« Main

Aug 18, 2008

The silly season starts

Yes, folks, it's that time of year again: Back to School Season.

This is NOT an excuse for linking any and every product to school-age children. So PR person who was about to press <send> on a mass email to parents... STOP IT! RIGHT NOW! [GO TO YOUR ROOM!]

Re-read your pitch and make sure there really is a link to getting kids ready for back-to-school. And please be age appropriate. I'm still laughing at the one forwarded by a friend today that urged parents to make sure their college-bound kids know how to use their cell phones.

Yes, you read that right. Don't believe me? Here it is:

       

While I am all for parents discussing safety risks with their children -- including young adults off to college, I don't know a single college-age person who wouldn't be insulted being referred to as a child. I'm insulted on their behalf just reading this pitch.

And of course, as my friend wrote when she forwarded the pitch, eight-year olds know how to use cell phones. The idea that an 18-year old needs help using one is just bizarre.

The other two points are more relevant to the young adult away at school for the first time, but that brings up the other problem with this pitch, all of which I've included above except the signoff with the rep's phone number.

It's a stealth pitch. I've written about this before, but your pitch should always be clear about who and what you represent. Hiding the client, not being clear about your agenda is dishonest. Don't do it.

Another form of stealth pitch is the fake comment or user testimonial. This tactic is often referred to as astroturfing. On consumer sites, it typically takes the form of a glowing testimonial, purportedly from a happy customer. How can you spot this?  Look for the message points. Most people don't write that way. PR people do. As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It is perfectly okay to leave a comment about a product if it is in direct response to a query and you clearly identify your interest. It is not okay to hide your interest or leave unsolicited pitches in the comments on a blog. If you think the blogger might be interested in your product, service or idea, send an email first.

Honesty really is the best policy.

UPDATE 8/19: As some of you know, I used to work for an Internet filtering company. It turns out that the PR agency that sent the stealth pitch I commented on above represents a company that recently acquired one of the brands I worked for. I discovered this fact when my friend forwarded me another pitch she received today from the same rep that did name the product. While strictly speaking, I was never an employee of this new company, I do have a general policy of not commenting on former employers, and this is close enough for me. I also have a soft spot for this brand, since it was my baby for a very long time, and would never criticize it publicly. But in a roundabout way, I did.

Stealth pitching is a BAD idea. Don't do it.

Tags:

Posted @ 6:08PM in Blogger relations, Ethics | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Jan 9, 2008

Cleaning out the cupboards

I really do have some awesome posts planned, just no time to write this week. So instead, I thought I'd clean out my virtual cupboards of some goodies for you. Don't look for a theme, these truly are "small pieces very loosely joined" (nod to David Weinberger.)

First, some science fiction. Torchwood begins its second season on 1/26 on BBC America, and a few more trailers have surfaced. Official trailer. Two scenes from the first episode. Warning: As Twitter pal Dave Parmet and I discussed yesterday, Torchwood is DoctorWho with the naughty bits (his words) and without the most annoying David Tennant (mine). In other words, expect to see some adult relationships of all sorts in the show. And on these clips.

Battlestar Galactica is (finally) due back in April, and spoilery bits are starting to surface on YouTube. Here's the latest one.

Now, unfortunately, I will not be able to watch Torchwood on the 26th because I will be at the Sundance Film Festival. Tough break, huh. I'll have more information for you on Monday, but the short version is, I have a new client who is premiering a film during the Festival and I will be going out for the launch party on January 25th.

Speaking of Sundance, be sure to check out HP's Backstage At Sundance blog. Longtime readers will recall that I helped develop this blog two years ago. Last year, they started featuring videos of impromptu performances by musicians attending the festival, a tradition I believe they plan to continue this year. 

