Something good in Facebook for a change

A friend and former colleague directed me to a really smart social marketing blog called Spare Change, written by Nedra Kline Weinreich. She writes about a Facebook group she started to support H.R. 940, the Suzanne Gonzales Suicide Prevention Act of 2007 (Suzy's Law), which would make it a crime to use the Internet to promote or encourage suicide. The bill is sponsored by Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA).

Here's the background from Ms. Weinreich:

Suzy was a bright, bubbly young lady with a quirky sense of humor from a small town in California. After she went off to college, she became depressed and turned to the Internet for support in January 2003. Unfortunately, rather than finding people who wanted to help her recover and live a long, healthy life, Suzy posted a note about her suicidal feelings to the Usenet group alt.suicide.holiday. She was met with relentless discouragement against getting help, and over the following months was encouraged by members of the group to go ahead and commit suicide. This included providing specific details on the best method of killing herself and helping her come up with a plan to carry it out. On March 23, 2003, Suzy took her own life, alone in a Florida hotel room. She was one of many such "successes" to come out of that online group.

I find it repulsive that the people who successfully encouraged this woman to kill herself are anywhere other than jail right now.

Of course, I've written extensively about my displeasure with Facebook's willingness to allow more than 350 "pro-ana" groups on its network, especially when they seem to have no problem banning pictures of breastfeeding moms. It can be easily argued that a pro-ana group is encouraging girls to kill themselves, just not quite as blatantly. So it's nice to see Facebook used in this way.

The bill once again reminds us that we can responsibly add context to restricting content without devolving into the absurd. And the group is an effective use of a social network to spread the word and provide important information.

I don't think the kid will live this down for a while

Jacoby Ellsbury claims his free taco.

It's not about me

I got tagged by two wicked awesome Boston-based PR Bloggahs and 'Sox fans, Susan Getgood and Kyle Flaherty, on this whole media snackers meme that Jeremiah Owyang dreamt up. They're asking if I respect "media snackers," defined by Jeremiah as "folks who consume small bits of information, data or entertainment when, where, and how they want."

I respect snackers for one simple reason: It's not about me.

We already know that people get information from many sources, all in the background. My job is to join or lead discussions with opinion leaders wherever they are, using whatever tools they use, in whatever form works best for them. To do this, I have to provide relevant content. To know what's relevant, I have to build relationships with these opinion leaders. To do that, I have to be respectful and transparent. So I go where they go and use what they use. I learn their language, I ask them questions, and I invest time and energy in what's important to them to the point where it becomes important to me.

Some of the folks I reach out to are snackers. Some aren't. Either way, it's my job to be respectful and relevant, which is different for everyone. The fact that I'm on Twitter means nothing to the top-tier political bloggers or mainstream business writers who speak regularly to the communities of "opinion elites" I care about most in issues management. The fact that I use addthis as a bookmark tool means nothing to the moms who read this blog but prefer to bookmark using Sk*rt, which addthis inexplicably ignores.

I care about content and let the community dictate the format. So my favorite "snacks" are actually those very rare morsels that appeal to more than one online community and offer the opportunity to bridge cultures and build dynamic, diverse, and influential coalitions. So I look for the super-smart enviro-blogger who interviews a US Senate candidate. Or the libertarian mom who examines the housing market and subprime lending. Or the MIT brainiacs who study Red Sox fans:



So what say you, Mark Story, Brad Levinson, and Rachael Herrscher?

First Lady & Senator becomes President

Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner wins enough votes to avoid a runoff and is the next President of Argentina.

Some interesting, albeit depressing, commentary from one of Argentina's more prominent English-language bloggers here.

Red Sox win... and some perspective

So I'm bleary-eyed and basking in the euphoria of watching my favorite team since I can remember win the World Series in convincing fashion.

And for some reason all I can think about is the character and courage of the two standouts from the clincher - Jon Lester, the winning pitcher, and Mike Lowell, the World Series MVP.

Jon Lester was wrapping up chemotherapy less than a year ago. Mike Lowell is also a cancer survivor who had a big scare a few years back. World Series wins mean a lot to the fans and I'll bet they mean a lot more to the players. But somehow I think these two guys keep things pretty well in perspective.

So congrats to the Sox and I'll be smiling all winter - but for some reason this one seems a little more special.

The mother of all flip-flops

Full disclosure - I'm a Democrat, and anyone who has seen this blog or who knows me knows I'm one of those ridiculous members of Red Sox Nation who actually believes the players can hear me when I give them advice through the television set. (Yes, I saw the pickoff move before Papelbon did.) My wife has noticed the Boston accent is sneaking out a little more these days. ("That was a WICKED HAHD FASTBALL!")

I usually don't mind when someone wants to join the Nation a little late, but this is too much.

Brad - perhaps the only Yankees fan I tolerate these days - shares this news:

Rudy Guliani, the NY mayor who voiced his support for the 'Sox at a fundraiser in (where else?) Boston - has apparently made a deal with the devil.

Yet another mom in politics

Yesterday Katherine Stone rallied dozens of bloggers to call their Senators to support a bill "to ensure that new mothers and their families are educated about postpartum depression, screened for symptoms, and provided with essential services, and to increase research at the National Institutes of Health on postpartum depression." The bill, also called the "MOTHERS Act," is sponsored by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Richard Durbin (D-IL).

