Not Good.

Photo credit: NASA

Activists' New Secret Weapon: Databases

A while back I wrote about the "scariest mobile application EVAH," Good Guide.  It's a leader in a new and growing field of mobile applications that use barcode-scanning technology, GPS, and a variety of databases to tell consumers about the product they just scanned. These applications give consumers unprecedented information about products, brands, manufacturers, retailers, and pretty much anything else at the point of purchase.  They include the popular Red Laser, which lets you compare prices among stores in your area and online, and Label Lookup, a production of the Natural Resources Defense Council that helps you "find labels you can trust."

Tech-savvy and issue-conscious consumers will be getting information not only about how a given product is a buck cheaper down the road or online, but also anything a database of that consumer's choosing says about the product, brand, or company.  And remember, this information comes just moments before the point of purchase, giving the company almost no time to share its side of the story.  So when I tried Good Guide I learned that the makers of my breakfast cereal "violated the Clean Water Act."   I never got a link to the company's explanation.

So think about the databases out there. Think about current events and politics. It's not just review sites/apps like Yelp (dealing with a somewhat iffy reputation lately). It's not hard to imagine a mobile app that tells you:

• If the CEO of the company that made a product contributed to Proposition 8 (Human Rights Campaign could probably tell you)
• If the manufacturer is headquartered in Arizona, where you can now be pulled over for looking Hispanic (I'm thinking National Council of La Raza might be interested)
• If a company is a "union buster" (just a matter of time before SEIU launches this bad boy)
• Class action lawsuits filed against a company (ATLA, anyone?)

Building a comprehensive, accurate, and huge database for mobile apps to access takes time, talent, and resources.  Even the Red Laser database isn't all-encompassing. However, it's not nearly as hard as it used to be. Some database developers may sacrifice a bit of accuracy to get more volume or speed.  Some will probably be built by crowdsourcing - my favorite crowdsourced database comes from the brainiacs at Cornell who helped put the Great Backyard Bird Count online.   In the not-too-distant future, government databases will be accessible from your phone - a company's EDGAR filings with the SEC, actions brought by the EPA, and so on. 

So there are a few things companies should be doing YESTERDAY to protect their reputations and their brands:

• Upgrade your social media monitoring efforts to see what's written about you in all these mobile-accessed databases.  Good Guide is a start.  Make sure the info is accurate. Contact them if it's not.
• Build relationships with the folks who make these databases and these apps.  Understand their motivation, work with them to make sure you're presented in the best possible light.
• Partner with credible organizations to build your own databases and applications.  Support some of these groups by underwriting some of the cost, providing technical support, and letting them know they can work with you. 
• Promote responsible efforts to give consumers all the information they want and need to make smart decisions.  Consumers reward the companies that advocate for them.

Or, sit back and wonder why people stopped buying your stuff.

Paying Reporters to "Move the Markets?"

Sometimes I read something and I just do a double-take.

So I read this week's New York Times piece by Stephanie Clifford about how BusinessWeek is being absorbed into Bloomberg Media, and it seemed to be this interesting story of this nimble ninja of a media company absorbing one of business journalism's last dinosaurs, but I sort of looked past the angle of the uneasy meshing of two corporate cultures.  If I want to learn about those issues in the business news industry I usually check out Chris Roush at UNC, and he had that angle covered.  What really caught my eye was this:

At Bloomberg News, where writers’ salaries are tied, among other factors, to how many “market-moving” articles they have produced, BusinessWeek is fitting in like — well, like an 80-year-old print magazine in a company that is all about terminals. 

Emphasis mine.  The story actually reiterated the concept, and credited the idea to editor Matthew Winkler - a.k.a. the guy who runs the place:

Mr. Winkler said magazine articles would be evaluated on the same metrics as articles for the terminal: did they move markets? 

 Again, emphasis mine.

So am I to understand that reporters at Bloomberg are actually "incentivized" to have an impact on the stock prices of the companies they cover?

Does it matter which way the markets move?  

This doesn't sound like a bonus for good reporting, this sounds like a bounty for corporate scalps.

I asked a good friend - an editor who just happens to have a Peabody Award to his credit - what he thought of this.  I won't quote him because I thought of writing this post after I emailed him about it - but let's just say he wasn't particularly pleased with this compensation structure.

And if you're not upset about this, if you think this is just a tried-and-true practice from a reputable media source, just replace the words "Bloomberg Media" with "Huffington Post" or "Pajamas Media" and see how you feel about stories designed to move corporate stock prices.

What Cable News Looks Like

What Fox News covered this weekend

A few years ago my friend Brad Levinson and I were talking about how one might use text clouds as an analysis tool rather than an organizing tool.  Social media in public relations and issues management was a relatively new concept at the time, and we felt strongly that companies in our industry focused far too much on things like "your company needs to build a blog" and not nearly enough on online communities and the opinion leaders in them.  So when we set about developing the ideas for Virtual Vantage Points, the blog at our company, we thought it was important to put the focus on what other communities were talking about, and we came up with the "community cloud" idea.

