29 June 2007

"A latent fear of dandyism taken to an extreme"

OK, I admit it. I'm not the best dressed guy at work. I regularly participate in meetings or give presentations wearing shorts, t-shirts, and a red sox cap.

But then, I work from home.

And I'm a guy. And I work in "new media," which is part granola-crunchy, part pocket-protector nerdy, part boyhood jock-wannabe gear. I'm not too keen on playing dress-up. However, I have clients to impress, and Chris Hogan of Off the Cuff DC tells me it's time to look the part:
Maybe it’s a latent fear of dandyism taken to an extreme. Perhaps the dot-com/casual-Friday-every-day movement, now very much on its way out of favor, left us stylistically neutered. Whatever the cause, it is now time to reclaim our place at the grown-up table of men’s clothing.

Could it be that we've pumped so much creative dynamism into developing new social media strategies that we have nothing left? Sure, I'll don a suit when I'm out and about, but what more must I do?

This will be an ongoing discussion, I promise...

28 June 2007

Best Blog EVAH -- inaugural edition

If I'm going to rant, then I have to back it up. So I'm going to introduce an occasional feature here called "Best Blog EVAH" (in homage to my hometown) where I showcase someone who's doing online right. It won't always be the techiest example but it will always be something I think is effective and consistent with a clearly defined strategy. I'm going to change my "leading the discussion" link list to include the Best Blogs EVAH. I'll keep three links from the existing group - Communication Overtones, Marketing Roadmaps, and the Beta Stage - because they actually provide the case study examples I rant about. So my links will now be a library of case studies, not just blogs I want you to think I read all the time. If the site I showcase is a client, I'll say so, but this isn't intended to be a self-promotion exercise. The inaugural BBE is NOT a client.
My first Best Blog EVAH -- Paul Levy's Running a Hospital.

This is a really simple blog. No bells & whistles, just a guy writing his observations for all to see. The guy just happens to be the CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. He writes regularly, he has a well-organized list of links, and he's really authentic. The blog is registered with Technorati so it can be found relatively easily, but there isn't a lot of effort in promotion here. There doesn't have to be.

When Levy started this job he had a great resume in managing large organizations but he didn't really have a background in health care. He needed to introduce himself to what must have been a skeptical audience of new employees and colleagues. So he started a new blog by writing:
My first comment is this: I am new to health care, and I have never worked in a place where people are so consistently caring and devoted to alleviating human suffering caused by disease. It is, in many ways, a beautiful place to work. But many of the forces facing hospitals, doctors, nurses, and others make it really hard to do the job well.
Reading the blog you understand just how authentic Levy is. He's not the unfeeling CEO of a massive bureaucratic organization. He has profound respect for health care providers. He's also not afraid to take on tougher issues or even dish out a little snark every now and then.

Levy's a really smart guy with a lot of respect in Massachusetts, but the blog gives Levy a chance to provide "official" commentary without being too formal, and it helps him strengthen his position as a thought leader. He'd probably have earned that reputation before too long, but the blog is an important tool in that regard. Now he gets attention from health care providers and policy experts across the world he'd never have without the blog.

This one is fun for me because I actually had the chance to meet Levy once, more than 20 years ago. He was running the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, and I was a teenager in Winthrop. My mom brought me to a public hearing he was running, and it's really the first time I was exposed to public affairs and participating in the political process.

27 June 2007

Where are the case studies?

So I'm soaking up as much as I can from the "leaders" in online PR and social media, and I'm reading dozens of blogs and talking with as many people as I can.

Many of these "leaders" don't describe a single case study or provide a single insight into the strategic value of one tactic versus another or one tool versus another AS IT APPLIES to a real-life company or organization. Instead I see a lot of "I spoke at this conference" or "this gadget is interesting" or my favorite, "communication has changed utterly and forever."

Yes, I know that.

But here's a bit of advice for anyone trying to learn this stuff, from someone who's been in communications and politics long enough to know the difference between a player and a poser:

If they can't point to a single example of how someone is actually using this stuff and exactly how it affects that person's bottom line, they can't be taken seriously.

