One of the fun things about traveling to DC for work is the stuff you see at hotels. Yesterday I noticed that there were far more families at the hotel than usual for a weekday. I thought school is out in most places, but even so, there are far fewer business travelers and a LOT more sixth-graders running around than I'm used to seeing in a hotel. Then I noticed the sign in front of the hotel ballroom: The 2007 Scripps National Spelling Bee. How cool is that?
Most people who have watched a spelling bee have seen the contestant get a super-hard word and then the kid asks for the word in a sentence, and the country of origin. I know those things are useful, but sometimes I think they're just trying to get comfortable with the task, spending some time thinking of the word, engaging slowly, gaining confidence.
That's what many companies are doing right now with social media. They're trying to understand its origins. Trying to place social media in its proper context. I'm working with a lot of companies right now, introducing them to blogs for the first time. I have to establish a comfort level. find the right fit. help the company understand the value of building new relationships with new community leaders. I'm leaning a lot on the relationships with bloggers I've already built, to help the company feel more comfortable.
So many people in this social media world are wondering aloud when blogs will be a requirement for the fortune 500 crowd. they don't know why people haven't embraced all the new social media tools. I think it would help if we just explained where the word "blog" comes from.
29 May 2007
news corp and myspace and money, oh my!
i'm traveling this week, so i take work breaks by blogging in the hotel room...
first, I'm very happy for Liz who had baby Sage while i was off the grid. Penelope's book also arrived while i was away, and i'm looking forward to reading it - the first glance impressed me.
i noticed that (liberal) huff post is sounding the alarm that (conservative) news corp will be able to track political donations via its myspace subsidiary. campaigns indeed rely on myspace as a solicitation platform.
the fact that this huge company has this information isn't particularly distressing to me -- campaign contributions are public information anyway. the fact that they leverage their web presence and the communities that frequent it to enhance their own stature as "bundlers" is also not surprising. That's what Jerome does. it's what all the big beltway blogs do. If you have a problem with it, Jerome says stop whining. The difference is, I think, Jerome doesn't necessarily have a list of his contributors. (Perhaps I'm naive about this, but i don't think he collects this and may not have the capacity to do so.)
the question that remains unanswered for now: will they compile this information and what will they do with it? News Corp is for-profit. the raw data is public, but it takes resources to compile in a meaningful way, and News Corp will be able to do it quickly. such a list is unquestionably an asset with real financial value. should a for-profit company decline the opportunity to profit from compiling public information? should they restrain themselves from providing their assets to political candidates they deem favorable? Sure, they'd have to report the in-kind, but so what?
and will we now see dems decide they have to boycott myspace since it's owned by news corp? will facebook become the networking site of dems now? (Brad tells me facebook is more robust anyway.)
i think the nugget that SHOULD be raising eyebrows is the absolutely mind-boggling amount of information the government, companies and organizations can strategically compile. we're now adding a record of political contributions to the staggering amount of data that's available on just about any American...
... like your prescriptions.
first, I'm very happy for Liz who had baby Sage while i was off the grid. Penelope's book also arrived while i was away, and i'm looking forward to reading it - the first glance impressed me.
i noticed that (liberal) huff post is sounding the alarm that (conservative) news corp will be able to track political donations via its myspace subsidiary. campaigns indeed rely on myspace as a solicitation platform.
the fact that this huge company has this information isn't particularly distressing to me -- campaign contributions are public information anyway. the fact that they leverage their web presence and the communities that frequent it to enhance their own stature as "bundlers" is also not surprising. That's what Jerome does. it's what all the big beltway blogs do. If you have a problem with it, Jerome says stop whining. The difference is, I think, Jerome doesn't necessarily have a list of his contributors. (Perhaps I'm naive about this, but i don't think he collects this and may not have the capacity to do so.)
the question that remains unanswered for now: will they compile this information and what will they do with it? News Corp is for-profit. the raw data is public, but it takes resources to compile in a meaningful way, and News Corp will be able to do it quickly. such a list is unquestionably an asset with real financial value. should a for-profit company decline the opportunity to profit from compiling public information? should they restrain themselves from providing their assets to political candidates they deem favorable? Sure, they'd have to report the in-kind, but so what?
and will we now see dems decide they have to boycott myspace since it's owned by news corp? will facebook become the networking site of dems now? (Brad tells me facebook is more robust anyway.)
i think the nugget that SHOULD be raising eyebrows is the absolutely mind-boggling amount of information the government, companies and organizations can strategically compile. we're now adding a record of political contributions to the staggering amount of data that's available on just about any American...
... like your prescriptions.