BlogHer Business and New Comm Forum are both fast approaching. At BlogHer, I will be speaking, including a case study from a client project. More on that when the agenda is published.  At New Comm Forum, I will be moderating an "Alumni" Panel during lunch on the first day. We are inviting attendees from previous years to share a social media/ new communications project or campaign that applied the knowledge they acquired at New Comm Forum. The criteria are pretty simple:

  • you attended a previous New Comm Forum;
  • your project was done sometime in the past 18 months and you are free to share information about it;
  • you've never spoken at a previous New Comm Forum.

If this sounds like you, contact me at sgetgood@getgood.com or  twitter.com/sgetgood.

Finally, colleague and friend Kami Watson Huyse has a great post today -- an interview with John "Pat" Philbin, the senior communications person who took the heat for FEMA's fake press conference last fall. You can read it on her blog or listen to the full interview at For Immediate Release.

My virtual cupboard is now pretty bare. Meatier posts next week. Promise!

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Posted @ 5:01PM in BlogHer Business, Ethics, Science Fiction, Sundance | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Sep 24, 2007

A new low for the email scammers

Well, it looks like the email scammers have moved on from dead Nigerian dictators to dead Iraqi ones. From today's inbox:

Good Day,

Good day. My name is XXXXX XXXXXXX, I am with the US amry and I am serving in the military of the 1st Armored Division in Iraq. my partner and I moved funds belonging to Saddam Hussein, the total is $25,000,000.00  (Twenty Five million US dollars) this money is being kept safe. Click on this link to read about events that took place here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2988455.stm [link deactivated]

Basically since we are working for the American government we cannot keep these funds, but we want to transfer and move the funds to you, so that you can keep it for us in your safe account or an offshore account.

We will divide the total funds in three ways, since we are 2 that is involved.

This means that you will take 30%, I will take 30%, and my partner will take 30%. 10% will be kept aside for expenses.

This business is confidential, and it should not be discussed with anyone.  There is no risk involved whatsoever. If you are interested I will send you the full details, my job is to find a good partner that we can trust and that will assist us.

Can I trust you? When you receive this letter, kindly send me an e-mail signifying your interest including your most.

confidential telephone/fax numbers for quick communication, also our contact details. This business is risk free.

Awaiting your prompt reply urgently.

Miss Xxxxx Xxxxxxx

Blecch.

Tags:

Posted @ 9:09AM in Ethics | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Sep 22, 2007

Social Media Club Boston: Fake Steve, Wal-Mart and Forrester Research

Last Thursday's Social Media Club Boston meeting was terrific. And oh so funny.  Kudos to Greg PC for assembling such a great panel, and to the moderator and speakers for doing such a brilliant job.

John Cass has done a great job summarizing the session, so I will just share some photos, soundbites and general observations.

Moderator Monika Maeckle, VP Southwest Region, Business Wire (sponsor of the evening) A delightful and charming woman who did a great job moving the conversation along, involving the audience, but never losing control of the session.

And the esteemed panel:

left to right: Josh Bernoff, Forrester; Dan Lyons, aka Fake Steve Jobs, Forbes Magazine; Steve Restivo, Wal-Mart

As John Cass reported, Dan Lyons was the hit of the evening. Some of his bon mots:

On his Attack of the Blogs article: "I wished I had a do-over."

On Valleywag: "Valleywag sucks."    

On Jonathan Schwartz, Sun: "How different is Jonathan Schwartz's blog from a fake blog?"  [Note, if this comment resonates, be sure to check out My Little Pony.]

As John reported in his post, Dan said many people knew who FSJ was well before the New York Times exposed the secret. In a brief conversation after the panel, Dan said he was impressed that they were all able to keep the secret. He said a few of them even helped mess with Valleywag on who FSJ was. Gotta love it. Unless you are Owen Thomas I suppose.

Josh Bernoff was polished and articulate. I really liked his comment that starting a "social media" project by picking a technology is ass-backward. The POST model he shared really resonated:

    First: PROFILE your customer.  

    Second: Define your OBJECTIVES.

    Third: Develop a STRATEGY -- how do you want to change people

    Then, and only then, decide on the TECHNOLOGY.

 

Another great quote from Josh: "Only one group of people that this (social media) is really bad for -- liars."