26 June 2007

The day the music died

When I'm working I sometimes like to have my finetune player on in the background. I love the fact that I can build my own playlists or ask the service to find music for me.

Not today.

Most of us know that savenetradio.org is leading a protest of the royalty rates that will probably shut down a number of webcasters. I'm not an expert on this issue, but I know Alison is. I certainly believe that producers of original content should be recognized and compensated when appropriate. But I also know that there isn't a terrestrial radio station in Kentucky that perfectly fits what I want, and the tools available on the net allow me to make my own choices. I love my XM, but it's the same there -- even with all its content, I don't fit exactly into one channel.

The napster nightmare showed us that if you don't give consumers the choices they want, they'll use technology to make their own. I hope we can maintain a system that makes sure people get appropriately recognized and compensated for original content, while also making tools available for entrepreneurial innovation and consumer choice. And it shouldn't just be the big boys who get to innovate.

Radio shouldn't be a lecture, either.

25 June 2007

Attention candidates: you don't control your message

One of my favorite magazines is bloviating again about technology and elections. Seems everyone wants to talk about the Youtube election and how, once again, technology has changed everything utterly and forever.

I worked on my first political campaign 20 years ago -- it was a local campaign, with lots of knocking on doors, bumper stickers, and signs. We knew almost every family that had a yard sign with our candidate's name on it. We also knew plenty of people who lived in a house with a sign from the other guy. We kept repeating the old line, "signs don't vote." Most people who work on local elections have similar experiences -- people with the most signs often lack the most votes. Now the Economist is saying "Youtube videos don't vote." But they are making an enormous impact already.

What's changed is similar to what Richard Stacy mentioned about new technology and the media in his comment to my earlier post. It costs virtually nothing to produce and publish content, so "citizen producers" can develop their own political ads and, if they're good, they'll fly. We may see a transformation where there are no more mass producers of political or issue-oriented content, but the politicians are much more interested in the final product as opposed to the business model.

Of course companies should be concerned that they no longer have control of their brands -- but what if your brand is a candidate? And what if the person taking control of your brand has a contradictory, and not simply skeptical, agenda? What if the person with this agenda isn't inclined to reveal his or her identity?

The Supreme Court watered down McCain-Feingold yet again today, allowing corporate entities to more freely and readily invest in "issue ads" near an election. In his minority opinion Justice Souter expressed concern:
After today, the ban on contributions by corporations and unions and the limitation on their corrosive spending when they enter the political arena are open to easy circumvention, and the possibilities for regulating corporate and union campaign money are unclear.

If the good Justice got on the 'net a little more, he'd realize money isn't as much of an object anymore. Transparency is the true issue here.

From the political perspective, the campaigns have to move forward with a similar understanding as companies -- they are no longer the sole masters of their brand, or in campaign-speak, their "message." More and more they will have to engage directly, respond immediately. The good news it will be relatively cheap (in terms of money) to do so. The challenge will come in managing other campaign resources to do so effectively.

22 June 2007

how long will the windfall last for political bloggers?

I had a nice discussion earlier this week with an old college buddy about something that may become a fun friday post, but that's still in the works. WSJ had an interesting piece on how the elongated election cycle is pushing campaign advertising funds toward the web:
While the amount of money the campaigns are collectively expected to spend online this year won't likely amount to more than a rounding error compared to the hundreds of millions expected to be spent on broadcast ads, it marks the beginning of a broader shift away from candidates' reliance on traditional media.

Compared to the previous presidential election, it's a bonanza, and it's going nowhere but up -- unlike television and newspaper ads, online ads drive interested parties directly to requests for money and contact information. For the first time the campaigns can quickly calculate a financial ROI for an online ad down to the penny. You can't do that with a TV ad. At this point in the election season, money is as important, if not more important, than differentiating oneself from the others.

Political bloggers receive a windfall in two respects -- the revenues from ads, as well as as the clout that comes from serving as a virtual campaign bundler. I'm curious to see how this space evolves.

For example, in the next campaign cycle will we see a bunch of new political blogs sprout up in the hopes of earning some of that ad revenue? And will some those blogs be built by the traditional media organizations that are starting to lose money? Will the big political blogs start developing a "seasonal business" model, where they bring on more contributors as the political ad season switches into high gear, and then ratchet back once the elections are over and the ad revenue dries up? Or will they start providing more combined earned/paid media packages, where buying an ad also gets you a chat or a guest post or a podcast?

And will the campaigns ultimately decide that social networking opportunities like those currently available on Facebook are more efficient means of raising funds?

Political blogs in each ideological camp tend to cooperate with one another right now, but as the ad revenue pool grows I'm wondering if they'll start looking at each other more as competitors. Make no mistake, political blogging will become big business in the next few years - as long as blogs continue to be primary portals of political content.

The other interesting development for political bloggers is the evolving primary process itself. As states push for earlier and earlier primaries, it's more likely that a nominee is chosen well before primary season is over. What happens then? Candidates that have dropped out aren't spending ads, and general election candidates may choose to keep the powder dry. Politically it will be a dangerous time because all we'll likely see are constant attacks against each presumptive nominee - in the absence of real news or discussion, I'm afraid that's what we'll see. Perhaps candidate ads will be replaced by attack ads from third parties. But that scenario can reduce the clout of the political blogger to a great extent.

21 June 2007

widgets are nice, strategies are better

The rise of the widget is starting new discussions. Sure, there are the fun distractions like the cutetracker, and I've got a few items in my sidebar. But some people are realizing that these snippets of embedded code can have some interesting and strategic applications. I'm particuarly interested in what the online environmentalists are doing with widgets.

First, Treehugger made a small splash when they previewed the Green Index with daylife labs back in February. It looks a little like a stock price but it's actually a rough measurement of how the media discusses certain "green" topics. Sure, it's a cute discussion starter, but this kind of tool can begin to help advocates design messaging platforms and target specific issues. I haven't seen Treehugger or daylife offer the code publicly yet, though I noticed Triplepundit features a Green Index badge. Maybe they're a beta tester. (I thought better of just lifting the code from there.)


A slightly bigger splash has been made by One Billion Bulbs, a nifty online campaign that encourages people to switch to compact fluorescent lightbulbs and slap a widget on their blogs to keep track of how many bulbs they've switched. I learned about the campaign just by coming across the widget on a blog.


I'm really fascinated, however, with their strategic partnership with Pajamas Media, the conservative-leaning, politically-oriented blogging network. The same network that is currently highlighting a Canadian media report on "global cooling" has suddenly gone green?


Seriously though, it's a really innovative idea. Conservative political bloggers and their audiences are one of the most, if not the most, well-connected online network. They've got millions of loyal readers. OBB just found an opportunity to talk with a group of people that otherwise might be skeptical toward them, and to help them take a common-sense step to improve the environment.


Furthermore, conservatives may have found an opportunity to try to co-opt liberals on the environment. I'm old enough to remember when "conservation" was a conservative value. And a few years ago, I was on the floor of the Senate during a months-long energy bill debate where Republicans were sometimes put in the awkward position of voting against amendments advocating conservation. Now they've got something to be "for."


And already, Instapundit is bragging that his readers are out-conserving the liberal kossacks.


Again, the widget introduced an interesting and fun way to address an important issue. But the online partnership strategy that accompanied it could have some interesting political ramifications down the road. The partnership is the real news here.


Well played.

19 June 2007

sploggers hurt more than bloggers

An increasingly common task I'm performing for clients is one in which the client gets a google alert and they send a link to me, saying, "We found our company on this blog. the information about our company isn't accurate. We can't seem to track down the author. What can you tell us about this blog?"

More often than not it's a splog. Short for "spam blog," not to be confused with someone who writes spam comments in blogs. There are a few types of blogs like this, but they are all designed to make money without adding anything of value. Wired Magazine ran a piece about them last September.

Many just steal content right off of blogs verbatim -- someone's already pilfered from this blog once -- but others use "original" articles (typically very poorly written) filled with targeted key words so they'll show up in search engines. Of course, these sites are often crammed with auto-generated ads like Google Ad-sense or stuff from e-bay.

Typically I explain to the client that the site isn't credible and they should forget about it. They're usually nothing more than a nuisance, most people recognize they're useless when they find one, and it's not as if someone is actively building a "splog campaign" against a company.

However, the problem is getting a little more serious now. Sure, splogs hurt bloggers -- for example, we get pushed down in search engine results and we may not get credit for our original ideas. But reputation is a measurable asset for a company, and companies care what is being said about them anywhere online.

Perhaps more importantly, we see splogs that offer "health advice" and are making a lot of claims that seem somewhat dubious. (I'm choosing not to cite specific examples here though I've found a few -- I'm not interested in promoting their work.) As splogs get more sophisticated, it's just a matter of time before we see one that looks credible enough to convince someone searching for advice or information online mistaking a splog for an authoritative source of information.

The remedies available to stop this practice are not very strong. You can report a splog to splogspot so people know to avoid it, but how many people know about splogspot? Blogger tries to remove splogs from their systems, but they show up again as quickly as they're removed.

I'm very sensitive to free speech issues, but I think it's time sploggers are held accountable when they're spreading misleading information, particularly when it comes to health issues or someone's reputation. It's just a matter of time before this becomes a policy issue.

New 2.0 word! New 2.0 word!

I was planning to write about the cancer of splogs and how they're actually more harmful than most people think. I will soon. But I've invented a new word.

"Spluru."

A spluru is someone who tries to convince you he's a web 2.0 guru by spamming you with all sorts of jargon-y new age techno-crap that has no strategy or substance, and then writing about it on a blog.

I'd have used "spuru" but that's actually the name of an "event resource guide," and I don't want them to sue me.

Discuss.

18 June 2007

BRITS r cmn! - paul

Sara Rich at Worldchanging is talking about how smart mobs are having a measurable impact on government decisions in China, at least at the local level:

In Xiamen, on the southeastern coast of China, a petrochemical corporation has been constructing a $1.4 million factory to produce p-Xylene, a highly toxic petrochemical used to make polyester for fiber and plastic packaging. Public concern in the city over the health risks posed by the factory's presence has been stirring dissent for some time, but opponents face the powerful joint force of a corporation and the government. Then several weeks ago, someone sent a text message. It said:

Once this extremely poisonous chemical is produced, it means an atomic bomb will have been placed in Xiamen. The people of Xiamen will have to live with leukemia and deformed babies. We want our lives and health!

Danwei provides many more details on the overwhelming local opposition to the project and how the media has covered the controversy.

It's very easy to assume that technology is the pivot point that changed everything in this situation - without the high-tech solutions that enable targeted communication to move at breakneck speed, these activists would never be able to outsmart a determined and government-backed corporation in China.

Frankly, I don't think such a notion would do the organizers justice. The tool wasn't the factor -- the creative and strategic application of the available technology was.

Text messaging isn't exactly cutting-edge anymore. Danwei shows there were more advanced technological options available - but they were also well-established and the government was shutting them down before messaging could propagate effectively in those channels. This effort was relatively low-tech, but definitely high-concept. It involved a strategy that identified opinion leaders, attracted self-selecting communities, and implemented a suite of evolving and mobile communications tactics.

This wasn't a mob, it was a campaign.

In fact, the concept of the smart mob is nothing new -- only the name is. Paul Revere roused the Minutemen using nothing more than a lantern in a church tower, a horse, and his voice. But even Revere's plans depended on a network of volunteers who knew to wait for a signal and would be ready to move in a minute. That took weeks, even months, to plan - and it relied on the creativity and daring of determined people.

I realize this may sound like blasphemy to the technophiles who stop by here, but I think the success of protestes in Xiamen shows us that tools don't have to be sophisticated as long as the people who use them are strategic and creative.

15 June 2007

and these kids killed the video star

ironic. and fun. enjoy.

14 June 2007

In praise of being brazen

I was very pleased to open up my copy of Business Lexington today and read Stephen Turnbull's review of Penelope Trunk's book Brazen Careerist: The New Rules For Success.

