Marketing Roadmaps

Fake/Fictional Blogs

Feeding the trolls

by

This week, events in two blog circles in which I travel drew the trolls out from under their bridges: the League of Maternal Justice’s BreastFest and the "retirement" of a PR blog character whose public face was attractive but who was best known for its ill-spirited, trollish attacks on other bloggers.

When a topic is controversial, even if only mildly so, the trolls are inevitable.  What do you do when they show up in your place or in your face?

The safest and sanest approach is to ignore them.

That’s why I don’t feed the trolls. Sure, I’ve had them here from time to time, but  lack of sustenance leads them to go elsewhere for their jollies. I don’t respond here, and if they attack in the comments on other blogs or Web sites, I ignore them there.  It’s hard, especially when they get personal, as they always do. But the child’s nursery rhyme is true: sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

Dealing with the trolls was particularly hard for some of the women actively engaged in the breastfeeding debate. The act and the decision itself are so highly personal, and  it didn’t take long for the trolls to get offensive.  But remember: the troll is the one with the problem. Not you.

If a troll or two turns up here as a result of this post, I’ll ignore them. But unless a comment  is obscene or libelous, I won’t delete it. I stand by my words. Let them stand by theirs.

Some folks take a different approach. They bait the troll, on the theory that a troll’s arguments are so ridiculous, the troll will end up proving the initial point it is attacking. This can be successful, but you have to have a really strong stomach. Because a troll is not rational. No matter how logical your argument, it will never penetrate the troll’s generally thick skull. You will never convince him. Or her.

But maybe, just maybe, proponents of this approach argue,  if you can stay the course, the weird non-logic, personal attacks and ramblings of the troll, as compared to your logical, reasoned arguments, will convert a few folks on the fence. And of course, initially there is an adrenaline rush from building your argument to beat the troll.

The rush doesn’t last, the troll will get ugly, and the chances of changing anyone’s mind this way are pretty slim. So, think hard before troll-baiting. Because it is going to hurt.

As for the late, not lamented blog character, Robert French’s "eulogy" for the not-so-dearly departed says it best. 

Tags: , , ,

Social Media Club Boston: Fake Steve, Wal-Mart and Forrester Research

by

Last Thursday’s Social Media Club Boston meeting was terrific. And oh so funny.  Kudos to Greg PC for assembling such a great panel, and to the moderator and speakers for doing such a brilliant job.

John Cass has done a great job summarizing the session, so I will just share some photos, soundbites and general observations.

Moderator Monika Maeckle, VP Southwest Region, Business Wire (sponsor of the evening) A delightful and charming woman who did a great job moving the conversation along, involving the audience, but never losing control of the session.

And the esteemed panel:

left to right: Josh Bernoff, Forrester; Dan Lyons, aka Fake Steve Jobs, Forbes Magazine; Steve Restivo, Wal-Mart

As John Cass reported, Dan Lyons was the hit of the evening. Some of his bon mots:

On his Attack of the Blogs article: "I wished I had a do-over."

On Valleywag: "Valleywag sucks."
   

On Jonathan Schwartz, Sun: "How different is Jonathan Schwartz’s blog from a fake blog?"  [Note, if this comment resonates, be sure to check out My Little Pony.]

As John reported in his post, Dan said many people knew who FSJ was well before the New York Times exposed the secret. In a brief conversation after the panel, Dan said he was impressed that they were all able to keep the secret. He said a few of them even helped mess with Valleywag on who FSJ was. Gotta love it. Unless you are Owen Thomas I suppose.

Josh Bernoff was polished and articulate. I really liked his comment that starting a "social media" project by picking a technology is ass-backward. The POST model he shared really resonated:

    First: PROFILE your customer.
 

    Second: Define your OBJECTIVES.

    Third: Develop a STRATEGY — how do you want to change people

    Then, and only then, decide on the TECHNOLOGY.

 

Another great quote from Josh: "Only one group of people that this (social media) is really bad for — liars."

Steve Restivo from Wal-Mart did a great job representing his company, although it was clear that he was constrained by a corporate role, unlike the other panelists, who are encouraged (and compensated I am sure) to have strong public personas. Nevertheless I was impressed by both his acknowledgment of past mistakes like RV-ing Across America and his frank statement that competitor Target does a great job online.

The Social Media Club has chapters in a number of cities; check it out. And if you are in Boston, see you next time.

Tags: , , , ,

Flogging, this horse just won’t die, more Wal-Mart and Edelman

by

It must really suck to be Richard Edelman this week.

I had decided to stop writing about Wal-Gate, even after no WOMMA sanctions for Edelman because it seemed excessively cruel to keep beating a dead horse. Give them a chance to get their house in order, I thought.

Until today’s news that there were two more "flogs" for Working Families for Wal-Mart written by Edelman staffers without attribution.

Enough already.

This can’t be simply  "one bad apple" who didn’t get it. There are just too many rotten apples and too much evidence that this is culturally acceptable behavior at Edelman.

Far from transparent or honest, it is Fifties-style PR with a social media patina (paraphrasing a comment by John Wagner on an earlier post here.)

And it is most certainly not what we did, or should, expect of a social media leader.