Steve Restivo from Wal-Mart did a great job representing his company, although it was clear that he was constrained by a corporate role, unlike the other panelists, who are encouraged (and compensated I am sure) to have strong public personas. Nevertheless I was impressed by both his acknowledgment of past mistakes like RV-ing Across America and his frank statement that competitor Target does a great job online.

The Social Media Club has chapters in a number of cities; check it out. And if you are in Boston, see you next time.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted @ 7:09PM in Blogging, Ethics, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, Social media | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Jul 22, 2007

Not So Random Observations: Nikon and alli

I've been thinking quite a bit about Nikon and alli. Not because I am considering becoming a customer of either because, in order, not now and not likely.

Because the blog campaigns of both have taken a few hits lately. Some deserved and some not so.

Let's start with Nikon, which loaned expensive digital SLR cameras to about 50 marketing and PR bloggers this spring. No obligation to write, and a promise of a discount if they decided to keep the camera after the review period. Doesn't sound like a bad program, does it? Seems to respect the bloggers. Not that different from other sampling programs the company has done.

Many bloggers, myself included, didn't have any major problems with the campaign. The outreach was well within recommended guidelines, and the recipients of the loaner cameras all disclosed their participation in everything they wrote about the camera.

Well, Chicken Little, get out of the way and NEVER underestimate our collective ability to navel gaze.  In the eyes of some marketing bloggers, there were serious flaws with the program, and recipients of the loaners couldn't be objective about the program, let alone the camera. [Note: I am not a camera recipient.]

Did the value of the camera, far more than the usual product sample, create the problem?  Perhaps, but readers are smart enough to filter what they read, provided there is full disclosure.  Which there was.

Another criticism was that the 50 or so chosen participants were people with whom Nikon's agency already had relationships. Uhmm. This is one of the key recommendations we make in blogger relations -- know your customers. If marketing types are likely prospects for a product, which in this case they are, why shouldn't you reach out to them? If your goal is to get people talking about your product, why wouldn't you select a group that would be highly likely to try the camera and then tell others?

Some bloggers felt strongly that blogger relations programs should always benefit the larger community, not just those selected to participate. They asked, how does giving cameras to some benefit all? This is a lovely thought, but not terribly practical, and not really necessary. We cannot expect every outreach, from every company, to benefit every member of the community. It's nice when they do, and I am a firm believer in companies giving back. But sometimes, they just want a little talk about their products, so they reach out to influencers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The one thing I would fault Nikon on is not getting more involved with the people trying the camera. Hands off is one thing. No engagement is another. If the recipients are part of a community you want to reach, you ought to at least talk with them....Doesn't have to be a focus group or even structured feedback. I'd also like to see the company do some sampling programs with other bloggers that would be equally interested in Nikon cameras. Not just this group of marketers.

But these are quibbles. Overall, I still put the Nikon campaign into the "good" column.

Now to alli. My oh my, what a blogstorm Debbie Weil set off with her request for comments on GlaxoSmithKline's blog for weight loss drug alli. Read all about it and then come back.

Was asking for comments wrong? Maybe. But that's not what I want to talk about, and that horse is pretty dead anyway.

It was the wrong question. The right question, as I left in a comment on Debbie's blog, was Why wasn't the blog getting comments? If Debbie had asked this question, the response would have been far different.

I don't think the alli blog and bloggers are fake in their concern or desire to help people lose weight. Sure, they have commercial imperatives, but they really seem to believe in their product. So why no comments?

Quite literally, because nobody wants to talk about this shit.

I commend the folks at GSK for their frankness about the side effects of alli. But, let's face it, how many people want to read about "treatment effects?" Or write about their own, assuming that is even allowed. When we keep reading about how potential employers are googling us to find out about our pasts, who would want to admit that they depend on Depends?

 The problem with the alli blog, and the conversation or lack thereof, is that it focuses on the product, not on people. And that's the wrong focus.

