anachronism – A thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, esp. a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned (Source: Google Search)

Perhaps anachronism is a little harsh, but not by much. The whole concept pf earned media, as part of the triumvirate of Earned, Paid and Owned, has always been a little squishy. There’s just something a little bogus in the idea that the story being told was so tremendously good that the brand earned its non-paid media mention in a story, when of course brands, entertainment properties and celebrities spend millions of dollars every month to PR agencies and publicists to obtain these placements. There’s nothing unpaid about earned media.

Nevertheless, earned media  is where “we” have been accounting for the results of blogger outreach and other word of mouth engagement programs. In part because many early social media engagement programs originated in PR agencies for whom the earned media model made sense (or at least as much sense as it ever will.)

Certainly more so than paid media, which was clearly understood to be paid advertising media, and owned media, which is a bit more complex but boils down to the assets that the company controls – its packaging, trucks, website and so on.

The problem is that nothing is that simple. It never was, but social media and the rise of the engaged consumer has changed the dynamic to the point that classifying things into three buckets just doesn’t work any more.

Blogger outreach programs often include freelance fees paid to the bloggers for their work. So that’s paid media, I guess. When readers of those posts leave comments or post to Facebook or tweet about the posts? Earned. What about if the blogger who was paid to write a post, either a sponsored post on her own blog or as a freelance assignment, tweets it out on her own initiative?

Digital ads almost always include Share icons for Twitter and Facebook. So the media is paid, but the sharing is what? Pearned, for paid + earned?

And then there’s Facebook. How do we classify the activity on Facebook? A brand page is owned, I suppose. But are the comments earned? And what about custom promotional tabs? Are those owned or paid? And when someone shares it, is it now earned?

Clearly, we’ve outgrown these simple models of Paid, Earned and Owned.

What matters is whether consumers want to share. It doesn’t really matter whether the story you are telling starts in paid, earned or owned media.

Will consumers share it?

This concept of shared, or shareable, media is easy to understand. Much harder to execute, because it crosses so many functional lines – media, PR, marketing, advertising, creative. Much harder to measure, because it is more than pageviews or Twitter followers.

Up for the challenge? I am, and would love to hear how you are navigating this world.

Photo from Flickr user toffehoff. Used under a Creative Commons license.

When I wrote about who owns social media last May, I couldn’t believe THEN that we were still asking this question. I’m both surprised (and yet not) a year later that we are *still* asking. As though there were a simple, and only one, right answer, and if we ask enough, eventually we’ll get whatever answer we want to hear.

Um no. Not going to happen. Social media involves people, and people are messy. Social media engagement also depends on our expression of both our individuality and the collective mind. Try to fit that neatly in a demographic box. The mass market still exists, it is just influenced by multiple micro-markets and their denizens.

No simple answer then.

In the column I wrote last year, I concluded that the company and the consumer were the “owners” of the relationship, and ad and PR agencies were facilitators. I’d like to take this a step further and advocate for an integrated marketing approach that I think will ultimately be more successful and productive.

Don’t tell anyone, but good social media marketing is simply good marketing. Just as in the “old days,” you wouldn’t limit yourself to a single tool in the marketing toolkit – advertising, PR, direct response, loyalty programs etc., no matter how successful it was, in the “new days,” you still need to deploy multiple tools. You can’t get seduced by the flavor (or Facebook) of the month and shift all your spend because “that’s what the cool kids are doing.”  You need an integrated approach to reach your consumer, because that’s how she consumes the information she gets. It’s not a different brand before and after we buy, in an ad versus a news article versus a blog post.

People use information from different sources in different ways.  A personal referral – our old friend word-of-mouth – is treated differently than the information conveyed in an advertisement or a magazine article. But we use all the information we collect to make a purchase decision, and we generally require more than one. No matter how much Aunt Sue loves her car, we look for independent reviews and probably consult the brand website.

Our marketing message needs to appropriately be in all the important places a consumer might look for it. Do we spend more of our budget in the most productive places? Absolutely. But smart marketers don’t make the mistake of limiting the plan to a single tactic. It’s marketing suicide. Even infomercial brands like OxiClean have distribution strategies in addition to the commercials, and do not get me started on all the failed high-tech start-ups that thought they could make it on PR buzz alone.

