos. 

Why?

As I posted in a comment yesterday to my previous BlogHer post, I wonder if it was in part because of the absence of assholes?

Bear with me a moment.

It’s a well known fact. Disagreement and invective make better stories than agreement and community. At least as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Don’t believe me? Just pick up your local morning paper and look at the front page. Besides, there really is no other explanation for Ann Coulter.

Why doesn’t the mainstream media understand that 800+ women bloggers are a powerful political presence? Especially in the context of BlogHers Act, a collective effort to make a difference on a significant issue, global health?

 I’m wondering if it is because the BlogHer community generally embraces its diversity instead of encouraging controversy? The media loves arguments and assholes and division, and you know, there is plenty of all three over on most political sites. But 800 women coming together out of a mutual interest in using blogs to share their experiences, whether professional, personal or political, and agreeing to respect the diversity of the community, not proselytize?

Nah. That’s no fun.

It’s also not right. Think about how you can change it.

Moving on, let’s be crystal clear. Just because the BlogHer community isn’t a bunch of jerks doesn’t mean that there aren’t  political differences among the members. Julie Marsh, mothergoosemouse, touched upon them on both her personal blog and on Imperfect Parent. As she notes, the women in the BlogHer community are good at coming together on the areas upon which we agree. But there seems to be a liberal bent, which may be off-putting to more conservative women. How do we embrace both groups? It’s not a trivial question.

Especially in context of the thing that worries me the most about US politics, which is that we seem to have become so polarized (call it red/blue if you must) that we cannot come together on anything. I posted the following on BlogHer a few weeks ago and Lisa Stone referenced my question during the Edwards keynote: