November 2008 Archive

Yesterday I presented to a group of my colleagues at Ruder Finn about Twitter and brainstormed some uses for our corporate clients.

One point that resonated was imploring people to explore Web 2.0 on their own to discover tools and services that may be of use to them or clients. Ruder Finn social media coordinator Tyler Pennock put it this way at the PR Week Next Conference:

#nextprweek One skill I think future PR pros need to have: curiousity - the desire to always look for more questions to answer

This curiosity is often fostered by a healthy dose of "wandering." And wandering has a long history of success in developing breakthrough thinking and ideas. There are ancient examples that Boston University professor Stephen Prothero presented in a lecture series entitled: The Work of Doing Nothing: Wandering as Practice and Play

From Bostonia, the BU alumni mag (disclosure: I’m a Boston University alum):

Prothero explores wandering as one of the great themes in the world’s religious and literary traditions, and as an antidote to our contemporary obsessions with efficiency, productivity, and the purpose-driven life. Adam and Eve were wanderers, as were Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Paul, and the Buddha. Ulysses wanders across the pages of the Odyssey and the Pandhavas across the chapters of the Hindu epic the Mahabharata. To wander is to move without destination into the unknown, and to open yourself up to surprises. But wandering is often disparaged as deviation and digression. These lectures seek to redeem wandering from its critics by championing it as both practice and play. Although wandering aims at nothing, it is work of a sort. And on occasion, it can do some of the hardest work of all: liberating us from the tyranny of those voices — of parents and gods and friends and governments — that tell us (with authority, and sometimes coercive power) who to be, what to think, how to live.

A more contemporary example of "wandering" comes in Google’s 70/20/10 model:

The 70/20/10 Model is a business resource management model pioneered by Eric E. Schmidt. This model dictates that, to cultivate innovation, employees of a company should utilize their time in the following ratio:

* 70% of time should be dedicated to core business tasks.
* 20% of time should be dedicated to projects related to the core business.
* 10% of time should be dedicated to projects unrelated to the core business.

(source: Wikipedia)

More on the 70/20/10 concept here.

How much time do you spend working at not working?

As Ruder Finn expands its blog network, my colleagues on the other side of the pond at DotCom ask an interesting question: Why are we blogging?

It’s an important question that our clients, friends, and co-workers ask as we implement digital campaigns. In addition to Alison’s reasons of showing allegiance to a company vs. company unity, I would add that corporate blogs broadly can be used to:

• Build online presence: you can’t be known as a blogger if you don’t blog. Also, it’s good policy to practice what you preach.
• Establish thought leadership: corporate blogging can be used to show that you’re a smart thinker, and if you have an active community of commenters, possibly even develop your ideas further.
• Showcase client work: corporate blogs can and should be used as additional marketing tools when appropriate. Your own corporate blog can be your first blog hit. Use it if you got it.
• Drive new business / recruiting: this is one more point that pajama bloggers might find distasteful. But the ultimate goal of being known, having a good reputation, and doing good work is to grow your business and attract great talent.

I look forward to reading more from Left and Right Brains’ UK counterparts DotCom and DotOrg. Cheers!

Google’s new photo archive posted in conjunction with Time LIFE brings us millions of photos from some of the first photographs to today. And many are available for the first time ever:

http://images.google.com/hosted/life

We’ve seen a similar effort before with the Library of Congress’ Flickr page, and both sites serve a business purpose that goes beyond the "cool" factor of being able to browse old-timey and iconic images.

For the Library of Congress, the Flickr page accomplishes 3 business objectives:

• Using resources: according to the LOC, the photos on the site "have long been popular with visitors to the Library; they have no known restrictions on publication or distribution, and they have high resolution scans."
• Experimentation: Also from the LOC site, they "look forward to learning what kinds of tags and comments these images inspire. To gain a better understanding of how social tagging and community input could benefit both the Library and users of the collections. To gain experience participating in Web communities that are interested in the kinds of materials in the Library’s collections."
• Access: Of course, this is the technology people are using and the best way to reach them. Who would ever have thought of going to the LOC website or the LOC itself to see these?

(As a side note, Ruder Finn client Alvin Ailey has a traveling exhibit with the Library of Congress. Maybe someday those photos will be up on Flickr too?)

Google’s LIFE site similarly accomplishes similar objectives (sharing rare photos, coolness factor) and achieves at least one additional business objective that I can detect, and that’s to sell merchandise. Using the same vendor that Flickr uses to sell merchandise (Qoop), Google/LIFE allows people to buy framed prints off the site with just a couple quick clicks.

While I think the Google venture could use more social aspects like commenting, sharing, and embedding (right now it only features rating; tagging/labeling is done internally), I think it sets an important precedent for digital business. Content needs to be compelling, easily accessible, and jibe with your business goals.