Smart marketers also don’t let functional silos, whether internal departments, outside agencies or a combination of both,  derail the story. Especially now, when customers have such a strong voice and will more easily see if the emperor has no clothes.  It’s not enough to hand out a messaging document and timeline to the various functions and allow them to go forth in their independent silos, with their independent strategies.

This of course brings ownership of strategy back to the brand, which is where it belongs. Agencies advise, and yes, strategize. But the brand owns it.

What does that mean in practice?

Agencies that take an integrated approach to strategy, either by vertical integration or actively seeking to work with in tandem with their counterpart agencies on the brand account, are going to be more attractive to brands than those that take a more silo’d approach. We already see this happening. Some will do it well. Some not so much. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions on that score.

Social media expertise will continue to shift in-house. It has to. To navigate the organizational boundaries, foster cross-functional and inter-departmental cooperation at the level required, the person responsible for social media engagement has to have the internal knowledge and ties that only a full-time, bottom-line driven employee can. And once social media moves in-house it will have multiple flavors. The best description of what this may turn out to look like is from Jeremiah Owyang of the Altimeter Group in his piece on the two career paths of the corporate social strategist.

Warning: This integration will not be an easy road. It requires that everyone check their egos (and worries about budget) at the door. This is not easy if you run the PR agency and are worried about the ad agency getting your budget or vice versa. And within the organization, this social media “thing” is still considered a bit “squishy.” Internal champions have to navigate many hurdles, often including not having the budget for social media, just the mandate.

But I just don’t see any other way. The consumer views a product as a whole. We want a consistent experience across our interactions with the brand, whether it be functions (customer service, sales, finance) or marketing (ads, PR, coupons, sampling etc. ). And we expect to have those interactions across multiple channels – mass and micro media, new media and old.

Consumers see us as one “thing.” It’s about time we did as well.

What are you going to do to break down a silo or foster cross functional cooperation in your organization?

__

More reading:

• Which Department Owns Social Media?
• Who Owns Social Media? The best approach is to create a small team of people to provide guidance
• Who owns social media? Again.

For the past few months, I’ve been head down working on Professional Blogging For Dummies, and there just hasn’t been a lot of time to write blog posts. A few things were just too important to let slide, like the FTC/Ann Taylor Loft story, but for the most part I’ve had to let many juicy stories go.

Like the pitch for an FDA approved douche sent to bloggers of both genders. Or the one for a snake repellent sent to mom bloggers in Manhattan. Seriously, outside of the zoo, how often do you see a snake of the reptilian variety in New York City?

Then there are the brand ambassador programs that seem to be multiplying like rabbits. For example, the Sears Outlet brand ambassador program with the laundry list of requirements for the bloggers but zero compensation.

Somehow, we’ve lost the distinction between public relations, which relies on a compelling story to “earn” the placement in the media outlet (hence the term “earned media,” more about that below), and promotion, which is a sales-related activity closely related to advertising. Many blogger programs are really about promotion, but they offer little or no compensation to the bloggers for what is essentially advertising space. Read Liz Gumbinner’s posts for more on this: Nothing is free, except it seems, a mommyblogger and In defense of PR.

And then there was last week’s dust-up between a blogger who took umbrage at, and posted about, a specific pitch, and a pretty strong response from the mentioned agency. I haven’t looked at the specifics of the post or program in question, but my immediate reaction reading the agency’s post was a certain amount of amazement that the author didn’t seem  realize that the very questions she was raising in her post have been circling around the blogosphere for years. Read Julie Pippert’s The elephant in the room? Not so much for more about this specific post and its aftermath.

Earned media is a dinosaur
I participated in my first conference panel on blogger relations at BlogHer Business in 2007. More than 3 years later, I often feel like we haven’t moved forward at all. We’re still arguing about the same things — Are the pitches good, targeted and relevant? Are bloggers journalists? And so on. Blah Blah Blah.