People may consider taking this drug, but not because they want to be alli users. Not because there is any cachet in being an alli user. I think we are all quite clear on that. They'll consider this drug because they want to lose weight and other alternatives either haven't worked or don't appeal.

That's your community: people who want to lose weight. So if you want to serve the community, you provide information and resources that meet the needs of the community. Sure, you can provide information on your product. It would be silly not to. But everything can't be branded, sanitized, corporate-approved alli content. That's a bit dull. And doesn't inspire comments.

So let me step into my monday-morning-quarterback chair and share some thoughts on what I think might work better. And perhaps start a little conversation.

A big part of the alli message is that you have to change your lifestyle, not just pop a pill. Exercise more. Eat better. So, find some experts, preferably people who are already blogging on these topics, and ask them to write for you.  Find a food blogger who writes about low fat cooking and ask her to write a food column. I am certain that a major worry for many considering alli is how they can continue to eat well with their families. Offer a recipe makeover that takes a family favorite down to reasonable fat levels.

In other words, give back to the community before you ask them to buy from you. And make sure that what you are offering is useful whether a person ever takes the drug or not.

Link out to other reputable weight loss sites and resources. Do you run the risk that the dieter might go with South Beach instead of alli? Sure, but you run that risk anyway. By being open, by providing access to alternatives, you move away from simply being a corporate product site to becoming a real resource for the community.

And that's how you become part of the community.

Now, a company, GSK or any other, doesn't have to do any of this. In which case, I'm not sure it really needs a blog.

If all you want to do is push information out, stick to a Web site. Nobody really expects to talk to you there.

Tags: , , ,

Posted @ 9:07PM in Blogger relations, Ethics | Comments (14) | TrackBack (1)

May 18, 2007

The Bad Blogger Relations Game

Regular readers of this blog will recall my April 24 post in which I promised to start "outing" bad blogger relations practitioners using a simple metric.

After May 1st, once I have been spammed three times by the same PR spammer, I will share information about it on this blog. My own small version of the Bad Pitch Blog.

The good news: So far nobody has qualified for this dubious honor.

The bad news: Two firms that have spammed me many times in the life of this blog have indeed sent one spam each since May 1. And I've received a few more from new folks.

So stay tuned. At this rate we should be naming names by the end of June....

Tags: ,

Posted @ 1:05PM in Blogger relations, Ethics | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Apr 11, 2007

Badges, get your badges

Thanks to the WonderChicken, via Jeneane Sessum, I now have my very own badge.

Be sure to get yours today.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted @ 5:04PM in Ethics | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Apr 9, 2007

On badges for blogs

I was going to write this post last week, but ran out of time before the holiday weekend. And today, thanks to today's page one NY Times story, A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs, it is even more relevant.

Synopsis of the situation, and do read the article: following the Kathy Sierra/meankids situation, Tim O'Reilly called for a code of blogger conduct. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales also stepped in. Currently on the "table" is a loose proposal for a universal but voluntary blogger code of conduct with various levels and badges that folks can place on their sites to indicate what sort of policies their blog/site allows. The proposed code is based on the code of ethics established by the BlogHer network, and there is a great picture of BlogHer founders Jory Des Jardins, Lisa Stone and Elisa Camahort in the article.

From the NYT article:

"Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.

Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself."

Lots of commentary in the blogosphere, pro and con, last week, and given this article bound to be even more this week. One of the best comments I read last week was by Ronni Bennett, who wrote:

"Most are common-sense items about removing abusive comments, not baiting the trolls, not publishing anything you wouldn’t say in person, etc. leaving the level of tolerance to individual bloggers. But one suggestion is disturbing: creating some “easily deployed badges pointing to a common set of guidelines.”

She goes on to describe the slippery slope of censorship that such a system of badges might provoke, and while agreeing with the concept of guidelines, she flat out rejects the idea of the badges.

I agree. A Code of Ethics on a blog is a great idea. And this is certainly not the first time that the topic has been raised in the blogosphere. I wrote mine in September 2005.