(I'm a little confused with the bill number - Congress.org says the bill number is S.1375, but I've seen it also reported as S.3529, even though there doesn't seem to be a bill with that number in the Congress.org database.)

This is just the latest example of someone you wouldn't necessarily think of as "overtly political" making a major investment of time, creativity and emotion in a public policy issue. People who read Katherine's blog know she has a ton of credibility on the issue, much more than virtually any blog that discusses nothing but politics 24/7. She's working closely with two large organizations - BlogHer and Postpartum Support International.

I've said this before, but the mom-o-sphere is the next source of leadership on political and consumer issues. Moms make the overwhelming majority of purchasing decisions in households. They regularly voice concerns about health care, education, safety, the environment, and work/life balance. They are leveraging blogs - yes, other forms of social media too, but mainly blogs - to build relationships and even coalitions. They're starting to use the online channel to exert their influence in politics and in the marketplace.

The companies and campaigns that ignore their issues-based discussions do so at their own peril.

Blue Grass, RED SOX

Mark has today's music video for your enjoyment, and Curt Schilling had some thoughts on the Cleveland series and looking ahead. (See that, Mark - you're with Schill. You're big time now.)

I may currently live in the Bluegrass, but Boston will always be my hometown and I stand with Todd, Kyle, Susan, Scott, Mrs. Chicky, and everyone else as a proud member of Red Sox Nation.
(If you can't get to the game or a tv, get updates here.)

First Lady, Senator, President: Been There, Done That.

Stop me if you've heard this one before.

A very smart and ambitious woman meets a smart and ambitious man in law school. Both are interested in politics. They get married.

He's elected President and becomes very popular, reducing the country's deficits and steering the economy to improvement. She becomes a Senator. Now she's running for President, and she's the favorite to win. Her supporters say she's brilliant and has a lot of clout. Her critics say she's strident, aloof, and bossy.

Just another day in Argentina for Cristina Kirchner.

Following issues and elections in the Argentine political blogosphere can be a bit tricky - most bloggers write about other things. At first glance you can find some interesting blogs, though. Global Voices Online has a page for Argentina that is updated every so often. There's a decent list of English-language Argentine blogs here. There are a number of impressive photoblogs. If you speak and read Spanish, check out AR News. For mainstream media types, the Buenos Aires Herald is in English.

Back off, man - I'm a scientist

Apparently the brainiacs at MIT want to do a little research on Red Sox fans as they watch the World Series, and they're recruiting subjects online.

Any predictions on what the research will reveal about us?

Tracking San Diego Wildfires with Social Media

As we all pray for our friends and relatives in the San Diego area, a few sites are already cataloguing the social media tools people are using to track the fires. I think it's noteworthy that the San Diego Union Tribune started a blog quickly, simply using the blogger platform and not worrying about things like branding or ads.

Other than the blog and a couple of twitter feeds from local news outlets, I'm not seeing much in terms of social media working to help those directly affected by the fires, however. They could be using social network groups to help people know where they're going - for example, a "I'm one of the 10,000 people waiting this out at Qualcomm Stadium" group might be useful to both loved ones and the people there. At Virginia Tech, people used social media - specifically social network utilities - to help students communicate with each other and their loved ones quickly and effectively. A number of small fire stations and emergency response teams use twitter to send quick notes and links to sites to their teams. (Since you can protect updates you can create a reasonably secure channel.)

Part of the reason social media isn't being implemented in this way may be the request local authorities have made to residents - they're trying to restrict cellphone usage to free up "bandwidth" for emergency workers. While understandable, it's also unfortunate - you can't expect someone to be tethered to a laptop or desktop in this situation, and a decent mobile phone can be an incredibly useful tool, as we saw at VT. This request obviously isn't stopping everyone, but it's probably slowing the pace of communication. As crisis response evolves in America, particularly in big cities, providing cell phone capacity should be a high priority.

This also reminds me of the points we made at the crisis communications meeting for AAAE - the media will stop at nothing to get information and put any assets they have into the field, and consumers will go anywhere to get it. Now we might add a third rule - people will use all tools at their disposal to distribute it.

Stay safe, everyone.

Social Networks and the Election

Saturday morning I learned via Todd Zeigler's tweet that Sanford Dicket doesn't think that social networks will impact the 2008 election:

When I go to the local mall, county fair, outdoor market - I can often see the ardent supporters of candidates "tabling" in the flow of traffic - holding their campaign literature, sign at the edge of the table, looking for eyes that are ready to learn more about the person running for State Senate, Congress or even President. You and your friends are there, giving each other moral support as the throngs of people walk by - nary paying attention to you, until a person walks up and says, "So....tell me about Senator X."

Where does this happen on social networks? Can I put up a "table" and engage in a conversation? Where is the flow of people that are milling about that can be "chatted up"? Certainly not on MySpace or many of the other social networks.

I worked on my first political campaign more than 20 years ago, and I've worked on local, state and national campaigns. I've worked my share of county fairs and knocked on doors and talked with voters face to face - and there's no doubt that this can be very effective, if what you have to say is relevant and respectful. But with due respect to Mr. Dicket, I think social networks have already made an impact on this election, and not just because Ron Paul can afford to stay in the race thanks to his work online while Sam Brownback can't.

There's been an odd undercurrent lately suggesting that social networks are irrelevant to the election at best and harmful at worst. Rubbish. The flaw I see in that sort of thinking is the assumption or expectation that social networks are intended to replace every other form of political activism. Tools don't have to be silver bullets to have utility.