This discussion is old and tired, and it’s not going anywhere except down a rathole. We need to move on. As Julie (@jpippert)  and I discussed on Twitter after I read her post, earned media is a dinosaur. We need a new model.

One that understands that the blogger is also a customer, not just a reporter. That the old forms of engagement don’t work anymore. And that both sides — PR and bloggers — need to look at the relationship through a new lens. Companies and their PR agents aren’t doing bloggers “a favor” by including them in their programs. There’s an expected business benefit. And bloggers aren’t entitled to anything. If you want to participate in blogger relations or advertising programs, you’ve got to build a compelling blog that attracts an audience that the companies and advertisers want to reach.

The successful approach for reaching out to bloggers integrates public relations and advertising to achieve marketing objectives. If the story is compelling, PR outreach. If the company wants to control a message, advertising.

This flies in the face of the typical corporate organization and certainly agency alignments, and absolutely requires a change in the way we look at our marketing task. I’ve been writing about this changing model for some time now, and will continue to write about it here and at Shamable.com.

Expertise

True expertise is less about knowing how to do something than understanding why you’re doing it. Always start by asking Why? Then worry about How?  Check out Toby Bloomberg’s e-book Social Media Marketing GPS for advice from 40 social media experts that truly understand the why and the how. I was doubly privileged with regard to this book — I was one of the people Toby interviewed on Twitter for the book and I was in Atlanta the day she launched, so I got to celebrate with her in person.

Also on my radar screen (and bound to be the topics of upcoming posts): more on measurement, including some thoughts on the importance of sentiment, and another look at Facebook after the privacy dilemmas of the past month. What are the implication for marketers and consumers?

Finally, thank you to the folks at Ignite Social Media for including Marketing Roadmaps (and me) on their list of 50 Women Bloggers You Should Be Reading. I’m not a terrific fan of lists, but feel privileged to be included in this company.

<rant on>

I’ve got more than a few posts pending, including part 2 of my analysis of the published FTC guidelines on commercial endorsements and an update on Blog with Integrity, but today I received an email that demanded immediate attention.

As many of you know, I collect bad pitches. I use them here on the blog and in my workshops. Someday perhaps they will even make it into a book about community engagement. I get a few myself (and for some reason more lately), but the best source of pitches — good and bad — are my friends and readers.

Today’s example, from a reader, was just about the worst pitch ever. It’s bad enough when bloggers get press releases that quote their previous reviews on the topic. That’s clueless and stupid.

When the pitch plagiarizes a blogger’s own words, and they send her the pitch? There really are no words.

Here’s the pitch, dated 10/22/09:

And here’s the post from which the content was lifted, from 9/29/09:

Yes, my friends, apparently, this PR agency took the blogger’s intellectual property, changed a few words, and then sent her the pitch. There’s so much wrong with this whole scenario that it’s hard to know what’s worse — stealing the post or stupidly sending the pitch to the victim.

How do I know that it was the PR agency that ripped off the blogger and not vice versa? Apart from the dates, which make it pretty obvious?  Gut. While I’ve only met this blogger once, at BlogHer Boston last year, I have no reason to doubt her. She also had no problem being identified in this post, an inevitable consequence of her by-line. I double-checked.

The agency in question? It’s like the umpteenth time someone has sent me one of their pitches as a bad pitch, and I’ve received more than a few crappy ones from them myself.

This is why PR agencies have to be more than crisp when reaching out to bloggers. You have to be damn near perfect because there are dopes out there doing crap like this.

Makes me sick and embarrassed for the marketing and communications profession.

</rant off>

Should public relations firms have Facebook Fan Pages? What’s the point really?  Do PR firms really have fans, and if they do, should they? Isn’t PR about promoting the client’s interests?

That’s the gist of a conversation thread on Twitter over the past few days. Good friend Geoff Livingston (@GeoffLiving) thinks it is silly for PR firms to have Facebook Fan Pages, in part I imagine (and I don’t want to put words in his mouth, this is my impression of his comments) because it smacks too much of “personal branding,” a concept we both loathe.

I agree, and yet I don’t. Or more accurately, I don’t mind that PR firms are setting up Facebook Fan Pages, as long as they don’t go overboard and start spamming my Facebook Wall with self-serving promotional bullshit.

