Sky News was in the news itself on January 7th for mandating that its journalist install and use Tweetdeck for newsgathering purposes. The application is widely used by bloggers and journalists already to stay on top of social media but this is a rare instance of making Tweetdeck usage the formal policy of a news organization and does make sense. How many other news bureaus or communications agencies are doing this?

The reason for doing this is simple: news breaks via social media more and more frequently. Just this week, for example, director of Liverpool Football Club, resigned because of a ridiculous and abusive reply email he sent to a fan. The story was originally a blurb in the ‘sports rumor’ category but then gathered enough steam and attention to make it to virtually every UK front page and forcing the resignation.

Another story that gained momentum with far reaching implications is the Facebook ‘Bra Color’ viral debacle. No one knows the origin of the Facebook idea that encourages women to post their bra color to somehow raise breast cancer awareness. Yet, this prompted many prominent bloggers to bring attention to the phenomenon and question its worth, and furthermore justly questioning the line between marketing and the pink ribbon campaign/real charity/real contributions to breast cancer awareness. As the dominos keep falling, the spotlight shifted to questioning participation of certain companies in promoting or tying their products to Breast Cancer Awareness month/campaign. So it starts with an anonymous campaign and ends up bringing companies like BMW and Eli Lilly into an unwanted spotlight.

Is there a better reason to mandate Social Media monitoring?

A continuation on the predictions/educated guesses (see Part I)

• Burst of the free content bubble: Free content and access has been a bubble that is bursting as we speak.  More content will go behind walls with a resulting loss of web traffic.  This may not be a long-term solution, but because of the current competition between Google and Microsoft, content providers can access a revenue stream that makes sense for their brand and quality of content and does not solely depend on traffic figures.  Google vs. Microsoft war makes it possible for publishers to maneuver between the two and actually make money. Be ready for more protected content.

• True user centricity: User experience, more than ever, is about speed and user engagement.  Users expect immediate access even on a mobile platform.  Google’s blog recently had an interesting write-up on how important speed is to user experience; even minor slowdowns cause very high page abandonment.  Everything on a page will be sacrificed for speed.Prompts for immediate user input on the huge platforms (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Google, Seesmic, etc…) have trained users to expect a similar experience across the web.  ‘What do you want?’ What are you doing?’ are the immediate and central questions.  Even brochure- like corporate sites will have to change their strategy to prioritize for these expectations.  Prompts of what users want will become central in favor of featured content and animation.
  Immediacy and engagement will be key to web experience more than ever.

We shall see what happens in 2010, see you then!

2010 should be an interesting year for developments in the digital and social media space because it has matured rapidly.  Realistic expectations are set.  The 3-digit Twitter growth rates are gone.  Social Media cannot overthrow entrenched repressive governments.  The hype has lessened, and we are farther along in understanding the role of digital and SM.

So here are some educated guesses/predictions for the upcoming year.  Please voice your feedback or add your own.

• Commoditization of services: Loyalty towards providers/publishers will erode for convenience.  The huge success of products like Seesmic (which allow you to use Facebook, Twitter, etc… from one dashboard) account for large amounts of activity and this is likely to grow.  So is it about Twitter or is it about status updates? Is it about Facebook or staying in touch with your network?  Is it about the actual iPhone or the apps?There are so many services and so much pressure to open the gates in order to stay competitive that it is the commodity services that work across platforms like Seesmic, similar dashboards, and app providers that will grow rapidly as a result.
  
  The service will become more important than the provider.

• Exclusive deals, not acquisitions: This goes back to an earlier post about the ‘Cold War’ between Microsoft and Google, and is rooted in content/service providers being able to play Google and Microsoft against one another.  Much like during the actual Cold War when various countries could go back and forth in their loyalties in order to get the best benefits and aid, in a similar way, publishers can forge relationships knowing they have options between the two.Because such conflicts are long-term, the publishers (e.g.. Yelp, Twitter, etc…) know they have time and are in no rush to sell off their complete sovereignty and would rather sign short term access deals to show revenue potential (precisely as Twitter has done recently). So therefore do not expect huge acquisitions.