Social networks are critical to campaigns this year for one simple reason - there's an audience there. Candidates would be fools to pass up any opportunity to provide information to any audience, whether it's in person, on TV, in print, or online. We know that informed and engaged people get information from a variety of sources, all of which stay in the background. Social media is unquestionably one of them, and it's trending up.

One other thing: I've seen the lightbulb go on in someone's eyes when you talk with them about a candidate, and it's a great feeling. But my own excitement over working the campaign trail does not a metric make. Let's not confuse the emotions we feel about something with what we know works. It's amazing how many things campaigns do that are deemed critical to success yet the effectiveness of those tactics are never measured.

Do campaigns chart polling data before and after a tv commercial runs to test the effectiveness of an ad, or do they simply say "this tested well with the focus group" of maybe a dozen people and then put it on the air? Do they measure how many contributions are directly linked to running an ad on TV, radio, or in print? Of course not - it's incredibly time and cost prohibitive to tease out data like that. But campaigns still use these tactics, because they know that's where the audience is. Direct mail pieces are probably the most easily measured campaign tactic, and they usually have a response rate of one or two percent at best, yet we still invest millions in them.

It's just about being everywhere the audience is. If a candidate decided to stop going to county fairs, people would notice. If a campaign stopped its ads on tv, people would notice. And if the candidates stopped working online, people would notice. And they wouldn't like it.

Somehow I don't see this happening at Fenway tomorrow

Apparently this whole "accountability to the people" thing is going over well

The Youtube debates are evolving into 10Questions.

This is what happens when the top political bloggers on the left and the right (as well as a few non-partisan online mavens) actually work with mainstream media to enrich, rather than debase, the political discussion. The biggest flaw of the first Youtube debate was it wasn't truly interactive or "social." The process for selecting video questions to appear on television, wasn't all that transparent, and the questioners didn't have the ability to take the candidates to task if they evaded the question.

Not anymore. Some background from the founders:

Unlike television debates, the 10Questions Presidential Forum makes full use of the web's potential to expand participation in politics. Everyone has an opportunity to ask a question, and to rally support for their question being in the top ten. The candidates have plenty of time to formulate their answers, and can post in-depth replies. Finally, the community will be able to grade the candidates' answers. With large numbers of people participating, the candidates will have an incentive to pay attention. Who knows, maybe we'll even change the course of the election!

The process is pretty simple - upload your video question to the site, and vote on the questions there. The ten videos with the most votes hets asked of the candidates. The candidates respond, and then people vote on whether they adequately answered the question.

This is one of the first times mainstream media has acknowledged that the political discussion no longer belongs to the chattering class inside the beltway. By playing a leading role in this project, the New York Times and MSNBC are helping to democratize the discussion that determines the fate of our democracy.

And it only took them a couple of election cycles.

Somewhere Andrew Jackson is smiling down upon us.

And in this corner, Slatecard

We've all seen stories about how Democrats are leaving Republicans behind in online campaign fundraising. Act Blue, the dominant campaign finance portal for Democrats, has raised over $30 million since 2004.

Republicans are finding an appropriate response - and one-upping Act Blue, I think - with Slatecard. If I were a Republican, I'd want to take notice of this.

It's just starting out, but it looks like Slatecard takes the features that have stood the test of time at Act Blue - a list of "hot races," a wide range of campaigns to choose from, a blog, and so on - and adds some web 2.0 features that allow users to be more creative and communicative. Slatecard contributors can customize their own slate of candidates. They can also affix "badges" to their slates to show WHY they're contributing to the campaigns they choose - a position on a particualr issue, a revulsion to a particular Democrat, and so on. This sends a signal to candidates and helps them "follow the money." It's just one more opportunity to let political activists provide information along with financial support.

Full disclosure: I know one of Slatecard's founders, David All. We worked briefly together and I found him to be a creative, assertive, and entrepreneurial guy.

Republicans have some catching up to do online, but I think Slatecard will help them do it quicker than most people think. Will Act Blue adopt some of Slatecard's 2.0 coolness? Time will tell.

The sincerest form of flattery, I guess

OK, I'm a big boy and I'm not accusing anyone of anything specific here, so let's get that out of the way right now. Many of the folks who read this blog work for other big PR firms. We all read a lot of the same blogs and we write about the same stuff.

But every now and then you read something that raises an eyebrow. Read the post I wrote just before this one and then read what showed up on a blog that comes from a competing firm the next day:

Read the blog. Read the blog. Read the blog. Read the blog. And did I mention, you should read the blog. And then read more of it. It is so much easier to write a blogger if you have read their blog. You'll have confidence that this blogger might want to hear from you.

Is it me? I'm not trying to be flip - I'd love some feedback here. What should I make of this?

Yeah, I checked my sitemeter stats and someone from that firm visited my blog, and cited all the "mom blogs" I linked to, but didn't mention this post. I get visits from that firm fairly regularly, and to be honest, I'm flattered because the folks at that firm have done some innovative and creative stuff.

This isn't the first time I've written something and then a while later a big PR firm writes something similar on a blog, linking to all the same stuff I did and making many of the same points. But it is the first time the verbage was close enough to raise eyebrows.