A community like BlogHer is well advised to have guidelines that match its ethos. It is what the members expect.

But...  badges are a bad idea. The Internet is not a single community.

I don't know how you can come up with a set of badges, or labels, that really works. You either have to operate at a gross, overly broad level or get so specific that the thing gets big and complicated. Unusable either way.

Who is in charge? The idea of the collective exercising its power to create a democratic labeling system that can guide our blog reading choices to those that share our values sounds good. Doesn't work.  Human nature suggests that some groups, some ratings, some badges become somehow "better" than others.

And the most damaging potential consequence.  The label, or its absence, becomes more important than the content itself.

Sure, it will have been our choice, but we are just as likely to end up on Animal Farm as in the utopia we imagined.

So, post your code of ethics.  Commit to a more civil level of discourse. Use a little more deliberation in response. Stop blogwars and flamewars by thinking first, writing second, and taking it offline if necessary. It's as simple as when you see the tinder crackling, don't throw another match on the fire. Don't be a bully.

But  "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"

UPDATE 4/10: Apparently folks have gotten confused about BlogHer's role in this push for a blogger's code of conduct. No doubt because the NYT story was about Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales, but featured a photo of the BlogHer founders. The short answer is: it doesn't have one. The BlogHer guidelines were used as a model by O'Reilly and Wales, but BlogHer is not involved in the effort at all. Read more at Elisa Camahort's Worker Bees blog.

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted @ 8:04AM in Blogging, Ethics | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Dec 18, 2006

Pay Per Post now requires disclosure

BIG NEWS <snark> from Pay Per Post today. It now requires disclosure by participants that the postings are sponsored postings.

Umm, that's great, but how come that wasn't in place from the beginning?

I still do not think this is a good alternative to an ongoing blogger relations program. It might be a useful supplement, but it cannot replace something that comes from the heart or the mind, not the pocketbook. 

Disclosure notice: This post is sponsored by nobody.

Tags: , ,

Posted @ 2:12PM in Blogging, Ethics | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Nov 2, 2006

The Ethics Lesson from the Wal-Mart/Edelman flog fiasco

You know, we all learned pretty much everything we need to know to avoid a similar ethical foul up by the time we reached first grade.

It's simple.

Tell the truth.

And here's the truth. The failure in the Wal-Mart Edelman fiasco wasn't simply a lack of understanding of how blogs and social media worked. That may have been part of it, but it wasn't the root problem.

It was an ethical failure, full stop.

Here's the lesson, and let's be crystal clear. It is not okay to cloak your interests or advocate without honesty. Sure, people do it all the time. We call them liars. It doesn't matter whether it is explicit or by omission. It is still a lie.

And here's the other part of today's lesson: this mess does not mean that companies shouldn't blog, or sponsor blogs, or reach out to bloggers. The Wal-Gate mess was a lapse of ethics, not an indictment of social media.  Social media can be excellent vehicles for reaching out to and talking with customers, but we have to do it honestly. Your customer knows you have an agenda. EVERYONE has an agenda of some sort. Be honest about your goals, disclose your interests, tell the truth,

It may not set you free, but when you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you told the last person.

Words to live by.

------

Bye the bye, the latest word from Edelman on this -- 

He recently gave an interview to IT World (Japan). When asked what happened, he says: "We were insufficiently transparent about the identity of one of the two bloggers who went on that RV tour. And in a certain way, it's not a failure of new media; it was a failure in all media. Which is to say, if they were talking to you in your IDG mainstream media hat, you would want to know the name of the spokesperson and what his background was and what his credentials were and we failed that basic test." He goes on to once again accept full responsibility as the boss and reiterate what they intend to do to prevent future occurences. I wish them luck.  Thanks to Shel Holtz for the link.

UPDATE 11/3/06: Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) puts Edelman membership under 90-day review. See also WOMMA's 20 Ethics Questions and discussion draft of guidelines for contacting bloggers.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

      

Posted @ 3:11PM in Blogging, Ethics, PR | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Oct 23, 2006

Wrapping up loose threads -- things remembered and wal-gate

My posts on the Wal-Gate fiasco and the gift chain Things Remembered have both gotten a fair number of comments, so before I move on to my next topic, I wanted to wrap up the loose ends on both of these threads.