28 May 2007
back on the grid
two weeks away from work, away from anything resembling a computer. didn't even have good phone service on the outer banks, let alone a servicable blackberry.
I managed to see some first-life things like brown pelicans and sandpipers on the shore. a family of deer roaming through the woods. i reacquainted myself with a seabreeze. most importantly, i spent time with my wife on her birthday.
i also managed to read three physically tangible books. thick, heady books that described things like Chinese exploration in the 1400's and the uprising in Delhi in the 1850's. Not an emoticon in sight. i even bought a fourth book - a biography of a pope's daughter in renaissance italy - and maybe i'll get to finish it.
I looked at two newspapers the entire time. one was a throwaway USA today. The other was a WaPo and of course, there on the front page, was David All and a story about republicans playing "catch-up" online. I've met David -- he's a smart guy, a nice guy.
The biggest reason politico's care about blogs -- maybe not the only reason, but right now the biggest reason by far -- is the capacity to raise money online. I don't think people necessarily care that Senator Clinton's campaign website has gotten more unique visits than Senator McCain's has. Even with my obvious political biases, I can't say that dems are having more "success" online because they have better ideas or because R's are unpopular. There's more to it.
All of the candidates have made relationship building with bloggers a priority. I sense that the terms of the relationship are different between D's and R's, however, and there are hints to this in the WaPo piece.
I think sometimes the R's view "the blogs" as a component of the echo chamber, another effective channel to distribute their messaging. The messaging platform is still top-down. That's worked for the R's very well in the past because the messaging has come from essentially a single source or someone recognized as affiliated with that source -- the President or the Administration. Conservative bloggers (not all but probably most) have pretty much seen the President as their leader, and they want to support him. They're inclined to be helpful. They want to give their take on what the administration is saying, but the discussion is led by the source of the message, the leader, and the bloggers assume particular roles in spreading the message. They want to play a role in an overall messaging strategy, but there's an underlying assumption that something orchestrated is going on. No, there isn't a conspiracy, but there are certainly meetings with bloggers where someone representing leadership says "here's how you can be helpful." And the bloggers are glad to do it. As David says in the WaPo piece:
That's because they have a Tony Snow. It's an echo chamber, and he's the voice.
Sometimes this approach works very well and sometimes it doesn't. And it limits you to those who are already inclined to be helpful. It can strengthen your base, but it can't grow it much. The top-tier republican presidential candidates aren't just competing with each other, they're competing with a president who remains omnipresent in the media and politics, despite his low favorability ratings. When the R's have a nominee, he will have a voice, and the echo chamber will make subtle changes, but the model will remain intact. However, as long as the GOP talks only to the same 50 or 100 blogs - the blogs most inclined to be helpful and not critical -- each ping of the online echo chamber will produce diminishing returns. They'll only be talking to each other. That's what we're seeing now with fewer hits on the candidate websites and less cash coming in.
Dems, on the other hand, don't have a recognized leader. They haven't for some time now. The candidates building relationships with bloggers don't have the luxury of telling them what the message is and how they can be most helpful in spreading it. They court bloggers aggressively and give them some input on policy. Bloggers feel some ownership, so they give some money.
The dems' current situation is more suitable for the blogosphere. it allows for more participants and more robust participation and access. with apologies to Senator Clinton, it's less of a lecture and more of a discussion.
Once the dems have a nominee, however, we might see them adopt a model more closely resembling the R's. The leader may want bloggers to fall in line. We'll see if those bloggers will feel comfortable making the switch from being part of the discussion to towing the party line. less ownership of the discussion may lead to less investment from the bloggers.
The answer to this, IMHO, is to extend the discussion beyond the "beltway blogosphere." Each party currently sees the blogosphere as a universe of 50-100 noteworthy sites on each ideological side. There are more than 70 million blogs, and most of the best bloggers are interested in politics but not political bloggers.
The party that draws them into the discussion and makes sure they still can provide input will win the online fundraising race and probably win the election.
In the coming days and weeks, I'll be building up this blog -- adding links and some useful 2.0 tools. I hope to build this into a useful bigthink outlet that someone else might want to read from time to time.
I managed to see some first-life things like brown pelicans and sandpipers on the shore. a family of deer roaming through the woods. i reacquainted myself with a seabreeze. most importantly, i spent time with my wife on her birthday.
i also managed to read three physically tangible books. thick, heady books that described things like Chinese exploration in the 1400's and the uprising in Delhi in the 1850's. Not an emoticon in sight. i even bought a fourth book - a biography of a pope's daughter in renaissance italy - and maybe i'll get to finish it.