Facebook Fan Pages are becoming a useful element for a company’s marketing plan, and agencies/consultants need to gain experience with the form. Even if they have clients with Pages, they still need a place to experiment. Client sites are generally not good places for messing around with beta stuff.

So, I’m okay with PR agency fan pages. Happy to “fan” you if asked. As long as you don’t take yourself too seriously and think I want your autograph or something. Because, seriously, I don’t even ask real famous people for autographs.

Fame. Fans. One more brief point about the term fan before I move on to the ridiculous idea of mom blogs “boycotting PR.”

I like the term Fan Page. Not simply because the number of fans shows how popular a brand or company is. I like it because it highlights how the brand should be thinking of its customers. Not simply as consumers. Fans are engaged consumers. They don’t just buy a product, they love the product.

And the brand should love them back. Not take them for granted. Add value beyond the simple transaction. That’s what a Fan Page should be about.

Most are not, or at least I hope, not yet.

Facebook has more than 200 million users.

The brands that get it? That understand that the Fan Page isn’t just a billboard for product announcements? That truly make the effort to engage with the customers?

They are going to have lots and lots of fans.

–

“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.

- Hans Christian Andersen, The Emperor’s New Clothes

Today, mom blog site Mom Dot proposed that mom blogs should boycott PR and marketing offers for a week in August. The rationale has something to do with marketing firms taking advantage of mom bloggers by sending them free products. I think. Or maybe it was that mom bloggers are burnt out from the burden of doing product reviews. Something like that. I think.

Seriously, I am not trying to be mean. I really cannot figure out the reason for the boycott.  If product reviews are too much work, don’t do them. Or do fewer. If you aren’t getting joy from something, stop. If the value isn’t there, don’t do it.

But a PR boycott? As CNET pointed out, this misses the point by more than a country mile.

The FTC is reviewing its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials. Without a doubt, blogs (and other new media) will be included.

This has caused a great deal of buzz around the issue of free products and other blogger compensation, particularly in the parent blogosphere. Latest media outlets, and by no means the last, to cover the story: ABC and the New York Times.

The issue isn’t the reviews. Or the free products. The issue is disclosure.

It’s about ethics. And integrity.

If you are a blogger, it’s about disclosing your relationships with companies that have provided you with free products or compensation so your readers can properly evaluate your recommendations.

If you are a company representative, it’s about reaching out to bloggers with respect. If you are hiring someone to write a document for you, you can read it before publication. Sending a product for review? Absolutely not. Don’t even ask. If you do, you are either scum or a nØØb.

So, I have another suggestion. Instead of polarizing boycotts, teeth gnashing and wailing, let’s all pledge to Blog with Integrity.

All this really requires is that you publish a clear review and ethics policy on your blog. It doesn’t matter what the policy is — your readers will decide that issue. What matters is that you clearly disclose.

This will help you, marketers who want to reach out appropriately and your readers. And, I’m guessing, the FTC will like it too.

–

In other news, Michael Jackson is still dead.

This past week has been an interesting one for students of public and blogger relations. We had the fallout from Robert Scoble’s latest temper tantrum about public relations. I do have an opinion, which you can find at the end of this post. Skip ahead if that’s all you are interested in.

This post is about blogger relations. And by that I mean the relationships companies form with regular bloggers. Their customers. Not journalists or celebrities.

This week, I noticed a marked increase in pitches, reflected by (unusually) my own inbox, items forwarded from friends and chatter on Twitter about (mostly) poor practice.

So, I thought it was a good time for a little refresher course in good blogger relations practice.

When I give my blogger relations workshops, I start with the following chart from Technorati’s 2008 State of the Blogosphere Report. While my issues with ranking systems in general and Technorati’s algorithms in particular are well documented here in Marketing Roadmaps, I thought the research about the bloggers in the 2008 report was quite valuable.

This particular chart answers the question, Why do you blog?

In class, I read a few of the most cited reasons before I deliver the punchline.

Nowhere on this list do we find:

Help companies promote their products and services.