Nobody's perfect, least of all me. But I'd just like to politely remind my colleagues in other firms (and my own) that the little icon at the bottom of my sidebar is a creative commons license. And just as I extend the courtesy of citing and linking to the people in my field when they make good points - as I did in my post below - I'd hope that my colleagues in other firms would follow the same conventions of professionalism and courtesy.

That said, I hope you'll continue to read this blog and I'll certainly be reading yours. Maybe we can have a smart and transparent conversation about best practices and do what's best for everyone.

The Three R's of Blogger Relations

Apparently it's that time again when bloggers of all stripes decide to ever so gently remind those of us in the public relations profession that perhaps our outreach tactics are maybe just a tad impersonal.

Yes, I've written about this before - I've apologized on behalf of corporate America and I've even suggested that we just stop pitching bloggers because we look like idiots. And there are a very small handful of folks in this line of work who actually get it - they don't just say they get it, they actually GET IT, but sadly it's a very small group.

Plenty of stuff has been written about blogger outreach. But to be honest, it's actually pretty simple. Just remember the three R's - Respect, Relevance, and Relationships.

RESPECT. Say this out loud: A blogger is not my tool. Say it again, out loud. A blogger is not my tool. One more time, with gusto: A BLOGGER IS NOT, NOT, NOT MY TOOL.

Research from the Pew Internet Project suggests that bloggers are better educated, tend to make more money, and tend to be leaders in their communities more than the general public. They contribute to political campaigns. They join the PTA. They follow the news. They give to charity. In short, they're smart. Probably smarter than you.

So when you start your email with "hey, I stumbled upon your blog - great stuff!" they know it's a crock. They share the generic emails you send them with each other. Blogging is still a very personal medium. If you don't show the basic respect of reading the blog and being honest about why you're contacting them, you will fail. If you expect them to give you product placement on their online property without some kind of compensation - whether it's cash or something else they want - you will fail. And for Pete's sake, if you get the person's name wrong in the salutation, not only will you fail, but you should basically get out of this buisness because you're ruining it for the rest of us.

RELEVANCE. Read the blog, read the blog, read the blog, read the freakin' blog already. In the time it took you to roll your eyes after the previous sentence you could have started reading the blog you want to pitch. Don't give me garbage about how you don't have time to read all those blogs. You're reading this blog. If you have the time for this, you have the time for that.

Read the bio page. Click through the blogroll a bit. See who links to the blogger. Read the comments and see if the blogger is engaging in conversation there. Use your brain - does the product or service you're pitching have ANYTHING to do with what you've just read? Or are you asking a political blogger to attend an advertising conference? Are you asking a Jewish woman to review a book promoting the Baptist faith? Are you sending a person in Colorado news about a product launching in Arizona? (Yes, these have all actually happened.)

Further - and I've seen Susan write about this a lot - can you tell if the blogger has any passion at all for the subject you're selling? Can you answer why the blogger would care at all? If not, don't bother pitching.

RELATIONSHIPS. Most bloggers are not journalists who are trained to look at your emailed press release even if they don't know you well. They're regular folks - ok, well-educated and motivated folks - who are more likely to open the email from someone they recognize. Building relationships depends on (you guessed it) treating people with respect and reaching out with relevant material. It takes time and resources to build relationships. But if you build honest and solid relationships, you can build them with other bloggers more efficiently and effectively.

Relationships are the true currency of the blogosphere. Relationships lead to credibility within communities. And you know what else? Relationships are a big reason working in social media and online outreach is so enjoyable. You have the opportunity to reach out to people you wouldn't otherwise know. You can try to see things from someone else's perspective. You can talk with someone a world away. You can develop some knowledge in an industry sector or an important community, which only makes you more valuable to your company.

If you're an intern - and let's face it, a lot of blogger outreach gets farmed out to interns who have never done this before, which is in itself a big mistake - you should look at blogger outreach as an opportunity to meet new people and have some fun. (It sure beats pulling the daily press clips together for that company you don't care about.)

One final observation about this before I put the topic away for a while. Doing this for the past couple of years I've reached out to bloggers from a variety of disciplines, covering every topic imaginable. The bloggers that respond best to my outreach - and not surprisingly, the bloggers I enjoy working with most - have one thing in common, even with their remarkably broad range of interests.

They're all remarkably entrepreneurial.

They start online businesses with people hundreds or even thousands of miles away - people they've never physically met. They work all hours of the night, but they make sure you understand their time is valuable. They're creative, and they want to protect ownership of their ideas. They're willing to work with you when they see a benefit. They're steadfast and loyal when you show them respect and kindness. And they thrive on what they do.

It's just a hunch, but if you want to know a bit about what makes a really good blogger tick, you might want to read up on entrepreneurship and what the best entrepreneurs have in common.

In which I just out and out plagarize Duncan Black

Seems we still have a lot of work to do.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEARGH

I recently got an email which was something about a "PR is the new advertising conference." Or something like that, anyway, don't quite remember.

But indeed it is. I get so many goddamn "promote my crap for free" emails every day it's driving me crazy. Sure some of them are liberal do gooder stuff which at least fits in with the topics of the blog, but plenty of them aren't even close.

Buy a blogad.

The green-o-sphere's impact on business

Perhaps no online community holds Corporate America's feet to the fire as much as enviro-bloggers, but I'm excited to see more and more businesses and environmentalists starting to work together. I've seen two really good recent pieces, one at TriplePundit and the other at Green Options about how the relationship continues to evolve. I think it's safe to say there's still some skepticism but a lot of progress has been made.