I'll admit this up front: I despise self-help books. To me they're almost always just somebody who's never worked a day in his life making up a new vocabulary to essentially re-state the obvious, and spelling out a 7-step "power plan for spectacular greatness" that is so vague you don't even know if you're doing it right. (Step 7 is invariably, "buy my next book.")

So I was a little skeptical about this book. But I've read Penelope's blog and her column for some time now (I'm an avid Boston Globe reader), and I've even had the chance to pitch her a few times on work-related stuff. I first learned about Linkedin by reading her blog, and literally within a day of signing up a few college friends that I had lost track of contacted me.

I really liked the book because it's not so much about "your life sucks and I can fix it with words you won't find in a dictionary," but a reflection of how the values of work and life from my generation are affecting the decisions we make. I relate to this book. I've already had careers in health care administration, politics, and now communications. Not all of my career choices were smart or particularly successful, but we all need to make mistakes to learn.

The confidence-building message I kept hearing in her book, chapter after chapter: you're in control. You can control how you're perceived in the workplace. You can improve your life by making non-traditional but enriching choices. You can manage a difficult boss. You can actually go into business for yourself more easily than advance in many big companies. You can stop yourself from asking stupid questions in job interviews by preparing properly. These are the values I see in the most successful people in my generation -- they are independent and they're not afraid to make the choices that people in the generations before us wouldn't even consider.

I was also particuarly struck by what she had to say about authenticity, "the buzzword of the new millenium." In my business of online communication and social media, people are rushing to assert their "guru" status before the field is even adequately defined. They're not listening very much. I've written about this before.

I think the people who do online communications best - at least the people in this field I respect the most - understand what they know and what they don't. The more "traditional" practitioners of communications have experience and perspectives we should appreciate and respect, not reject as yesterday's way of doing things.

The good news is social media and blogs like Penelope's expose this generation to perspectives and ideas many of our parents and grandparents never had a chance to see. The tools give us access to the information; the burden is on us to learn from it.

Penelope says it better than I can in her book, and as far as I'm concerned her idea applies to much more than work:
The real work of authenticity is not just knowing yourself, but taking the time to understand where other people are coming from and to respect them for that.

Well done, Ms. Trunk.

13 June 2007

social media and predictions

Richard Stacy was generous enough to supply more detail to the post I wrote earlier that riffed on his predictions about media in the next few years.

I would say you are half right. There is definitely a lot of puffery and punditry around and much overblown talk of change. However, as you say, the facts are that the basic rules of communication and interaction haven't changed. Influencers will always be influencers even if the channels to reach them (and the channels they then use to reach others) change.

But the really big thing that has changed is that it now costs virtually nothing to distribute content whereas previously it cost a huge amount of money. The old media model therefore had to be a mass model. Now you don't need to be mass to be media - and this has turned the whole economics of the media on its head. There still will be a demand for mass content - but there is now a huge new competing media space which is based around the needs of, and produced by, the individual. This is a fundamental, game changing shift.

If you think this through and recognise what was built on the old media model (marketing, mass communications, the practice of democratic politics) you will start to understand the revolutionary nature of what is occuring. But don't just take my word for it - Rupert Murdoch is in the same place, so is the Economist, so is the Director General of the BBC. Check out what they have to say.

I think we're seeing the mass media outlets he's talking about already making awkward lurches toward mass distribution of user-generated content, like CNN's "i report." We're also seeing writers pooling their talents on outstanding blogs like Green Options to create professional and worthwhile content at a significantly lower cost. So from the business side I can understand the prediction - indeed, Stacy calls it "dusted and done."

However, I think we have to do a better job convincing journalists -- the people who excoriate bloggers and social media types at every opportunity - that these shifts in the business model of communication won't mean the end of journalism. As much as I like to give journalists grief for their "bloggers aren't journalists" complaints, they do have a point. They will have to shift their business model but I sincerely hope they will continue to be significant, even leading, producers of content.