Bloggers don’t mind helping you promote your products. Many of them welcome the opportunity to get closer to the companies whose products they use and love. Some monetize their blogs through advertising and would love to have yours. But that’s not WHY they blog. They blog to share their passions. They write about the things they care about.

Sadly, quite a lot of companies and agencies still miss this critical point. Let’s turn to the inbox for some examples.

• A bed manufacturer sent a pitch to parent bloggers essentially asking for free advertising for its contest on their blogs. Mechanically, this pitch is acceptable, if a bit dull; there were no mistakes in addressing in the multiple examples shared with me. But, why would a parent blogger write about this?
• A pitch from a fitness expert that exploits the television show Dancing with the Stars. The agency is one whose pitches regularly appear here as bad pitches. Among other things, full of typos. More importantly, who cares?
• Seen on Twitter: a discussion about a liquid soap product pitched as a Mother’s Day gift. Hey Mom, you stink.
• Child Safety Mistakes. I’ll let the badmommy blogger tell you about this one.
• From my own inbox, the exciting (sic) news: followed by a second email, same day, offering the photos. Hullo, have you ever read what I’ve said about Go Daddy on this blog? Apparently not.

And I have more in my “bad pitch” folder. So many more, it’s sad. That said, I also have a few good pitches from the past week. I’ll tell you about those tomorrow.

Coming attractions:

Next month,  I’ll have a  report on what AAA is doing in social media and a case study about the Nintendo Wii and Wii Fit blogger outreach.

Now to Scoble. I don’t have PR clients any more because I am focusing on blogger relations and social media engagement. If I were still actively practicing PR in the the tech space, I’m not sure if  I would even pitch Scoble at this point. A PR person has to evaluate all the potential outlets for client news. Unless Scoble is the top number one outlet for the news, why even bother? Like Michael Arrington at Tech Crunch, he’s really looking for the exclusive, even if he hasn’t articulated it as clearly as Arrington has.

If Scoble is your A-number-one media target, by all means jump through the hoops. But if not? Focus on more productive targets. Heck, talk to some of your customers instead.

That, I can help you with.

Yesterday morning my friend Julie Marsh sent me an example for the bad pitch file, an email pitch for a campaign called Fishful Thinking from Pepperidge Farm Goldfish. As she notes on her blog this morning, the offer was somewhat interesting, so she had followed up, twice, with the agency to no response.

She thought that a bit odd, that they didn’t bother to respond. I did too, given the tone of the email, but didn’t have any time to do much with it then as we were off to Boston for brunch and the musical Dirty Dancing.[Brief aside, if you have the chance to see it, go. Makes you feel just as good as the movie, the dancing is excellent, and male vocalist Ben Mingay has a voice to die for.]

Checked back in after dinner to see there had been quite a discussion over Twitter during the day #fishfulthinking. Turns out about 200 mom bloggers had received this “special invitation” to participate in the Pepperidge Farm program, many responded positively and most NEVER heard back. That is, until the discussion started on Twitter yesterday.

Representatives from the agency, including the boss,  then contacted mom tweeters and bloggers to explain the situation, but as Julie notes in her post, and others have tweeted, the explanation isn’t terribly satisfactory. Kristen Chase, who also received the invitation and replied to thunderous silence,  has a summary of the sequence of events and some good advice for the agency on what they should have done.

I’m going to break this down even more, using the information I have at hand. I’d love to hear from the agency or company and will be sending an email with a link to this post later today.

All marketing outreach, including blogger relations,  has three components: the target audience or list, the pitch/program and the execution. Success requires careful attention to all three. So where did Fishful Thinking fail?

First, it made what appeared to be an attractive exclusive offer:

“We are recruiting 10 insightful moms to become key influencers in this nationwide campaign.”

to 200 women. Mass outreach, micro tactic. Not a good match.

Reread the email — I have many times. It  reads like the recipient has already been selected. Not that she is one of 200 randomly selected mom bloggers and must pass an interview process to participate. Which was the information that surfaced yesterday.

That’s problem number two. The pitch misrepresents the program. It offers the mom an opportunity for a trip to New York for a training session and a stipend. Sounds good. Except the real offer is to INTERVIEW for the opportunity.