I also notice the growing number of pro-green, pro-small business or pro-parent outlets out there, such as the "More Hip Than Hippie" podcast and gDiapers. The movement that was once dismissed as granola-crunchy is now full of people with engineering degrees and marketing blogs. There's a growing common vocabulary between business and environment, and the early adopters are gaining significant advantage.

Evolving Realities in Crisis Communications

This is a positive, albeit overdue, development:

HOLMES MILL --Rescue drills always have been a major part of mine safety at coal companies. But the nation's high-profile mine disasters over the past two years have forced the industry to practice in another area: dealing with victims' families and the media.

A mock disaster drill yesterday at an Eastern Kentucky coal mine had nearly 100 federal and state officials, miners and personnel role-playing as first-responders and investigators, as well as panicked family members and reporters...

...Safety advocates and industry experts said making family and media relations a part of disaster drills was a growing trend and much-needed concept. "It's a trend we're going to see more and more of," said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association. "This is a way of showing that our responsibility extends beyond the life of the miners to the obligation to inform and comfort."

Earlier this year I led a crisis communications panel discussion here in Lexington for the American Association of Airport Executives, along with a group of local media that covered the plane crash that happened here last year. (full disclosure: I work with Blue Grass Airport, providing strategic communications counsel and support.)

Two major points came from the panel discussion that I think will be helpful for the mining companies as they prepare for their next crisis.

First, the plane crash in Lexington (and, of course, recent mining tragedies) demonstrated that the media will stop at nothing to get information - they will move whatever assets they have into every imaginable location to find data. This point goes for information consumers as well - they'll go anywhere to get it. That means social media.

The timing and location of the crash limited some of the social media activity in Lexington, but within hours there were completely fabricated statements on a handful of local blogs, and a number of over-the-top comments on the local newspaper site. This actually caused more trouble for the owners of the online properties than anyone else.

As hard as this is, staying ahead of the media is critical in the first 48 hours. Setting up a social network group is free and fast, and it's an effective way to check out EVERYTHING that could possibly be said about your crisis, and to cross-check the chatter with the facts you have available at the moment. Obviously, college students (who else?) used social media effectively at Virginia Tech.

Second - and this is particularly important for the mining companies, because their current drills don't seem to cover this - a crisis communications plan can't stop after 48 hours. In effect, a crisis communications plan for a plane crash extends beyond even the time it takes for the National Transportation Safety Board to issue a final report - that could be a year or more. As time passes, a company has to anticipate selective and partial releases of information related to the initial event. It has to account for restrictions on communication by regulatory or investigative bodies. It has to be mindful of the litigious nature of the plaintiff's bar. And it has to tread lightly as the media relentlessly pursues an answer to the question, "who's to blame?"

Most importantly, the company must understand the withering flack it will get if family members get information about their loved ones from the media before they get it from the company or the investigators. To that end, it's critical to cooperate fully with the investigators and to make sure you're on the same page regarding information for the families. Make sure who is releasing what to whom and when. It's very easy to forget this rule once the initial shock of the event has worn off, but the price for a lapse in judgment here is incredibly high.

Mr. Friedman, I beg to differ

So I'm eating lunch today and I savor the sticky-sweet irony of a guy at TechPresident - TechPresident! - lamenting wistfully that Tom Friedman may be right in his column today: perhaps all this social media stuff is making kids more apathetic and forcing them away from the activism they'd do otherwise. So I quickly typed out a rant and posted to TP. I ain't done rantin' yet.

First of all, I think it's fitting and proper that Mr. Friedman acknowledged the unprecedented level of idealism and activity that college kids are currently displaying:

Whether it was at Ole Miss or Williams or my alma mater, Brandeis, college students today are not only going abroad to study in record numbers, but they are also going abroad to build homes for the poor in El Salvador in record numbers or volunteering at AIDS clinics in record numbers. Not only has terrorism not deterred them from traveling, they are rolling up their sleeves and diving in deeper than ever.

Just stop right there. How does Mr. Friedman assume that college kids are learning about and taking advantage of all these opportunities? I'll give you a hint: they ain't readin' about it in the New York Times. But jump on one of the literally thousands of social network groups on volunteerism and you can send your name and email or cell number to get more info on how to get involved. Social media is, in fact, directly linked to action.

But Mr. Friedman apparently thinks this social media stuff is a bunch of hooey until someone in its midst acheives iconic status:

Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy didn’t change the world by asking people to join their Facebook crusades or to download their platforms. Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way — by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall. Virtual politics is just that — virtual.

Just how exactly does Mr. Friedman think political rallies are organized these days? Phone trees? Flyers slapped up on billboards? Hordes of 12-year-old boys passing out newspapers like we're in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

Mr. Friedman may not know about Eventful, which brought a major presidential candidate to a tiny rural town (population 229) in Western Kentucky. He may have forgotten how ordinary citizens in China used cellphone texting to help stop a chemical plant from being built in Xiamen. He may have missed all the videos on Youtube that FINALLY turned the eyes of the world on Myanmar. He might not have known about the virtual nurse-in. He might have missed the post in a New York Times BLOG about how the Chairman of the SEC is posting comments on other people's blogs.