The NYT-owned Boston Globe closed its last three foreign bureaus earlier this year in a cost-cutting move. BBC has also cut bureaus to save money. Will consumers of content be just as happy with the individual contributions of "citizen journalists" that lack the resouces that even a mid-sized paper can bring to bear? Will they be as well served?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that a robust fourth estate with the resources to support true investigative journalism does indeed have its benefits. Yes, indeed, all systems go with the rise of the individual content generator and the democratization of communication and ideas. But the idea that one delivery model of content replaces the other is, to me at least, a disappointing and even dangerous thought.

drop the laptop, part II

Mark Story makes some good points. As does Troy Johnson. And Steve Johnson.

And here's the explanation from the culprit himself, Eric Crawford.

Now the story's moved on to other sports.

12 June 2007

ONE Campaign has many things to do...

Anyone who knows me and my politics knows I consider global poverty and its repercussions like AIDS and other diseases to be the most important priority for the human race. That's why I'm so pleased that the ONE Campaign is working so hard to educate Americans about this global challenge and the opportunity we have to eradicate extreme poverty, and to ask our leading politicians to make the goals of the ONE Campaign a higher priority.

This is a political issue, and I'm really thrilled that blogs on the left and the right are lending a hand. There are plenty of people in the so-called mainstream who claim that the blogs represent the fringes of their ideologies. While I'm not sure I always agree with that, it's great to see folks from everywhere talking about this.

So I'm tracking discussion and will share info as I get it. And I'm encouraged but I'm learning that the ONE Campaign has a lot of work to do. There's still strong skepticism from the right and the left, still residual anger that burns from battles unresolved.

The greatest challenge this campaign faces is convincing Americans to look beyond the honest anger and hurt they've felt to help people they don't know. There's truth to what the critics are saying. Corruption has prevented people from getting help to those who need it most in remote corners of the world. Fear and prejudice have set us back years and hurt people in the process. Matthew 26:11 says what it says. There are other causes that deserve support as well.

So this is a challenge. We have to address the legitimate and honest points critics make. But this is a cause worth supporting. And everyone is welcome. There's so much more to this than a bunch of celebrities and photo-ops for politicians. This is the right thing to do.

and here's the extended version of the video you've seen everywhere else.

11 June 2007

sounding smart isn't all it's cracked up to be

So I'm trying to soak up knowledge about social media and online communications by looking at some of the "leading" publications in the field and i'm just stunned by how many new words we've invented. Seriously, this field has spawned its own lexicon in what seems like a matter of months. (This morning, for breakfast, I'm having toast 2.0 that's fully integrated with crunchy peanut butter. I'll be drinking coffee and orange juice in real time. Seriously. )

I've also observed a rather brash insistence that social media technologies are changing everything, utterly and forever, and traditional media will pretty much cease to exist.

I'll apologize in advance to Richard Stacy, who I don't know but who has made some rather bold predictions in a column he wrote for Social Computing Magazine. Stuff like the price of media will be cut in half in five years, and the world's leading media organizations won't actually produce any content within ten years. He ended his commentary, to his credit, with "who knows if these things will actually come to pass," calling his predictions "semi-serious."

I wanted to know more about Stacy so I checked out his blog. He talks about Facebook and Twitter. He found a new search engine he likes. Not bad.


Then I notice he links to an article and summarizes it:


How Do You Influence the Influencers? An important subject. This article, temming from recent Yahoo research, explores the territory where conventional advocacy meets social media. The conclusion appears to be that the answer is very complicated.

I'm a little confused. How did we get all these experts (Stacy is by no means alone) who are confident the world has changed utterly and forever (again, I credit Stacy for hedging) but can't seem to explain how we use social media to influence opinion leaders in communities? I know I'm being blatantly unfair to Stacy. He didn't write the article he cited. I haven't read everything he's written. I'm just trying to make a point.

Social media and advocacy is NOT all that complicated. You identify these "influencers" (it's not that hard, they actually want to be found) and you build relationships with them. You do that by being transparent, sincere, and honest. You take the time to read their blogs. You contact them when it's appropriate and when what you have to share is relevant. You understand what they want and you work hard to give it to them.

I know this isn't complicated because I did this successfully before I ever knew what a widget was. Willie Sutton robbed banks because that was where the money was. I go to facebook groups and blogs because that's where the opinion leaders are.

Of course new technology has brought about changes. We have to move more quickly now. We have to be more organized. But speed and organization were not invented in 1997.