Finally, execution. Bad enough to send a misleading pitch to a large list of mom bloggers. But then, when the women are interested,  to not follow up? Until the mess made it to Twitter that is, when it HAD to follow up or look really stupid.

Unfortunately, the explanations that have surfaced to date don’t seem to be much more than attempts to smooth over the situation with offers of free goldfish.

If you are counting, that’s a failing grade on all three elements: audience, pitch and execution.

The whole mess reminded me quite a bit of Camp Baby, except Johnson & Johnson immediately apologized and made an honest effort to understand where it went wrong. Not saying we won’t see that from Fishful, but so far things seem more like boilerplate and justification.

More importantly, Fishful Thinking had the Camp Baby example to learn from. Same target audience, similar program, at least on its face. The definition of insanity is to repeat the same actions, expecting a different outcome. The Fishful campaign certainly seems to qualify.

Kristen and Julie have already done a fine job telling Fishful what it should have done differently. I’m going to frame my advice for a company considering a similar program.

• Exclusive offers have to be a a micro tactic. You should never reach out to more than you can afford to fulfill. That means you have to qualify your list very carefully and narrowly. Consumers talk to each other. Bloggers talk to each other a lot and not just in the public channels.
• You can mix exclusive offers and mass tactics but the mass offer, such as the free goldfish or public seminar, can’t be a consolation prize for a poorly executed exclusive offer. That just sends the wrong message to everyone. What you can do is make the exclusive offer to a highly targeted, narrow population with a very clear criteria and then have a mass offer to a broader population. It’s also a good idea to have some time between the two programs. Compounding the fishy confusion is that the agency was apparently doing two simultaneous programs, the exclusive one and a promo for a public seminar in White Plains this weekend.
• Don’t mislead in an attempt to entice. Make sure the offer and any requirements or qualifications necessary to participate are clearly stated. Err on the side of OVER not under-communication.
• On the other hand, the promotional-speak, the self congratulations. Keep those to a minimum. Elementary school children can tell when they are being spoken to in message points.  So can their parents.
• Make sure you have sufficient resources to execute. Enough people to respond to the bloggers. Enough products or whatever your offer is to meet the demand. If you target your good pitch appropriately, you should have a fair idea of the response. Staff accordingly. If you misjudge, staff up. Get a temp. But don’t let weeks go by without responding to an email from someone YOU approached in the first place.

I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about the Fishful campaign over the course of the week. I’ll be sure to report anything interesting.

My goal here on Marketing Roadmaps is to provide guidance and examples that will help my readers do social media “right.” That’s why I usually mask company, product and agency names from the bad pitch examples, and focus on the pitch, not the products.

From time to time, something crosses the transom that demands a different approach. I’ve got a couple for you today.

The first is for a new social network for kids. In my opinion, this one fails all around — pitch, product and PR. Here’s the pitch:

And here’s the product:

And here are the problems.

Let’s start with the pitch, which implies that this is a product for kids with references to Barney and the Wiggles. Yet, when  you go to the site, it seems far more like a dating site for teens. The wiggles here aren’t the ones singing “Fruit Salad” if you know what I mean. Was this pitch slanted young to appeal to mom bloggers, even though the product clearly isn’t? That sort of deception is bad practice at best. Possibly unethical.

The product. BUUUZ. Sounds like “booze”  which makes “message in the bottle” a questionable tagline. What sort of message in the bottle and just how much should we drink before we get the message?

More like spin the bottle….Do kids really need their own version of match.com? Or is it just one more fertile hunting ground for predators?

Now I can see how they ended up with the name. The domain name was available and someone fell in love with the logo and the idea of “UUU” create the buzz. But domain name availability and a graphic presentation are two of the WORST reasons for choosing a product name. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

Because no matter how you spin it, and more on that in a minute, there’s no way “BUUUZ” is pronounced anything other than booze. It’s simple English grammar.

And that just doesn’t cut it for a site for kids. No matter how you choose to rationalize it.