********

Some more recommended posts on this topic: John Wagner, Katie Paine, Tom Murphy, Constantin Basturea

Tags: , , , , , ,

Coda: Wal-mart and Edelman

by

Some final thoughts. The reaction to Richard Edelman’s apology in the PR blogosphere has been mixed, with some bloggers accepting the apology and others aghast that "we" should even consider accepting it when Edelman violated so many ethical principles, including the code of ethics of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA). Hugh MacLeod, in inimitable fashion, has the usual cartoon.

Here’s the thing. I don’t think it is up to "us" (whoever "us" is) to accept or refute the apology. It really does not matter. Sure, this fake blog was a serious ethical lapse by an agency that should know better. An ill-considered campaign, it did not achieve its goals for the client, and spawns far larger problems for the agency. How come the top bloggers at Edelman didn’t know? If I were Richard Edelman, I’d find out. And I am sure he is. For the sake of his business.

But it wasn’t mass murder. Or financial malfeasance. It was a blog. Really, a blip on the radar screen of life.

Yes, it makes PR look bad, and critics of the profession will waste no time in tarring us all with the same sticky Wal-Mart brush. But it’s a big leap to say that any of the PR and marketing blogosphere was actually harmed as a result of Wal-marting Across America.

So, I’m not going to forgive Edelman. I’ve got nothing to forgive.

But we also shouldn’t forget. If Edelman wants to be a social media leader, it really has to start acting like one. There’s been a lot of talk about the me2revolution at Edelman, but not a lot of tangible proof.

Remember: it’s not what you say. It’s what you do.

Tags: , , , , ,

Epilogue: Wal-Mart and Edelman

by

Well, as many PR bloggers have already reported (best round-upto date is Constantin’s), Edelman has emerged from the cone of silence around the Wal-Mart fiasco. On Richard Edelman’s blog, an apology and acceptance of total responsibility. And on Steve Rubel’s, a short comment and link to Richard’s blog.

Quite frankly, I do not see how the agency could have done anything else. It could be Edelman’s fault. Might not be. Probably is. Doesn’t really matter. Whether it was their fault or not, the agency must fall on the sword for the client. Or lose the client.

I know a lot of folks would love to be privy to the post mortem on this disaster. To them, I say, how does it feel… to want. We know what we know and we ain’t likely to know much more. And I don’t really care. I’m more interested in:

  • what Edelman does in the future. Will they finally learn and get it right the next time? What Richard and Steve say is all good and well, but the proof is in what they DO;
  • the lessons we can all learn about honesty and grassroots marketing from this fiasco.

I’ve commented on a number of other blog posts about this mess, among them Kami Huyse and Peter Himler, that the real shame is that had they done this right, with honesty and clarity about the sponsorship, this RVing blog might just have worked. People with RVs do stay in Wal-Mart parking lots. That’s not an invention. They might have rallied around a blog that focused on them, their lives, their culture.  If it was well written, corporate sponsored or not, the public might have enjoyed it. Many do shop in Wal-Mart, image problems notwithstanding.

Bottom line, had there been truth, I would have given it a big, so what. A good idea is still a good idea even if the corporation has it. The error isn’t in sponsoring a blog to advance a corporate objective. The error is the lie. People can forgive many things. But generally and pretty universally, we hate being lied to.

I’m pretty sure the folks at Edelman and Wal-Mart get this now.

There is nothing wrong with trying to spark something in the "grassroots."  If you’ve understood the situation, and deliver a compelling message, it will take fire. That’s what viral means — the message is so compelling it propels itself through the social network. But we cannot create a grassroots effect   Artificial, the campaign has no life, no community and cannot spread without more artifice and manipulation.

You must tap into something in the community for grassroots efforts to bear any fruit. Two recent examples come to mind, and I’m sure it will surprise none of my readers that both come from science fiction television, Firefly and Farscape. Momentum came from the community and the producers were smart enough to engage with, to love their communities. They treated them with respect and love, and guess what? When the franchises needed support, the communities around them sprung to action.

In both cases, the TV shows were cancelled and fan support had a great deal to do with subsequent movies. In the case of Firefly fans, strong DVD sales provided further proof for the movie studio that the decision to greenlight a feature film (Serenity) was the right one. And when it came time to promote the film, no fan base was more loyal than the Firefly fans.

Except maybe the Farscape fans, who lobbied for a resolution to their much loved and highly acclaimed series, and finally got it in 2004 with the Peacekeeper Wars miniseries. I wasn’t a Farscape viewer when it was on TV but now, having seen all the episodes, I can say without hesitation that it is a damn shame the show was cancelled. Can we have some more, please?

In both cases, the grassroots communities were there, and the shows were able to tap into the love to make things happen. Fans didn’t mind when Joss Whedon asked them to do something for Serenity. They knew he’d pay them back in spades. In fact, both fan groups are still going pretty strong online and to date, there are no (public) plans for more of either on TV or the big screen. [Boo Hoo]

That’s how a company can tap into the grassroots. And I do not believe that it  is only possible for science fiction franchises.

However, it is only possible when we understand that a grassroots campaign only works when the initial impetus comes from the community, not the corporation that benefits.

It’s grassroots marketing when the roots really are in the grass. When they are not, it is probably astroturf.

Tags: , , , , , , ,