Stay tuned for Part II…

Last month I had the privilege of taking part in a panel discussion at a Business Marketing Association breakfast in Chicago. The presentation was lead by Ray Villares from Symmetri Marketing – and the theme was the integration of search, social and mobile marketing. From a digital marketing perspective, this is really the holy trinity. Customers can now find you, and engage with you at anytime, from anywhere. Ray stated that mobile is the most intimate kind of communication – and I think that has some implications from a social media perspective. When a user is interacting with a brand via a mobile device, there is a real singularity of purpose in that moment. There aren’t 10 different windows open and programs running in the background. It’s just the two of you, and the soft glow of that tiny screen. Intimate indeed!

The opportunity is to take that relationship with the consumer to the next level. To provide something unique, something special. Maybe it’s a branded iPhone app. Maybe it’s the ability for a customer to text a keyword to enter a contest or receive product information. Maybe it’s the chance to submit a review of your product, service or establishment in nearly real-time. In any case, we have to ensure that the engagement is special. And at the very least – that our sites are optimized for mobile devices.

The biggest challenge is cutting through all the mobile noise. 100,000+ apps are available for download in iTunes, with thousands more for Android, Nokia, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry. And let’s not forget about the mobile web, text messages, and, oh yeah, phone calls. The most effective mobile marketing efforts seem to go beyond pure entertainment or gimmicks, and actually do something useful. I’m thinking of the AT&T “Mark the Spot” app and the Dunkin Run app. Both address a need in a unique way that can really only be offered by the companies themselves. So the questions to ask when considering mobile are 1) What can you offer your audience that no one else can, and 2) Does it make sense to explore mobile devices as a platform to address their unmet needs?

I’ll also add that I think marketers and communicators are going to have to start thinking about how to become a digital triple threat when it comes to search, social and mobile. Traditionally, these channels/platforms have been the domain of “specialists” (and I guess I’m one of them), but with the move to real-time, location-based engagement, these specialties represent the future of almost all digital interaction. This goes for advertising, PR, CRM, you name it. So how are you thinking about mobile when it comes to your 2010 marketing and communications strategy?

I’ve been recently writing more and more about the topic of ‘search’ just because it seems to be getting more complex, influential, and interesting by the day.  The latest big development is the potential shutting out of News Corp. content (Rupert Murdock) from Google with only exclusive access to Microsoft’s Bing.  This would eventually raise the possibility of Reuters and AP doing the same thing as was hinted by Mark Cuban and become a battle for ‘news’ content.

What must be realized is that this is becoming bigger than ‘search’ and bigger than revenue drivers.  This is not about Bing and Google Search.   This seems like a long-term competition between two giants battling for position as the preferred technology brand for consumers.  Both will use their core business to expand into other areas and it is important to analyze events and success outside of the ‘revenue’ lens.

This is now truly resembling beginnings of a technological Cold War.  Much like in any long-term conflict, it is important view events with the big picture in mind.  This is now a conflict of pre-emptive moves, territorial encroachments, tricky alliances, posturing, and battles for the ‘hearts and minds’ of consumers.

Let’s analyze the situation through the 3 ‘Cold War’ points mentioned above:

Encroachment
Google: Just announced its own browser based operating system, its office suite has been around for a while now, as well as its own browser.   All areas that have been very important to Microsoft.

Microsoft: Bing is its major search initiative and encroachment into Google’s core area of expertise

Alliances
The potential news content (News Corp., and perhaps AP, Reuters) being available through Bing only is an interesting, yet tricky proposition.  What is a definite outcome of such a deal is a huge loss of traffic for any property that excludes Google.  According to Compete, Google holds 73% of the search market share.  Excluding that traffic would obviously lead to lower page views and that is still the main monetization model of news sites.  It would be interesting to see how much Microsoft is willing to offer news publishers to offset that.

This ‘blockade’ of Google can backfire quite easily because many news providers use AP and Reuters content such as The New York Times.  So it seems that the content would still be accessible, just from a different destination.

Time will better judge this potential alliance/blockade but the initial thinking about its financial success is skeptical in terms of revenue, yet it may not be about that.  This may be a step to deny Google their stated goal of indexing all of the world’s information.