I'm wary of those who would say "everything has changed" and invent new terminology to essentially re-state the obvious. Let's not get too carried away here, people.

(and of course now Brad will send me some new techno-tool that will convince me everything has changed, utterly and forever.)

Drop the laptop and step away from the modem

NCAA revokes the press credential of a Louisville Courier-Journal reporter for...

wait for it...

blogging. At a baseball game.

Apparently "live blogging" is too close to a live description of the event, and they've received a lot of money to grant exclusive rights to live descriptions of events to TV and radio.

I think the NCAA better strap on a helmet. They've been a convenient target for any number of issues, but they'll be hard-pressed to find friends on this one. Essentially, they're telling journalists that they'd really like them to cover sporting events, just not so quickly.

And the NCAA's antagonists here really are journalists, not commonfolk bloggers. Journalists who write for media outlets that have money and hire lawyers. A quote popularly attributed to Tommy Lasorda, among others: "Never pick a fight with anyone who buys ink by the barrel." In 2007, the rule should be updated - Never pick a fight with anyone who has wireless internet access.

On the merits, I've read "live blogs" before and IMHO they're not play-by-play descriptions of the game, they're more analysis. Sure, the pace of baseball is slow enough to include plenty of details, but the courier-journal (and countless other publications) have "live-blogged" other NCAA events without a hiccup.

I think we're seeing another instance where the pace of citizen-enabled technology is butting up against larger corporate interests. The pace of technology is going to force the NCAA and other sports organizations to change the way they share information about their product. It may even force them to change their business model. As more people log on to live-blogs for content and analysis they can't get anywhere else, the NCAA will no doubt demand a piece of the action. They may start their own live-blogs of events. Anything's possible.

Innovation will save the day, as it almost always does. But I think we may be in for some very heated discussions about free speech, about public accomodation, and any number of things.

08 June 2007

When Talk Show Hosts Attack

most folks in our biz will instantly recognize this from media training 101. Enjoy.

crisis communications parallels

recently i mentioned a smart blog called Communication Overtones and the proprietor there was kind enough to leave a comment here about the duck. One of the reasons i think she "gets it" on blogs and social media is she has a background in crisis communications.

i've done a decent amount of work in crisis and litigation communications. (i once led a conference call about a plane crash from the site of a train derailment.) and it strikes me that the communications environments you see there are remarkably similar to the online space.

Events happen remarkably fast and you have to move just as quickly to respond.

"Media" scrutiny is intense and people tend to process information as opposed to fact-check all the time. Consequently, not all the information out there is accurate.

Protagonists lead the story - so it's sometimes hard to get your story out, but there are many opportunities available.

People who are trying to report information will go ANYWHERE to get it and people who consume information will look anywhere to find it as well.

Much more often than not, the worst thing you can do is refuse to participate in the discussion. Communications textbooks are filled with case studies of companies that sat in the bunker or refused to comment in a crisis. Or failed to act quickly. It's like that here.

We need to start talking about online earned media in terms that companies who need it most can understand. No, online is NOT the same as crisis. But many of the skills and conditions translate.

06 June 2007

tracking political discussions to determine relevance...

John had some fun with tag clouds today. For those who may not know, a tag cloud is a simple tool that tracks the frequency a word or phrase is used in a gaggle of text (or a discussion) and represents that frequency graphically. They help communications professionals track and understand discussions a little better. John's a political guy, and decided to see what themes the republicans and democrats invoked in their presidential debates this week and last.

The dems' tag cloud looks like this:











The republicans' cloud looks like this:













In a tag cloud, the bigger the word, the more often it's used. So the dems use the words "care" and "tax" more than the GOP, and the GOP use the words "god" and "government more than the dems.

Political campaigns choose their words very, very carefully. Words and phrases are tested to see if they resonate. For example, there's a reason republicans call the estate tax the "death tax" while democrats call it the "paris hilton tax." Both describe the same thing but the terms are designed to elicit different feelings about the issue.

My question, however, is a little different: are the candidates having the same discussions the American people are having?