I looked at two newspapers the entire time. one was a throwaway USA today. The other was a WaPo and of course, there on the front page, was David All and a story about republicans playing "catch-up" online. I've met David -- he's a smart guy, a nice guy.
The biggest reason politico's care about blogs -- maybe not the only reason, but right now the biggest reason by far -- is the capacity to raise money online. I don't think people necessarily care that Senator Clinton's campaign website has gotten more unique visits than Senator McCain's has. Even with my obvious political biases, I can't say that dems are having more "success" online because they have better ideas or because R's are unpopular. There's more to it.
All of the candidates have made relationship building with bloggers a priority. I sense that the terms of the relationship are different between D's and R's, however, and there are hints to this in the WaPo piece.
I think sometimes the R's view "the blogs" as a component of the echo chamber, another effective channel to distribute their messaging. The messaging platform is still top-down. That's worked for the R's very well in the past because the messaging has come from essentially a single source or someone recognized as affiliated with that source -- the President or the Administration. Conservative bloggers (not all but probably most) have pretty much seen the President as their leader, and they want to support him. They're inclined to be helpful. They want to give their take on what the administration is saying, but the discussion is led by the source of the message, the leader, and the bloggers assume particular roles in spreading the message. They want to play a role in an overall messaging strategy, but there's an underlying assumption that something orchestrated is going on. No, there isn't a conspiracy, but there are certainly meetings with bloggers where someone representing leadership says "here's how you can be helpful." And the bloggers are glad to do it. As David says in the WaPo piece:
We've always been a party of staying on message," All said. "It's the Rush Limbaugh model. What Tony Snow says in the White House filters down to talk radio, which makes its way to the blogs."
That's because they have a Tony Snow. It's an echo chamber, and he's the voice.
Sometimes this approach works very well and sometimes it doesn't. And it limits you to those who are already inclined to be helpful. It can strengthen your base, but it can't grow it much. The top-tier republican presidential candidates aren't just competing with each other, they're competing with a president who remains omnipresent in the media and politics, despite his low favorability ratings. When the R's have a nominee, he will have a voice, and the echo chamber will make subtle changes, but the model will remain intact. However, as long as the GOP talks only to the same 50 or 100 blogs - the blogs most inclined to be helpful and not critical -- each ping of the online echo chamber will produce diminishing returns. They'll only be talking to each other. That's what we're seeing now with fewer hits on the candidate websites and less cash coming in.
Dems, on the other hand, don't have a recognized leader. They haven't for some time now. The candidates building relationships with bloggers don't have the luxury of telling them what the message is and how they can be most helpful in spreading it. They court bloggers aggressively and give them some input on policy. Bloggers feel some ownership, so they give some money.
The dems' current situation is more suitable for the blogosphere. it allows for more participants and more robust participation and access. with apologies to Senator Clinton, it's less of a lecture and more of a discussion.
Once the dems have a nominee, however, we might see them adopt a model more closely resembling the R's. The leader may want bloggers to fall in line. We'll see if those bloggers will feel comfortable making the switch from being part of the discussion to towing the party line. less ownership of the discussion may lead to less investment from the bloggers.
The answer to this, IMHO, is to extend the discussion beyond the "beltway blogosphere." Each party currently sees the blogosphere as a universe of 50-100 noteworthy sites on each ideological side. There are more than 70 million blogs, and most of the best bloggers are interested in politics but not political bloggers.
The party that draws them into the discussion and makes sure they still can provide input will win the online fundraising race and probably win the election.
In the coming days and weeks, I'll be building up this blog -- adding links and some useful 2.0 tools. I hope to build this into a useful bigthink outlet that someone else might want to read from time to time.
09 May 2007
just as i was getting started
i'm heading out of town for a bit and will be devoid of bandwidth.
no worries, i WILL return - end of May, beginning of June...
no worries, i WILL return - end of May, beginning of June...
08 May 2007
reading is fundamental
one of the great things about getting to know some excellent bloggers is they're willing to tell you their horror stories of bad PR pitches. Apparently we're not reading the blogs we pitch.
occasionally I'll get emails from bloggers with the pitches included. Stuff like:
Unfortunately, this pitch was sent to a pair of bloggers in New York and Philadelphia. I think it was also received by a blogger in Colorado.
I rarely if ever pitch products. I engage bloggers in discussions about issues. I don't try to push my client's views upon bloggers -- I try to help my clients start a discussion or add something to an existing one. My clients typically like to speak for themselves, and that's fine with me.
This company had an opportunity to engage women bloggers on how they meet the demands of a busy daily life. How they take care of themselves. They could learn more about the choices women make and if there are other options women want. They could learn a wealth of information about the thoughts and feelings of their target demographic and incorporate that into a branding strategy.