Similarly, speculation of who will acquire Twitter in 2010 is something to watch (no matter what is currently said) and again this will not be about revenue generation much like Google’s purchase of YouTube. Twitter and YouTube’s monetization is far from proven as has been seen.  So these are all big picture, defensive in nature moves and are not necessarily about revenue generation.

It seems that these are just skirmishes for what is ahead, and that is the battle for the ‘Hearts and Minds’ of consumers to become their preferred technology brand.

Although it seems that Google has an advantage because its product development model lets it release a multitude of diverse products that live in the ‘cloud’ (Gmail, Wave, Voice, Maps, Profile, Docs, Calendar, Reader, etc…), the flaw may be precisely in the way how these products are developed – by individual teams that seem to have difficulties integrating their products together.  Few of the products come together in any meaningful away and Google will have to overcome that challenge.

Microsoft’s has the track record in creating integrated user experiences across various services, yet its challenge will remain in moving and monetizing their services and products in the ‘cloud.’

Much like during the Cold War when U.S. and U.S.S.R. battled over distant developing countries, achievements in space, and weapons races, similarly this technology conflict will take both companies into new places. Both will venture far and wide across many aspects of technology,  so watch out mobile, music, GPS, telecoms, display ads, video, RFID, etc… This will be interesting, drawn out, high stakes, difficult to analyze, yet interesting.

Google’s announcements over past several months have gotten me to think very differently of where SEO could be headed. I am thinking of 3 announcements in particular

1. The ‘Search Wiki’ results page where users can rearrange the results they are getting – true personalized results

2. Integration with Twitter search which will deliver more real-time Twitter content into the search results page

3. ‘Social Search’ which puts content from your personal network into the search results page

This is all disrupting one of the primary tenants of SEO: the relatively stable search results page that is arranged by an algorithm that ranks results on their relevancy to the search query.

However, these new products are really shifting the control of the search results page to the user, their personal preferences, live results, and content from their social networks. For SEO purposes, we may not even know what the search results page looks like from user to user. These are additional levels of complexity that simply cannot be overcome by “content optimization” and “link building.”

Even though adoption of these features still needs to increase, SEO specialists will need to expand their worldview and join the other types of marketers that are all converging on Social Media whether they are advertisers, PR, SEO, direct response, and other types of specialists.

A very insightful, yet strangely print magazine-only, Foreign Policy Magazine (Sep-Oct issue) feature asked its columnists and new bloggers about the differences on being columnist versus a blogger. Even though these were all thought leaders/policy people, nevertheless, the key themes they expressed are relevant to any organization/company that wants to allow its experts a public content outlet such as a blog.

Although it is extremely worthwhile to read the entire article and draw your own conclusions, here are the points which resonated with me:

• Experiment with new content formats and user participation: Blog posts are not just columns and op-ed pieces. Stephen M. Walt of the Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government found that he could actually develop ongoing pieces based on live developments and included multiple perspectives. Instead of his own single perspective on a certain battle in Afghanistan, he actually began to interact with the battle participants and integrating their perspectives into the analysis. So don’t be limited to column format pieces and truly push the medium.
• Be ready to be challenged and let go of being a perfectionist: Pieces are developed with short lead times and that presents an additional challenge as bloggers: “have to have a much thicker skin because the response is so instantaneous you’re likely to be wrong more often than you would with something you spend months or years working on.” Again, a great piece of insight from Stephen M. Walt. The feedback will range from absurd, to supportive, to challenging so be flexible.
• Don’t be afraid of strong positions and perhaps a bit of sensationalism: Bloggers note that taking on controversial topics gained the most attention and feedback. While not necessarily surprising, it may make sense to create a balance between posts that take on controversial topics that would provide a boost in overall readership.
• Be ready for a real commitment and time investment: This seems to be the biggest challenge. David J. Rothkoff of the Carnegie Endowment found: “My main goal when I started was that it shouldn’t take more than 15 minutes a day. That was not successful.” Evgeny Morozov of the Open Society Institute also noted the key challenge of “feeding the beast.” “Sometimes I wake up and just think ‘I’ve got nothin’. I have to do a lot of prior planning. I have a notebook where I keep ideas, and sometimes I’ll incubate something for several weeks.” Being a frequent blogger is quite a time investment so make sure you’re ready for that type of commitment and idea generation is another key challenge.