I thought I'd generate a tag cloud that follows a different but very important discussion -- moms talking about politics. So take a look at what the women at The Soccer Mom Vote talked about for the entire month of May 2007:



The words in this cloud are all fairly large, so the women are using them a lot. Check out the three clouds and decide for yourself whether the pols and the soccer moms are talking about the same things.

FREE THE DUCK

As an online public affairs and issues management professional, I'm always looking for interesting and smart topics to discuss on a blog. Susan has an interesting piece today on "blogola." I found another really smart blog in this genre called Communication Overtones that I'll be adding to my blogroll soon.

Today's issue, however, comes from a self-described mommyblogger, Kristen Chase. Seems a toy duck just "fell" into her shopping cart at the mall and she took it home. Now she's taking all sorts of humiliating pictures of the duck, and she and her partner in crime Julie are inviting everyone to take sides by creating graphics for other bloggers. Return the duck. Keep the duck. EAT the damn duck.

I live in a pro-duck household, as my wife explains. I SAY FREE THE DUCK.

Kristen may not realize this, but her mocking pictures may, in fact, violate article 3(c) of Part 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. (I worked for a Senator for years so I get to be all snooty like this.)

I've asked Kristen and Julie to provide a Free the Duck option. I'm also asking bloggers to provide their own video shout-outs to Mr. Duck. Here's mine:

05 June 2007

blogging is NOT for the passive-aggressive

just ask "Dr. Flea."

two things jump out at me. first, it's extremely difficult to blog anonymously anymore. there is so much available about people online, you can get found out without ever mentioning your name. if you're just writing benign personal items, maybe no one cares. but if you're a good writer and a little smarmy, someone's always reading. and once it's on the internet, it's there forever.

second, i remain amazed at how "mainstream" (i hate that term) journalists have it out for bloggers. Dr. Flea made a huge mistake writing what he did. his lawyer probably told him not to comment on the case, but he thought he could get away with this. however, he's one of millions of people writing online. sometimes i think reporters and columnists (especially the columnists) don't appreciate the new competition.

take Brian Williams (was in WSJ but I found via Hugh Hewitt):
You're going to be up against people who have an opinion, a modem, and a bathrobe. All of my life, developing credentials to cover my field of work, and now I'm up against a guy named Vinny in an efficiency apartment in the Bronx who hasn't left the efficiency apartment in two years.

then remember that Brian has a blog. but it's one of those mainstream media blogs under his company's brand - significantly less street cred in the blogosphere.

journalists seem hung up on whether bloggers are journalists or not. i think most bloggers don't care what you call them, but many serve as a check on journalists. but what the pundit class may not realize yet is that millions of "citizen journalists" don't degrade the discourse, they eventually improve the communications environment because readers have more choices -- and don't have to read columnists or reporters that are shown to be consistently wrong.

01 June 2007

crisis simulations

One of the great things about living in a college town is the physical proximity to really smart people. The University of Kentucky boasts one of the nation's most prestigious schools in international affairs -- the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce is definitely one of those places that demands both local and global attention for the quality of students and faculty.

One of the great things about working with the blogosphere is the virtual proximity to really smart people. One of my favorite blogs is Lawyers Guns and Money, a blog written by academics who focus mostly on political issues, but there's a healthy dose of history and a dash of baseball -- two of my favorite topics.

My most recent Business Lexington column takes a look at the next great tradition from the University of Kentucky -- the Patterson School's annual crisis simulation. One of the architects of this year's sim is Robert Farley, a member of the faculty there. The cool part is I first learned about Robert by reading his stuff on LGM. This is the second column I've written about the Patterson School, and I owe a great deal to Robert for each.

This column actually came together pretty quickly once things got underway. The students who responded to my questions were really enthusiastic. Ambassador Cavanaugh was very gracious. Ambassador Jones was also generous to add a quote.

What i really loved about the sim, of course -- was the effort Robert put into his "simulated" blogs. Caribbean News Network. The Cuban News Agency. The Man About Havana was my favorite.

Farley's a pretty creative guy, and he provided yet another example of how blogs are changing the way we do almost everything. It's also an excellent example of how working in the blogosphere can also generate "traditional" media attention.