Here’s my favorite photo so far:

http://snipr.com/63dxa

What’s yours?
(put it in the comments)

Just digging in to my long-awaited 10th anniversary issue of PR Week. EIC Keith O’Brien has done a great job pulling it toghether and working long and hard hours on it.

A few articles to highlight:

• PR’s Forefathers: Luncheon from this summer with four men who have more than 200 combined years of experience in the industry. Harold Burson, Daniel Edelman, Al Golin, and David Finn (Ruder Finn co-founder) helped to establish the PR industry that exists today. They discussed how they entered the field, who tried to acquire whom, and what the future holds.
• Illustration contest: PRWeek enlisted an illustrator to artistically interpret 20 of the industry’s most influential PR professionals from the past decade. They are giving a framed print of the illustration to the first PRWeek reader who can identify all 20 PR professionals. Runner-up gets a free subscription.
• Bold predictions: Including the following 4 from Ruder Finn:

FACTS
Kathy Bloomgarden, co-CEO, Ruder Finn
Fact and fiction will become indistinguishable in online news media, making trust a vital commodity that PR can provide

MEDIA CENTERS
Michael Schubert, chief creative officer, Ruder Finn
New media technology will make television obsolete and put the computer screen in the living room.

TWITTER
Scott Schneider, EVP and managing director, RFI Studios (Ruder Finn)
Complete Twitter burnout

CROWD SOURCING
Darius Razgaitis, senior account executive, Ruder Finn
Creativity will be crowd-sourced, redefining the role of the professional creative mind. PR will be tasked with orchestrating the crowd talking to itself

**UPDATE 1 (11/18)**

You’ll need to register to access the PR Week site, but it’s free.

On my way to caffeine-up today, I noticed an ongoing trend in the halls of the Ruder Finn. No less than three offices had active meetings going with folks from our Interactive group. This is not an uncommon site as our clients and the industry figures out how to incorporate and integrate digital approaches to their communications arsenal.

It’s also a sign of the blurring of the traditional "lines" between our groups. Technically, I’m in the Ruder Finn Corporate Communications group while guest blogging here on a blog hosted by Ruder Finn Interactive. But these distinctions are somewhat moot. We often find ourselves working collaboratively to make sure we have all perspectives covered, and that our clients get cutting edge campaigns.

Speaking of clients…enough shameless self-promotion for now, and back to work!

Veterans Day has me thinking of war (and peace) and how social media has helped or hampered our military and the services that support it. Since war tactics often resemble business practices (how many CEOs have read and used "Art of War"?), hopefully this post will also provide some insight for businesses as well.

Social media is a new military battlefront much in the same way that it’s the new forefront of communications. And as in PR, learning the new rules of the game have not come without growing pains. For example, Google-owned YouTube recently realized that terrorists have been sharing training videos on the site. Well, after September 11 this year, YouTube banned videos "that incite others to commit violent acts, videos on how to make bombs, and footage of sniper attacks," relying on users to report such videos as violating the terms of service.

But whether this will make a dent in the "war on terror" is doubtful. According to the FBI’s Richard Kolko, "It’s good news if there are less of these on the Web, but many of these jihadist videos appear on different websites around the world, and any time there is investigative or intelligence value we actively pursue it."

So much for ROI on social media strategies!

There are other cases, however, where real effects have been felt as the result of malicious web aggression. Take the 2007 Estonian Cyberwar (yes, such a thing exists). Summarized from Wikipedia:

"Estonian Cyberwar" refers to a series of cyber attacks that began April 27, 2007 and swamped websites of Estonian organizations, including Estonian parliament, banks, ministries, newspapers and broadcasters, amid the country’s row with Russia about relocation of a Soviet-era memorial to fallen soldiers. Some observers reckoned that the onslaught on Estonia was of a sophistication not seen before. The case is studied intensively by many countries and military planners as, at the time it occurred, it may have been the second-largest instance of state-sponsored cyberwarfare, following Titan Rain."

And WSJ recently called cyberweapons "a staple of war" in reference to Russia’s attacks on Georgia in August, where they appeared to be used for the first time alongside conventional weapons. (Incidentally, Estonia sent two "leading cyber-defense experts to Tbilisi to help stave off cyber-attacks emanating in Russia.")

They even quoted the aptly named Scott Borg, director of the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, a think tank that advises governments and companies, "we are in a world where governments have not decided yet whether the tools of cyberattacks are weapons."

The US Air Force has seemed to have vacillated in its role in waging war online as well. According to WIRED:

For years, the Air Force’s leader argued that computer networks were a warfighting "domain" — on par with air or space as a place for combat. The service even changed its mission statement to read, "As Airmen, it is our calling to dominate Air, Space, and Cyberspace."

But recently, they scaled down their proposed Cyber Command announcing that there will no longer be a new major command developed for cyberspace operations.

Perhaps efforts should be stepped up. As we are just learning now, it looks like both McCain and Obama’s sites were subject to cyber attacks during the recent presidential campaign. Where did those attacks originate? China!