First, Things Remembered. A number of commenters wrote about their great experiences at the chain and thought I was perhaps too harsh, expected too much. Perhaps, but that is one of my points. Sometimes you do only get one chance with a potential customer. We should always strive to make every customer service moment a great moment. The day I was there, there was one clerk to wait on about four potential customers. He clearly didn't want to be bothered with my oddball request. For all I really know, they DID have something that might have worked just fine, but he didn't want to bother. It was too hard. Much easier to sell an engraved pen.

The other point, and you are welcome to disagree with me, is that companies should strive to deliver extraordinary customer service. That means meeting the customer's needs, and helping them out even when the customer might end up buying from someone else on that day. It is all about recognizing the lifetime value of that customer, and recognizing those moments when extraordinary service is possible. Things Remembered has an opportunity to deliver extraordinary service by referring customers with oddball requests to other vendors. It won't happen very often, but when it does, it will be a defining moment for the customer, as it was for me. Can a company be successful without delivering extraordinary service? Sure, but why settle?

To the company's credit, a vp from Things Remembered did leave a comment on the original post. Will I shop there?  I am more likely to now, knowing that at least they are paying attention.

Final thoughts on the specific incidents in Wal-Gate: late Friday, both Richard Edelman's and Steve Rubel's blogs had news of the agency's initiatives to fix the ethical problems surfaced during the whole nasty episode. They're going to do an audit around the world to make sure they are applying best practices, everyone at the agency is going to have to attend an ethics in social media class, and the me2revolution team is going to be available in some fashion 24/7 to consult anyone in the agency on social media projects.

Umm. Why weren't they doing these things already? And will it really be enough to change the agency culture? While it doesn't seem like enough, I'll reserve judgment on what they've said until we see what they do next. And I don't mean whether they do the "Edelman University" or what great external experts they get to speak.

Let's hope the next time we hear about a social media project driven by Edelman, we hear about a project that met everyone's expectations: the client, the customers, the community and the agency's PR colleagues and peers. For Edelman's sake.

Because I do think they are now out of chances. They have got to get it right or get out.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted @ 9:10AM in Customers, Ethics, Marketing, PR | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Oct 20, 2006

Flogging, this horse just won't die, more Wal-Mart and Edelman

It must really suck to be Richard Edelman this week.

I had decided to stop writing about Wal-Gate, even after no WOMMA sanctions for Edelman because it seemed excessively cruel to keep beating a dead horse. Give them a chance to get their house in order, I thought.

Until today's news that there were two more "flogs" for Working Families for Wal-Mart written by Edelman staffers without attribution.

Enough already.

This can't be simply  "one bad apple" who didn't get it. There are just too many rotten apples and too much evidence that this is culturally acceptable behavior at Edelman.

Far from transparent or honest, it is Fifties-style PR with a social media patina (paraphrasing a comment by John Wagner on an earlier post here.)

And it is most certainly not what we did, or should, expect of a social media leader.

********

Some more recommended posts on this topic: John Wagner, Katie Paine, Tom Murphy, Constantin Basturea

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted @ 12:10PM in Blogging, Ethics, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Politics/Policy, PR | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Oct 16, 2006

Epilogue: Wal-Mart and Edelman

Well, as many PR bloggers have already reported (best round-upto date is Constantin's), Edelman has emerged from the cone of silence around the Wal-Mart fiasco. On Richard Edelman's blog, an apology and acceptance of total responsibility. And on Steve Rubel's, a short comment and link to Richard's blog.

Quite frankly, I do not see how the agency could have done anything else. It could be Edelman's fault. Might not be. Probably is. Doesn't really matter. Whether it was their fault or not, the agency must fall on the sword for the client. Or lose the client.