Mr. Friedman makes a mistake that all too many people in the communications world do about social media -- he focuses on the tools, and not on their strategic application. The whole point of social media is the idea that you can achieve a communications goal in the absence of an MLK or an RFK. Those leaders leveraged the communications tools of their time effectively. The tools we use are still new, and we're still developing them and learning how to use them. In time - not much time - we'll be changing government as we know it. Let's just see what things look like after the 2008 election and see what Mr. Friedman says.

One final point about the NYT column that really didn't sit well with me. Mr. Friedman has one of the most influential pulpits in the world from his desk at the Times, and yet he's telling college kids what they should be asking presidential candidates. I respectfully submit that this advice would be better directed toward his colleagues who tail the candidates daily.

UPDATE: nothin' but love for Il Elefante Irritable for all the shout-out's he's been giving me. Mr. Friedman might want to check out the blog he built for the class he teaches at Georgetown.

WHAT DO WE WANT? WHEN DO WE WANT IT?

Best wishes to "Lactivista" and "Pregerella" and the crew of moms participating in the Great Virtual Breast Fest today. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this has never been done before - at least not in such an organic, grassroots fashion. It's amazing what a small group of people can do when sufficiently motivated and armed with just a few tools.

And some relevant, helpful advice from my wife this morning, as always, based on the research.

UPDATE: The LMJ's video montage was a top-ten most-discussed video on Youtube yesterday.

Iain Dale's rankings

Iain Dale is a popular British Conservative blogger and pundit who has a penchant for cataloguing and ranking the British political blogosphere. He's published a new book with this year's rankings, and offered up much of that information on his blog.

My company was fortunate enough to sponsor the book featuring Mr. Dale's popular list, and a number of my colleagues have offered some insightful essays that were included in the book. They include an introduction to the list and some thoughts on its relevance in British politics, a fact-filled piece on "why blogs matter," and a thoughtful piece on the the role blogs play in French politics. I even took a crack at describing the state of the American political blogosphere in 2007.

I realize that a book is a curious medium to describe the blogosphere. Part of the fun will be going back to it in the future and see how things have changed.

As for the rankings, I've always believed that where you "rank" isn't really as important as what you do. In social media, the most relevant audience or community is always more important than the largest one. I will say this, however - Mr. Dale's rankings have already sparked some interesting discussions and great fun. People are talking about how technology influences politics and vice-versa. Those are wonderful conversations, and Mr. Dale deserves great kudos.

Now it's just piling on

Remember how I said Facebook's inability to apply context to content is making them look like a bunch of frat boys?

Guess who just put a "where to find chicks online" ad on the 26,000 member pro-breastfeeding protest group page.

Beyond Bizlex: Facebook's Worst Nightmare, All Over Again

The column I drafted in response to my conversation with Facebook appears in next week's Business Lexington.

First, I should disclose something that I put in the original draft but didn't make the final edition - as the readers of this blog know, I'm married to Dr. Leigh Ann Simmons. She's quoted in the piece. She's been instrumental in pointing to the peer-reviewed research on the issues of breastfeeding promotion and anorexia sites.

Facebook is the kind of communications tool that people point to when they want to show how communications technology can bring out the very best in all of us. That's one of the reasons I'm still so disappointed in the obvious disconnect they've continued to essentially ignore. The company that facilitates so many discussions simply refuses to meaningfully engage in the discussion about itself.

I'll let the moms express their righteous outrage at Facebook for their obvious mistake on breastfeeding pictures - they do it better than I could. I'll let the science on pro-anorexia sites speak for itself. The issue for communications professionals, quite simply, is this: Facebook has failed to apply common-sense context to its policies on content. And when mistakes are pointed out, Facebook basically refuses to acknowledge them.

Of course it's difficult to develop policies that restrict or allow content. Of course you won't always have the resources to catch everything right away. But it's impossible to write perfect rules for this. You have to be able to step back, be an adult, and apply context and common sense to the rules you write. Facebook actually has really well thought-out terms of service - they just obviously misapplied those terms in the situations brought to their attention. At least some, and possibly all, of the breastfeeding pictures they banned clearly don't violate their terms of service. The pro-anorexia groups on their network are clearly harmful, as the science suggests - not simply "controversial." This violates the terms of service.

And then, after I submit the column, I see this. I should never - NEVER - read that the Attorney General of the State of New York informed Facebook of a sexual predator on its network and Facebook failed to deal with it immediately. When I read that, and place this news in the context of their previous decisions, the claim that Facebook takes this "very seriously" rings absolutely hollow. This simply reinforces the idea that the company doesn't fix its mistakes. Now the Attorney General of New Jersey is issuing subpoenas to Facebook as well about sexual predators. I understand it's hard to keep track of 35 million people, but sadly, Facebook's track record now means they won't get the benefit of the doubt from me.

And I won't deny my personal opinions on this. It's stupid, spiteful, and harmful to send the message Facebook sent when it banned those breastfeeding pictures. It's inexcusable to help sick girls share tips on what narcotics to take to get skinnier. It's ridiculous to restrict pictures of male cartoon characters with nipples because some idiot "tagged" them as "obscene." And when the New York Attorney General's office tells you there's a sexual predator on your network, DAMMIT, you drop what you're doing, reschedule the meeting with the VC firm, and you deal with it.

It's long past time for Facebook to reach out to its members and to the media to have a meaningful discussion about all of this. It's long past time for them to do the things that crisis communications experts agree are the right things to do here - acknowledge the mistakes, apologize, implement a remedy, and explain how the mistakes will never happen again.