They passed on that opportunity.
I understand the pressure of this business and that sometimes you just have to get the emails and phone calls out the door. It's possible the PR person here tried to push back on the client and asked for the time it takes to know bloggers and the company said no. We've all made mistakes and everyone deserves at least one do-over.
Problem is this blogger is one of the more prominent voices in the blogosphere. People read and respect her. And the chances that energy-drink PR pitcher will overcome this gaffe with her are pretty slim. This isn't traditional public relations where you call a reporter or editor, they say no thanks, and you try again the next week. This is a place where we have spam folders.
I'll be saying more about situations like these in the future.
occasionally I'll get emails from bloggers with the pitches included. Stuff like:
Would you consider writing about [brand name], a delicious and healthy new energy drink from [company name]?
[insert picture of product]
[product] is for active women in search of a healthy alternative to traditional caffeinated beverages. It's launching in four market cities - Chicago, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix - which means your city is one of the first to try it!
Unfortunately, this pitch was sent to a pair of bloggers in New York and Philadelphia. I think it was also received by a blogger in Colorado.
I rarely if ever pitch products. I engage bloggers in discussions about issues. I don't try to push my client's views upon bloggers -- I try to help my clients start a discussion or add something to an existing one. My clients typically like to speak for themselves, and that's fine with me.
This company had an opportunity to engage women bloggers on how they meet the demands of a busy daily life. How they take care of themselves. They could learn more about the choices women make and if there are other options women want. They could learn a wealth of information about the thoughts and feelings of their target demographic and incorporate that into a branding strategy.
They passed on that opportunity.
I understand the pressure of this business and that sometimes you just have to get the emails and phone calls out the door. It's possible the PR person here tried to push back on the client and asked for the time it takes to know bloggers and the company said no. We've all made mistakes and everyone deserves at least one do-over.
Problem is this blogger is one of the more prominent voices in the blogosphere. People read and respect her. And the chances that energy-drink PR pitcher will overcome this gaffe with her are pretty slim. This isn't traditional public relations where you call a reporter or editor, they say no thanks, and you try again the next week. This is a place where we have spam folders.
I'll be saying more about situations like these in the future.
in which the bloggers discuss their influence
Jerome and Duncan are discussing why they blog, and Jerome is offering some wisdom on how to be an influential blogger on political issues:
A couple of things come to mind. First, Jerome lists a few more things, but in a sense he could really stop with number 1.
When Jon Tester was running low on cash in his Senate race as election day approached, it was the Democratic "netroots" that supplied the quick infusion he needed. That got the attention of the DSCC and the DNC and now it seems every candidate wants to do blogger conference calls, coffees, and what-have-you.
Bloggers have disproportionate influence on the political process not simply because they can raise money, but because they can potentially raise it from large and dispersed groups. The fact that individual donations are small actually increases their influence. Here's why: contributors who immediately "max out" on their campaign contributions don't have to be asked again. A small donor indicates her or his willingness to give, and prompts the campaign to ask for money again - providing the contributor an opportunity to talk about priority issues.
Since Jerome and bloggers like him are constantly collecting and distributing donations from the disperse communities bloggers have created, the blogger becomes the center of constant influence. The campaign finance system as currently constructed prompts the campaign to care more about Jerome than his readers -- but we all understand that Jerome derives his power from the community he's helped assemble.
Let's be candid: the campaign finance system as currently constructed coerces us into a discussion about money first and issues second. I'll be interested in knowing how the campaigns interact with the online communities that care deeply about issues but are NOT about fundraising. That's when the really smart issues-based online communicators will take center stage.
For example, look at The Soccer Mom Vote -- a collection of moms from diverse political backgrounds getting together to talk about issues in a less polarizing context. It would be almost unseemly to pass the hat on behalf of a candidate or party in this community. But this is the community of the "persuadables" -- thoughtful, smart and responsible people who aren't driven by ideology. Mostly women who make 90 percent of the meaningful daily decisions in their families. This is the forum where the issues that Jerome and Duncan care so much about can be discussed in more depth and with less vitriol -- allowing positions to be developed and defined more organically. If you can convince the soccer moms, you might not have to convince anyone else, no matter how much money you have.
Soon the campaigns (and everyone else) will realize that the power to make individual decisions in a family has an enormous cash value.
1) Raise money for candidates: You don't have to raise a lot to be meaningful. Even a few thousand dollars from a few hundred people matters if it's early enough... And if you can't raise any money at all, my guess is that you're just not trying. Asking for money isn't easy, but again, neither is creating change or building power. If you don't want to do it, then don't whine about people who are willing to do it using the power they create for stuff they care about.