Blogging is a great platform to take a thought leadership position within an online space and it makes sense to do it especially since most organizations have such a wealth brain power locked away behind the company walls. However, before opening up these points and challenges are worth addressing, otherwise failure is a very real option.

[Also published on Social Media Today]

Social Media “frenzies” are over-analyzed as they are happening but are then inadequately remembered after they pass, making their true impact hard to understand.  For example, I would really like to know what was the true impact of the so-called “Motrin Moms” incident?  Did it affect sales, reputation, favorability?

The Skittles experiment in March was hugely effective in generating buzz and traffic but what effect did that truly have and was it sustainable? In these cases it really is just conjecture.  Sales and other brand metrics are not readily available as they are just products within larger organizations, and after initial interest wanes these “social media frenzies” are somewhat forgotten and do not get re-examined.  As this practice area develops, I do believe that Social Media professionals should develop a habit of re-examining these examples as case studies in order to better understand their impact.

One recent example that is interesting to re-examine with having the benefit of time is the Domino’s social media scandal from March 2009 (initially discussed here).  The fact that it is a public company and the top level brand at the company makes it easier to go back and understand the impact of that crisis.  This was actually a frequent discussion point on the company earning’s conference call for that quarter (transcript at Seeking Alpha).  Apparently, the company will not suffer long-term losses, but did suffer sales 1%-2% in that quarter (WSJ article).  So it seems that the damage was pretty heavy, yet limited since that truly was the worst case scenario of a social media crisis.  Domino’s will obviously survive this.

I am not questioning the importance of social media to today’s business. I’m simply suggesting that we should remember to re-examine these events long after they take place as that will give us a clearer understanding about their the long-term significance.

RFI Studios has launched the new digital presence of the International Peace Institute, an independent global not-for-profit think tank dedicated to promoting the prevention and settlement of conflicts between and within states by strengthening international peace and security institutions.

In replacing IPI’s antiquated website with a more robust digital platform, RFI Studios took into account the Institute’s goals of increasing their profile in the foreign policy set and generating buzz among future policy leaders. RFI developed a user-centric application allowing visitors access to content that suits their needs.

To view the new site, visit www.ipinst.org.

Public relations pros often come into contact with sensitive information, be it a draft press release on a public acquisition, the launch plans for the season’s hottest tech gadget, or the contents of an internal blog. How can PR companies keep this information private in Web 2.0?

As the Wall Street Journal recently explored, this can be especially vexing for layoff announcements in a world of blogs, citing a Yahoo case where “its instructions to managers conducting layoffs — ‘15 minutes maximum,’ ‘don’t engage in small talk’ — were published by the blog Valleywag.com.”

Sites like Overheard in the Office offer an anonymous outlet for harmless (usually) office gossip, but how should companies prepare for the eventuality of a leak that could lead to legal action?

It can be somewhat of a paradox. Building trust with employees and fostering open lines of communication are strong tools for developing a relationship where those with access to sensitive information will honor its sensitivity. Some employees just won’t have that capacity – particularly those who are on their way out or know they will be soon.

So, another approach might be to limit employee access to private information to reduce the possibility of leaks a priori. However, this disintigrates trust, and can lead to cumbersome bureaucracy, censorship, and spying.

Some advocate for companies to act completely openly, as if there is no filter between their email screen and the front page of Gawker. From the PR perspective, this translates as “there is no such thing as off-the-record.”

To complicate matters – in PR, sometimes we walk a fine line of “leaking” information by soft-sounding reporters. It can be appropriate to build a reporter’s interest in a story by sharing some enticing details of a story without providing client identifiers.

And sometimes PR pros purposely and openly “leak” information in the form of an embargoed press release. But as we’ve seen recently, the practice of ignoring embargoes has been catching on, as TechCrunch recently announced they will ignore embargoes and WSJ partially adopted a no embargoes policy.

Have you ever leaked sensitive information?

Maybe don’t answer that on this blog.