Seriously, guys - stop acting like a bunch of frat boys who use shame as a weapon against young women, and MAN UP. Or at least speak up and tell me why I'm wrong in a meaningful way - this does not mean re-stating your terms of service, because you only show everyone how you didn't follow your own rules. Because if you don't start acting like adults, state Attorneys General and eventually members of Congress will start making more of your decisions for you.

As I climb down from my soapbox, I just want to say I'm really pleased that leaders in this field have also spoken out on this, such as Susan Getgood on her blog, and Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson on their podcast (show notes here). The personal messages of support I've received from colleagues at other firms have been thoughtful and gratifying.

The delicate art of online diplomacy

The US Department of State has a blog. And it accepts comments. And many of those comments were less than flattering. And still, I think it's great that they did this.

This represents a giant leap for this Administration, even if the posts are just re-hashed press releases or excerpts from speeches, simply because they allow for public comment. We've lagged behind foreign governments in blogging. I'm pleasantly surprised that the Bush Administration is willing to dip their toes in the blogosphere, and I hope people will allow them to make a few mistakes as they learn how to do this.

The blog at State - which is unfortunately called "DipNote" - is actually part of an emerging and encouraging trend in federal government blogging. A colleague pointed me to a new blog at the Department of Homeland Security, as well as guidelines and a list of federal blogs. HHS did some interesting blogging directly from the Secretary and on the topic of preparing for a flu pandemic, though they've stopped. My wife found a health marketing blog from the Centers for Disease Control that I think would do quite well if they kept at it. The content there is sparse and not updated.

The State Department will recieve its criticism on policy issues, and still has a credibility problem with many inside and out of the US. But the simple fact that the Administration is willing to change, ever so slightly, the terms of information exchange - the fact that they're starting to look at this less as a lecture and more as a discussion - is a very good thing.

Furthermore, it's obvious they're reading comments and responding. Not so much to the "you guys suck" comments, but they're reading what people have to say about the blog and they're responding by adding RSS feeds and making the site easier to read. Will the substantive comments ever get addressed? Time will tell. But I'm looking forward to the time when Secretary Rice says, "We got a comment from our blog (which we've since renamed) and we thought it was a great idea."

I never thought I'd say it, but Secretary Rice deserves some credit here.

Next thing you know she'll be on LinkedIn.

You may already have won...

One of the best things about BlogHer '07 was the chance to meet social media PR/marketing rockstar Susan Getgood. One of the things I respect most about Susan - and something I try to emulate - is that she's taken the "participation is marketing" idea to the next level. To Susan, ADVOCACY is participation. She advocates for bloggers and tries to be a resource. To look at the future of using social media in marketing, look at Susan Getgood today.

Susan invited me to participate in a discussion about blogger-run contests and sweepstakes. So many bloggers are doing this, but are they aware of the liability implications?

Susan sought out Donna DeClemente, an expert on the subject and author of Donna's Promo Talk, for some answers and guidance. You can see their discussion here. She also asked if I'd be interested in reaching out to someone in the legal profession and talk about this from a policy perspective.

Entrepreneurship, and particuarly women's entrepreneurship, is an issue I examined in great detail while working on Capitol Hill. One of my biggest thrills was drafting legislation with people from the National Association of Business Incubators that was called the "LEADERS Act" - Linking Educators and Developing Entrepreneurs for Reaching Success. The bill never got through the Senate, but it had bipartisan support and got a lot of people talking.

Of course, the bill was drafted before the advent of the "mommyblogger based business," but one of the things I learned was many entrepreneurs (online or off) lack the basic administrative infrastructure and knowledge to ensure the sustainability of their businesses. One of the most important things to keep in mind when building a business is the advice a boxing referee gives the fighters just before they touch gloves: "protect yourself at all times." That's because in America, anyone can be sued for anything at any time. Entire blogs have been built on this premise. The fact that you're online may make things a bit more complicated, but I've never seen something like that stand in the way of an aggressive trial lawyer with a client and an axe to grind.

So at Susan's invitation I sought out someone the mommybloggers will wholeheartedly accept as one of their own, and also has the legal chops to teach us all: Stephanie Himel-Nelson, an attorney at the firm of Vandeventer Black, LLP in Norfolk, Virgina. Stephanie may be known better in the blogosphere as Lawyer Mama. Stephanie also writes for DC Metro Moms.

She writes:

Online Giveaways: Sweepstakes? Or Lottery?

Be mindful of state and federal laws. The FTC and federal authorities will carefully investigate allegations of unfair or deceptive promotions. If you are not careful to run a fair promotion, you can run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission or mail and wire fraud statutes. The attorney generals of every state are also empowered to investigate alleged violations of state consumer protection laws. Trust me, you don't even want an investigation into your online practices started. It's better to play it safe and disclose as much information about your contest as you can.

Make sure that the contest, giveaway or sweepstakes that you're conducting doesn't fit the definition of a "lottery." A sweepstakes or giveaway is usually a giveaway involving chance. Anyone can enter and no purchase or "consideration" is necessary. A lottery, however, is an entirely different animal. An animal prohibited by state and federal law, with the exception of lotteries run by the individual states. A lottery will generally have a prize, some sort of chance, but it also involves consideration, meaning money or something else of value is given by the entrant. Even requiring your readers to give you detailed consumer information can sometimes be considered "consideration," transforming your "giveaway" or "promotion" into an illegal "lottery." After all, in this day and age, consumer information has a great deal
of value.