Other countries have not been so ambivalent in cracking down.

Last week, Pakistan ruled that "cyber terrorism" will be punishable by death. From Reuters/NYT:

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes law will be applicable to anyone who commits a crime detrimental to national security through the use of a computer or any other electronic device, the government said in the ordinance. "Whoever commits the offence of cyber terrorism and causes death of any person shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life." The ordinance described cyber terrorism as accessing of a computer network or electronic system by someone who then "knowingly engages in or attempts to engage in a terroristic act."

How does this all relate to corporate PR? A few lessons can be gleaned:
- Our enemies (competitors) are attacking (competing) with us online - we ignore Web 2.0 at our own peril.
- Anyone with an Internet connection can have a big impact. That includes those seeking to damage your company’s reputation or your country’s functionality
- Broad understanding and cooperation is hard to achieve in Web 2.0, but steer clear of corporal punishment to get your executives on Twitter
- The most successful campaigns will intergrate cyber- (ePR) and conventional (traditional) weapons (media outreach), while relying on expert strategic counsel

**UPDATE 1 (11/13)**

Ruder Finn’s role in War 2.0 can be seen in our work with the Department of Homeland security on Ready.gov. We built the website as the central component of their nationwide citizen preparedness campaign, which encouraged Americans to prepare themselves and their homes in the event of a terrorist attack.

Here’s the case study: Don’t Be Afraid, Be Ready

I’ve always believed that visiting a country is the best way to understand its people. Robert Scoble, Fast Company journalist and tech evangelist, is currently on a trip to China and is posting some fascinating stuff (IMHO):

• "Just got into China. Funny thing, my blog doesn’t work here. The blogger can visit, but can’t write. Heheh." (via FriendFeed)
• "Funny, Google Reader works in China. Which means people can read my blog via RSS." (via FriendFeed)
• "Being on the Web in China is like Web 2.0/2. I can’t get to a ton of sites here. Weird that Twitter and FriendFeed are wide open, though." (via Twitter)

All these "funny" and "weird" statements about Chinese Web 2.0 could have been avoided had "Scobleizer" visited China Channel before his trip. Tech blog CrunchGear posted on this free program that allows you to surf the web China-style.

What it does is makes your computer think it’s in China by temporarily giving you a Chinese IP address. It allows you to "visit" the Chinese web without having to go there. Try searching Chinese Google for "democracy" or "Wikipedia," and you’ll be stymied.

While this is useful in understanding how the web works in China, you still have to visit - it won’t it won’t feed you Chinese food!

Enjoyed following some election tweeting this morning, especially while standing in line for an hour to vote:

Keith O’Brien, EIC, PR Week
http://twitter.com/keithobrien/status/989161273
http://twitter.com/keithobrien/status/989102523

Peter Shankman, HARO
http://twitter.com/skydiver/status/989292656

Southwest Airlines
http://twitter.com/SouthwestAir/status/989332489

Nick Leonard, MD, Ruder Finn UK
http://twitter.com/nickleonard/status/989443598

Bonin Bough, Social Media Director, Pepsi
http://twitter.com/boughb/status/989191681

It’s been interesting to see how the Internet has effected this election. Of course, the full results remain to be seen, but it looks like Obama has led in most of the "social media" fronts. Last week’s front page WSJ story, Campaigns Try New Web Tactics In Battle to Tap Fresh Supporters, included an interesting interactive graph:

- Measuring an Internet Election -

What’s interesting about it is that while Obama leads in every category (web hours: 39% lead; website visitors: 33% lead; YouTube site views: 29% lead; Facebook friends: 58% lead), his slimmest margins are in blog mentions (McCain 49%, Obama 51%) and poll results (McCain 43%, Obama 49%).

This begs the question of whether Obama’s online efforts have really resulted in moving
the voting needle all that much. How much of his pre-election lead can Obama attribute to Web 2.0? Would his efforts have been better spent elsewhere?

Businesses are facing a similar question:

What’s the ROI on web strategies?

Any social media communications coordinator should be heartened to see how widespread the use of these new tools has become, but their audience base is likely going largely untapped, and corporations face the challenge of engaging them or letting an opportunity slip by. And considering the scale, letting an opportunity slip by could actually be very damaging.

Of course, some of Obama’s lead must be attributed to the changing political and social landscape in America, but it also seems that the Internet has played a similarly game-changing role as TV did in JFK’s 1960 election, as pointed out in yesterday’s New York Times, Campaigns in a Web 2.0 World

What do you think corporations can learn from the "online election?"

**UPDATE 1 (11/5)**

WIRED: Propelled by Internet, Barack Obama Wins Presidency

**UPDATE 2 (11/7)**

• Change.gov - President-elect’s Obama’s online office
• PR Week blog, The Cycle: Obama might have to shift social media strategy now