All we did was mash up the RSS feeds of leading blogs in specific communities - environmentalism, medicine, education, and so on - and pushed the combined feeds through a cloud generator that we had one of the developers at our company build.  We paid particular attention to political blogs - liberal blogs and conservative blogs in the US, and four communities of political blogs in the UK - Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Greens.

What MSNBC covered this weekend

After a few months we weren't surprised to see that the various online political communities used very different terminology to discuss things - but we were a bit surprised to see how little the discussions changed over time.  While there are a few exceptions, the most prominent American political bloggers generally talk about their adversaries more than anything else.  Even when the topic is a particular issue, that issue isn't described in depth nearly as much as the outrageous thing someone on the other side said or did.  Using our company's blog to say "bloggers are talking about the other side again today" grew old quickly, so we decided to expand the roster of contributors there and focus on more substantive things.

Now we live in the world of increasing "media convergence." Bloggers are more involved in the news as pundits, reporters, and sources, and news networks are using social media tools more often.  Nowhere is this more obvious than on cable news - the 24 hour news cycle forces networks to leverage the blogosphere and social networks for content.   And of course, politics (and political viewpoints) dominates cable news.

So are cable news networks acting like political bloggers?  Are they just talking about their perceived adversaries?

What CNN covered this weekend

I've pulled the "top news" rss feeds from Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN and pushed them through Wordle's cloud generator.  The pictures in this post represent the "top stories" each network covered over the weekend.  I'll be checking the clouds from time to time to see what kind of news they're reporting from the 30,000 foot viewpoint to see if convergence has bled into perspectives as well as tools.   I have some technical kinks to work out (notice "undefined" and other silly words in the clouds right now), but this could be interesting.

Taking Earth Day Back

Earth Day is 40 years old.  That means it just can't party like it used to, music seems a lot louder and kids have no respect, and things like 401(k)'s and fiscal responsibility mean a lot more.  Plus there's that weird urge to buy a sports car.

The Gang of Four at Earth and Industry got together for a quick podcast to talk about how commercialized Earth Day has become, and how we might bring the idea of Earth Day back to its roots.   It's less than 15 minutes long - go listen.

Hurry While Supplies Last!

I'm probably just going to throw everything over to WordPress soon - blogger just can't seem to give me the elements and layout I want.  But enough about that - Thursday is Earth Day.

Forty years ago Earth Day was about teaching and learning.  Today, it seems Earth Day is about buying and selling.   I'm not exactly sure how that happened.  There's nothing wrong with "buying green" - it's actually a very good thing.   But I'm pretty sure the people who started this thing were not hoping for a new round of consumption.  They were trying to educate people on the consequences of their actions.

Here's one thing we could learn about - my pal Jeff wrote a great piece about stray animals and sustainability.

The Gang of Four is getting together soon to talk about Earth Day, what it has become, and how it might get its groove back.   Stay tuned...

yes, I'm still here part II

some travel plans got axed at the last minute but I'm still a bit swamped. I'm a bit behind on some collaborations and I'll get to them as soon as I can. So here's the condensed version of my work/social media/blogging thoughts from the past week:

• This blog looks too cluttered and I need a re-design, thinking about moving to Wordpress. I like the template Joanne has at PunditMom - it's clean and well-organized
• Every time I write about a lousy email pitch sent by a junior PR flack, a small piece of my soul dies
• I'm growing more confident that simply putting the words "big boobs" in a blog post will get you more traffic
• The ideas percolating with the science bloggers will take some time to develop but they are gonna be excellent
• Too many people have cancer and that really has to stop now.

Oh, and a simple diversion for everyone.

yes, I'm still here

Work has really picked up in the past couple of weeks, so posting has been light and will probably continue to be light for a little while, but I have some big things brewing with some science and mom blogging pals. Meantime, here are some places to go to get some brain food:

NYT has a piece on anonymous posting of comments to news stories. Seems they're just figuring this out.

I can't begin to explain how disappointed I am in the way the Catholic Church has addressed the issue of shielding abusive priests. Or rather, how they've failed to address this issue. Take it from a PR guy - the worst possible way to address a problem is to think about the PR first and the problem second. Now they're stuck in the position of opposing legislation like this.

Congratulations to Walter Jessen on his new position - computational biologist at Covance in Indianapolis. I'll bet 99 people out of 100 don't know what a computational biologist does, but it's important. (Actually, I'm kind of hoping he'll explain it on his blog - you know, for the lay public.)

I met Jessen at ScienceOnline 2010. Smart guy.

ummmm.... guys don't use those.

OK, so a pal of mine who contributes to a clean-tech blog got a pitch email. He's a guy. He forwarded it to me. He said it would be OK for me to republish. I'll leave out names to be kind. But here it is.

As you and your [clean-tech blog name] readers know, Earth Day is right around the corner and people will most likely be focused on typical issues such as plastic water bottle usage, energy consumption, and recycling habits. What many people don’t consider when 'going green' is their usage of deodorants and douching systems.

Of the 300 million people in the United States, more than 90 percent use deodorant on a regular basis. In 2006, Americans spent more than 2.3 billion dollars on deodorant and antiperspirant.

An interesting Earth Day topic to feature might be that a product your readers use daily unnecessarily contributes to the growth of our landfills. An alternative to offer your readers is [product name].