Things you can do to ensure that your giveaway won't be seen as an illegal lottery:

1. List your rules on your site and make sure the contest is run fairly:

- How many entries are allowed per person?
- When will the contest end?
- When will the prize be awarded?
- Are there any geographical restrictions?
- Are there any age restrictions?
- What information is required for entry?

2. Provide an alternate or offline method of entry. Allow people to enter by fax or mail if they choose, without giving online information or drafting a quid pro quo blog post.

So you've listed your rules on the site; you've provided an alternative method of entry; you're sure that your contest can't possibly be considered a lottery. Are you good to go?

Maybe not.

Several states have enacted strict disclosure requirements for sweepstakes and giveaways, including California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas. If your online contest is open to everyone, you need to comply with the most stringent of these rules or exclude entrants from those states. Have international readers? Have you thought about international laws regarding giveaways and sweepstakes? If not, you should limit your contest to U.S. entrants. And don't forget to include those all important words in your contest rules: "Void where prohibited."

This information is meant to bring awareness to the topic and is not intended to be used as legal advice. If you have questions about any of the information above or related matters, please contact an attorney licensed in your state.

Trends in media consumption - everything is in the background

I saw this from Nicolas Nova at Pasta & Vinegar - he summarizes a presentation from Swisscom Innovaton's Stefana Broadbent at Pic Nic 2007. Broadbent and her team tracked communication and digital practice for hundreds of people over time, and they discovered that new forms of media are not necessarily replacing old ones - people are simply consuming more at once. People who watch youtube are still watching TV. Local radio and newspapers aren't "dead," as some have claimed. Nova on Broadbent:

Her message was then that there is no substitution, everything is added: more devices, more channels, more media and nothing is thrown out. What happens is that every media is moving in the background, becoming wallpaper: IM+email are ran in the background, Music IS the background, TV is being viewed in background, Daily newspapers are read in the background.

If this is true, it makes the decisions for communicators that much harder, given finite resources. We have to dig deeper to see if any of these "background" media have more impact than the rest, or if we have to be everywhere the audience is. I suspect we must be everywhere, but that's quickly becoming a more time consuming and expensive proposition - especially given the critical importance of relationships in new media communications. Furthermore, the demands for metrics in a more diffused and competitive communications environment will only increase. The company that develops meaningful measurement tools should make a bundle. Given the pace of innovation in communications tools, the chances of developing valuable metrics seem more difficult every day. (Not impossible, just difficult.)

Of course, this isn't new, and other industries have managed to have both quantitative and qualitative criteria for measurement. Last week Liz Gumbinner was at dinner with a group of us in New York (funny how being a prominent blogger makes people forget you're also a bigshot advertising exec) and was challenged by a gentleman from The Conference Board on the metrics of a mention in a blog post. She gave a really great answer - "How do you measure the value of placing a can of Diet Coke in George Clooney's hand?"

Right now, companies have an either-or decision when it comes to investing in social media, particularly at the intersection of social media and issues management. Do you want to be present when people discuss your issues or your brands, or don't you? Measurement will follow, as it always does, but we can't let gaps in metrics justify ignoring the conversations altogether.

This year, Columbus Day is October 4

John Edwards is visiting Columbus, Kentucky (population 229) this week.

Edwards promised he would visit the place that issued the most "demands" for him via the popular event management utility Eventful. An organized effort led by Shawn Dixon, a 24-year-old political activist and Editor & Contributor of DitchMitchKY, poured 1,872 demands into Eventful, beating out a grassroots campaign out of Eureka, California. Dixon used email, social networking utilities MySpace and Facebook, and a diary on the mega-blog Daily Kos to spread the word and get demands for tiny Columbus.

So what used to be a site to promote ambitious yet undiscovered entertainers turned into a tool for political candidates to measure their support in micro-targeted areas across the country, and a cute gimmick for Edwards to score a puff piece in the techie/political press. And it gave politically motivated people in rural areas like Western Kentucky a tool to organize and get noticed.

Alex Hunsucker, the Business Development Manager for Eventful, wrote a guest post at techPresident and made an interesting observation:

The most important reason this was a success is that the Edwards campaign gave up control. To date, nearly every content-driven movement on the web has had a veiled layer of campaign regulation or review process. The Edwards/Eventful competition, however, was completely democratic. It was a no strings attached, unbiased, democratic process. The incentive to participate in a competition where all votes are equal is much higher than knowing your submission is going through a review process or selection committee.

I'm not so sure the real success belonged to Edwards, though he clearly benefits from the attention and deserves some credit for creatively leveraging a new tech tool. In my opinion, Edwards didn't "give up" control. Edwards never had control to give up.

Yes, he has control over where he goes and what online tools he chooses to use. But in the online channel, none of the candidates have control over their reputations or their issues. Discussions are ongoing, in the political blogosphere and everywhere else. Edwards actually recognized that people were having discussions anyway and decided to use that to his benefit.

To me, the real winner here is Dixon - a young, smart and aggresive guy who used all the social networking tools at his disposal to spread the word efficiently and effectively and acheive a goal. Eventful is also a winner, since their tool was the catalyst for this over all the other 2.0 tools out there. But Dixon showed everyone how to use it.