As the PR flack did when one of the parent bloggers who received this pitch asked why they gave the site the name and tagline they did. A one line response, it completely dismissed the concerns and insulted the blogger.  The email equivalent of Dan Aykroyd’s rejoinder in the early days of Saturday Night Live: “Jane you ignorant slut.”

Now, I can see why one might be defensive about BUUUZ. It can be tiring hopping around on one leg. But, responding to criticism in a hostile fashion is both rude and stupid. I hate to say it, given how strongly I believe in active engagement, but it would be better to just ignore the email and simply be considered rude.

This campaign is one that I definitely vote off the island. Bad pitch, questionable product and offensive PR. Three strikes. Out.

Our other example today is a an inauguration-related pitch. Sort of.

This program for Trident gum fails in a number of ways. First, it trivializes the change we celebrated on January 20th with President Obama’s inauguration. “Chomping for change?” Please.

Next, as I’ve commented before, campaigns that co-opt celebrities without their permission are distasteful.  Don’t like ‘em. Slimy.

Finally, think about what they’re asking people to do for a pack of gum. A 50 cent pack of gum. Seems like an awful lot of work for a single pack of gum.

It doesn’t say much for American culture that quite a few people did it, but that doesn’t make the campaign good. I didn’t see any coverage of this program on the 500+ blogs I read, including many parent blogs.

If you only remember a few things from what you read here, I hope you remember this:

• Respect the bloggers. Even if they occasionally piss you off, they are your customers. Even if they are wrong, they are right.
• Add value. Give bloggers a reason to write. A thin storyline and a pack of gum? Not so much.

I’ll have some more on how to add value in my next post.

In public relations, we are conditioned to think of everything in terms of the news. What’s new? Is it newsworthy? Introductions, launches, exclusives, breaking stories, reviews. These are the stuff from which PR success is traditionally made.

And that’s still true. Mainstream media, whether print or online, and social media that follows the journalistic model are still driven by the news. The news cycle is by no means dead. In fact, it is accelerated and expanded. If you have something new, revolutionary, even evolutionary, there’s plenty of opportunity.

What if you don’t? What if you are charged with spreading the word about a product that isn’t new?

In PR, we try to find story angles. We suggest story ideas to reporters and position our products for inclusion in features. These tactics can be successful when reaching out to journalists, but tend to fall flat with personal bloggers. Why?

Most bloggers do not view themselves as writing for an audience. They are writing about their lives for themselves and for their friends. Realistically, of course, they know they have an audience but that’s not the primary motivation as it is for a journalist.

What’s the solution? Reframe the task. You are not limited by the news cycle. Remember that bloggers are the customer. While they like to hear about new things, as long as a pitch is relevant, the product doesn’t have to be new.

“New to you” is enough.

Now, that doesn’t mean they want advertising hype. If they want to view your ads, they will. They might even purchase your products as a result. However, if you are pitching them something for their blog, it has to be relevant and timely to them. Product can be ten years old as long as it solves an immediate problem or answers a current question. As I’ve written here before, it has to add value.

That’s the opportunity in blogger relations. Think creatively about the product and services in your portfolio. Think about audiences for whom your product would be new. Or new uses for the product. Don’t be limited by launch mentality.

Where to start? I’ve developed a model for finding the shared value between customer and company that you can use to identify a departure point for your pitch. In my next post, I’ll apply it to develop two possible blog pitches for cotton swabs.

Over the past month, there were three interesting brouhahas in the social media blogosphere. While I didn’t write about them at the time, I did tweet and comment here and there. I decided to bring them back for today’s post, for old times sake, because each one has implications for topics that I plan to cover in the coming year.

First, in early December there was a massive twitter-storm about a sponsored post social media consultant Chris Brogan wrote on his Dad-o-matic blog. Long story short, his post was part of an Izea campaign for Kmart, Forrester analyst Jeremiah Owyang posed some legitimate questions about sponsored posts , and a Twitter storm erupted.

I was mostly offline that weekend, but the general gist was that many questioned Chris’s integrity for writing a sponsored post, arguing that it compromised his objectivity and ethics.