[Product name] is a stainless steel bar used in the shower that successfully eliminates body odor. Stainless steel paired with tap water is a secret that chefs have been using for many years to rid their hands of food odor such as fish, garlic, and onion. This product is reusable and never needs to be replaced, which reduces the amount of waste people send to landfills.

Approximately 37 percent of women douche on a regular basis, and over the counter (OTC) douching products are not reusable. If this many women are douching on a regular basis then our landfills are being filled with these products.

A way for females to feel clean and to be more eco-friendly is to use a product called [product name], a feminine cleansing system that can be used over and over again. [Product name] is safer than other OTC feminine cleansing systems because it uses no chemicals, which is also better for the environment.

Do you need a product sample to review for your story? If needed, I can provide you with samples and images.

Let me know if you need an interview with the spokesperson and I can get you in touch with [spokesperson name].

Talk to you soon,

[junior PR person name]

I could pontificate on the myriad levels of wrong this email displays for hours but instead I'll just say one thing.

Seriously, MAKE IT STOP.

This is not a post about coal.

The two (on a good day, three) people who read this blog regularly know I'm a bit left of center on energy issues and pretty much everything else. So I'm typically more inclined to support investments in renewable energy and less inclined to support subsidies and tax cuts for fossil fuel production. Today, however, I don't care much about that policy stuff.

Today I'm thinking about the people who have lost family and friends in Montcoal, West Virginia. And I'm thinking about the sad, familiar ordeal communities in Appalachia experience. No, not poverty or unemployment or whatever stereotypes come to mind when you hear the words "West Virginia." I'm thinking about how people who don't know Appalachia or the people who live there suddenly descend on their community when tragedy strikes in a coal mine, and how the chattering classes express pity for "those people." How the community becomes this menagerie for the rest of us to gawk at. How the companies that operate there suddenly find themselves Public Enemy #1 for the week. And then how after a few days the rest of the world resumes ignoring them. This is the insult on top of the truly tragic injury.

I'm by no means an Appalachia expert. My wife spent a few years doing health research there and she's told me some stories. I've met with some coal executives and politicians there. Having lived in Kentucky for a few years, you get to know at least a few people with connections to "King Coal." Having read a bit about the history of the place (I highly recommend Night Comes to the Cumberlands by Harry Caudill and Lost Mountain by Erik Reece) you begin to understand the importance coal has in the culture. This is a sad, sad story. But it's also a rich and engaging story, full of characters and intrigue and song and rivalry and family and faith.

What I'm thinking about more than anything is this: no matter what you think about coal or the coal industry, there are people who take risks every day to mine it and refine it and transport it so the rest of us have energy to watch television, turn on the air conditioning, charge up our cell phones or whatever. Mining coal includes some risk, yet some are willing to do it.

Maybe they do it because there aren't any other jobs available to them. Maybe they do it because that's all they know, or that's what their father and grandfather did. Maybe they do it because they like to get dirty and work hard. Whatever the reason, they knowingly take risks to do it - and sometimes they and their families pay a terrible price for it.

And so rather than gawk at them or pity them or discuss their plight, maybe we should just thank them and let them know we're there for them if they need us.

"Bloggers vs. Journalists," a.k.a. The Great Distraction

A colleague of mine forwarded an interesting piece from Tech Crunch with the headline "Study: 52 Percent Of Bloggers Consider Themselves Journalists." The study (link to the social media release) is a survey of "1,568 traditional and non-traditional media and, for the first time, 1,670 PR practitioners." The survey was sponsored by PR Newswire.

Set aside the fact that if companies and PR folks REALLY thought bloggers were journalists, they'd never send emails like this.

I think the survey is helpful, though I'm curious to see the actual questions asked, full results etc. For example, I'd like to know if any of the bloggers they surveyed were already full-time professional journalists who have started blogs. I'm not saying you should exclude journalists-who-blog, but I'd like to know if the survey sample was randomized.

I raise it because the online communities where I do the most work have very different stories. The editorial team at Global Voices Online? Sure, they're journalists. However, among online moms, I'd be shocked if more than 10 percent of them consider themselves journalists. Science bloggers generally self-identify as scientists. I think the green bloggers with whom I work generally consider themselves "journalists" of one stripe or another, though they don't seem to discuss the tools of the trade much - there isn't much talk about "on the record" versus "off the record" versus "on background," or about respecting embargoes, etc. There's also not much of an attempt to hide personal opinions or bias. As for political bloggers, some may say they are journalists but many professional journalists clearly disagree.

But here's the point: the "bloggers versus journalists" debate is nothing more than a distraction. It's a time-sucking discussion about nomenclature. It's the bizarre need to make sure round pegs fit in round holes and square pegs in square holes and make all the colors match.

More importantly, among PR professionals, I really think it's about laziness. PR pros are used to working with journalists, and want desperately to make this relatively new phenomenon of personal online publishing fit their pre-existing methods and rules. While it's appropriate and valuable to learn as much as we can about the media, We can't let this lull us into thinking that it's the bloggers who need to adapt to our methods and not vice versa.