A couple of things come to mind. First, Jerome lists a few more things, but in a sense he could really stop with number 1.
When Jon Tester was running low on cash in his Senate race as election day approached, it was the Democratic "netroots" that supplied the quick infusion he needed. That got the attention of the DSCC and the DNC and now it seems every candidate wants to do blogger conference calls, coffees, and what-have-you.
Bloggers have disproportionate influence on the political process not simply because they can raise money, but because they can potentially raise it from large and dispersed groups. The fact that individual donations are small actually increases their influence. Here's why: contributors who immediately "max out" on their campaign contributions don't have to be asked again. A small donor indicates her or his willingness to give, and prompts the campaign to ask for money again - providing the contributor an opportunity to talk about priority issues.
Since Jerome and bloggers like him are constantly collecting and distributing donations from the disperse communities bloggers have created, the blogger becomes the center of constant influence. The campaign finance system as currently constructed prompts the campaign to care more about Jerome than his readers -- but we all understand that Jerome derives his power from the community he's helped assemble.
Let's be candid: the campaign finance system as currently constructed coerces us into a discussion about money first and issues second. I'll be interested in knowing how the campaigns interact with the online communities that care deeply about issues but are NOT about fundraising. That's when the really smart issues-based online communicators will take center stage.
For example, look at The Soccer Mom Vote -- a collection of moms from diverse political backgrounds getting together to talk about issues in a less polarizing context. It would be almost unseemly to pass the hat on behalf of a candidate or party in this community. But this is the community of the "persuadables" -- thoughtful, smart and responsible people who aren't driven by ideology. Mostly women who make 90 percent of the meaningful daily decisions in their families. This is the forum where the issues that Jerome and Duncan care so much about can be discussed in more depth and with less vitriol -- allowing positions to be developed and defined more organically. If you can convince the soccer moms, you might not have to convince anyone else, no matter how much money you have.
Soon the campaigns (and everyone else) will realize that the power to make individual decisions in a family has an enormous cash value.
06 May 2007
Blogging isn't a strategy
Stephen Turcotte over at Scout is openly wondering why more companies aren't blogging and he's discussing four reasons why they haven't yet:
1) CEO's are busy;
2) Companies don't get it;
3) Companies get it, but don't know how to do it; and
4) Companies are waiting for others to try it first.
Later in his post Turcotte readily acknowledges that
It's not enough to recognize "goals and circumstances." Businesses have to decide how they want to position themselves and their offering, and consider the needs of their audiences and stakeholders. Sometimes they'll use a blog. Many times, perhaps most times, they won't.
Fact is most corporate blogs currently lack street cred because the medium can't match the internal culture of the company. Often times it's more effective for a company to join the discussion others are having than to try to start one others won't want to join.
Again, with due respect to Turcotte, I think he underestimates the amount of thought most companies currently give to the medium. Most CEO's are always looking for new ways to talk to customers and others, and they're more than willing to take the time to do it right. Companies are also ready to outsource the things they realize they don't completely understand - now more than ever. And while companies are often more than willing to learn from their competitors' mistakes, they're not as willing to let others take the lead.
Sure, more companies will blog, and soon. But many won't. And they'll be smart not to.
1) CEO's are busy;
2) Companies don't get it;
3) Companies get it, but don't know how to do it; and
4) Companies are waiting for others to try it first.
Later in his post Turcotte readily acknowledges that
Blogging is not something that every company needs to be rush into. It’s certaily not for every company. There are many companies that should not blog. However, every company has a responsibility to its stakeholders to explore the possibilities and then make the call based on their own set of goals and circumstances.The word he's missing? Strategy.
It's not enough to recognize "goals and circumstances." Businesses have to decide how they want to position themselves and their offering, and consider the needs of their audiences and stakeholders. Sometimes they'll use a blog. Many times, perhaps most times, they won't.
Fact is most corporate blogs currently lack street cred because the medium can't match the internal culture of the company. Often times it's more effective for a company to join the discussion others are having than to try to start one others won't want to join.
Again, with due respect to Turcotte, I think he underestimates the amount of thought most companies currently give to the medium. Most CEO's are always looking for new ways to talk to customers and others, and they're more than willing to take the time to do it right. Companies are also ready to outsource the things they realize they don't completely understand - now more than ever. And while companies are often more than willing to learn from their competitors' mistakes, they're not as willing to let others take the lead.
Sure, more companies will blog, and soon. But many won't. And they'll be smart not to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)