When I came back online at the end of the weekend and saw the fallout, including more than a few posts discussing Chris’s actions, including his, all I could say was “huh?” I had seen the post some time earlier on Dad-o-matic and really didn’t think much of it.

While I have my concerns about the paid post model, particularly in its earliest forms which did not require disclosure, Chris was very clear that this was a sponsored post, the content was appropriate for Dad-o-matic, and there was a charity angle. No biggie, and I had a hard time imagining how participating in this Izea campaign could compromise Chris’s ethics or expertise. As I tweeted, folks should be less judgmental, and perhaps look to their own glass house.

Twits indeed.

There’s no question that the Izea model is an improvement over predecessor Pay Per Post. But… I still have a few concerns. Here are some topics that I plan to explore in the coming year.

• The model seems much closer to mass market advertising than it does to blogger relations. Will big companies take this expedient route, thinking it a shortcut to robust relationships with their customers online?
• Some sponsored campaigns are starting to have a cookie-cutter feel. Variations on theme of the blogger shopping spree or giveaway product, and contests for the blog’s readers. There’s nothing wrong with any of these approaches. I recommend them to clients. But, without a specific creative angle that reinforces branding, when do they all start to blur?
• Is the sponsored post model really just for big companies with big budgets? And big bloggers with big audiences? What happened to the long tail and niche markets? Something for everyone? How do smaller companies compete? Ditto, niche bloggers with smaller but loyal audiences.

Topic Two: Embargoes.

The most recent salvo comes from Michael Arrington at TechCrunch who announced mid-month with his usual fanfare that TechCrunch would no longer honor embargoes.

“PR firms are out of control. Today we are taking a radical step towards fighting the chaos. From this point on we will break every embargo we agree to.”

I don’t think anyone was particularly surprised; Arrington’s anti-PR polemic has grown increasingly strident over the years, sometimes for good cause, sometimes not so much. This post was just the latest in a long line.

It is also more than a warning shot that he’ll break the embargo. Read between the lines – Arrington wants to break the tech news, and unless you give him an exclusive, he’s increasingly likely to NOT cover your news.

What does this have to do with blogs? You can’t really generalize the typical blogger’s reaction to an embargo request from Arrington. TechCrunch isn’t a blog; it’s a tech publication that uses the blog form. It’s competing with c|net, CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and so on. Companies have to decide if TechCrunch is the most important outlet for their news. If so, giving Arrington the exclusive — a real exclusive — may make sense. If not, TechCrunch gets the news when it hits the wire, and you may not get any coverage there at all. That’s your call.

Will bloggers honor embargoes? I believe they will, if approached with respect. Will they honor an embargo that is noted on the top of a mass emailed press release? Unlikely. A journalist wouldn’t either.

In the coming year, we’ll talk about some of the positive ways companies can include bloggers in their confidential plans. In some ways it is far easier than with journalists. Remember, bloggers are your customers too. They like to be involved with your products at an early stage, and will keep your confidence.

Topic Three. Regular readers know how much I love lists and rankings. Not.

On more than one occasion, I’ve discussed the flaws in these rankings on Marketing Roadmaps, and I follow my friend Ike Pigott’s periodic exposes on how to game the systems with delight.

Erin Kotecki Vest, known to many as the Queen of Spain, raised the topic again last month. Her complaint started with the recent rise of Twitter ranking mechanisms, but the comments quickly expanded to embrace the issue in total. And particularly how these faulty constructs often are used to imply legitimacy, expertise and influence.

That’s what we’ll look at in the coming year. How do you determine a blog’s influence? Or a blogger’s expertise? The ranking systems, flawed as they are, impart some information, but we need to look much much farther than that. Most Internet ranking systems can be gamed and use flawed inputs. Business decisions should not be made on the basis of a popularity contest.

As Groucho Marx once said:

“I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER.”

Finally, please check out Toby Bloomberg’s 2006/2009 retrospective post. Going into 2006, she asked a number of social media bloggers about their wishes for the coming year. She reached out to us all again this year, and it is very interesting to see how things have changed. And yet not.

I’ll leave you with a bagpipe group’s rendition of Auld Lang Syne and Amazing Grace.

Happy New Year!