I know a lot of folks would love to be privy to the post mortem on this disaster. To them, I say, how does it feel... to want. We know what we know and we ain't likely to know much more. And I don't really care. I'm more interested in:

  • what Edelman does in the future. Will they finally learn and get it right the next time? What Richard and Steve say is all good and well, but the proof is in what they DO;
  • the lessons we can all learn about honesty and grassroots marketing from this fiasco.

I've commented on a number of other blog posts about this mess, among them Kami Huyse and Peter Himler, that the real shame is that had they done this right, with honesty and clarity about the sponsorship, this RVing blog might just have worked. People with RVs do stay in Wal-Mart parking lots. That's not an invention. They might have rallied around a blog that focused on them, their lives, their culture.  If it was well written, corporate sponsored or not, the public might have enjoyed it. Many do shop in Wal-Mart, image problems notwithstanding.

Bottom line, had there been truth, I would have given it a big, so what. A good idea is still a good idea even if the corporation has it. The error isn't in sponsoring a blog to advance a corporate objective. The error is the lie. People can forgive many things. But generally and pretty universally, we hate being lied to.

I'm pretty sure the folks at Edelman and Wal-Mart get this now.

There is nothing wrong with trying to spark something in the "grassroots."  If you've understood the situation, and deliver a compelling message, it will take fire. That's what viral means -- the message is so compelling it propels itself through the social network. But we cannot create a grassroots effect   Artificial, the campaign has no life, no community and cannot spread without more artifice and manipulation.

You must tap into something in the community for grassroots efforts to bear any fruit. Two recent examples come to mind, and I'm sure it will surprise none of my readers that both come from science fiction television, Firefly and Farscape. Momentum came from the community and the producers were smart enough to engage with, to love their communities. They treated them with respect and love, and guess what? When the franchises needed support, the communities around them sprung to action.

In both cases, the TV shows were cancelled and fan support had a great deal to do with subsequent movies. In the case of Firefly fans, strong DVD sales provided further proof for the movie studio that the decision to greenlight a feature film (Serenity) was the right one. And when it came time to promote the film, no fan base was more loyal than the Firefly fans.

Except maybe the Farscape fans, who lobbied for a resolution to their much loved and highly acclaimed series, and finally got it in 2004 with the Peacekeeper Wars miniseries. I wasn't a Farscape viewer when it was on TV but now, having seen all the episodes, I can say without hesitation that it is a damn shame the show was cancelled. Can we have some more, please?

In both cases, the grassroots communities were there, and the shows were able to tap into the love to make things happen. Fans didn't mind when Joss Whedon asked them to do something for Serenity. They knew he'd pay them back in spades. In fact, both fan groups are still going pretty strong online and to date, there are no (public) plans for more of either on TV or the big screen. [Boo Hoo]

That's how a company can tap into the grassroots. And I do not believe that it  is only possible for science fiction franchises.

However, it is only possible when we understand that a grassroots campaign only works when the initial impetus comes from the community, not the corporation that benefits.

It's grassroots marketing when the roots really are in the grass. When they are not, it is probably astroturf.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted @ 7:10PM in Blogging, Business Management, Ethics, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, PR, Serenity / Firefly | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Oct 13, 2006

Wal-Mart and another lesson from Science Fiction

Yesterday and today, the blogosphere has been a-buzzing with the latest Wal-Mart social media faux-pas. Short version: the much-heralded Wal-Marting Across America blog turns out to be... not a grassroots blog by a couple of independent RVers, but rather a Wal-Mart sponsored blog written by paid bloggers (one of whom is a photographer for the Washington Post) and created by the firm's PR agency Edelman.

Ouch, blecch and all those other nasty words. I'm not going to go into an analysis of Edelman's second (or third depending on what you count) social media strike with the same client. Others have done a brilliant job of this already. So if you haven't already, read about transparency and honesty and what WAS Edelman thinking ? on these great blogs:

Suffice it to say that Edelman's reputation has taken a deserved hit and they should be embarassed.  Publicity and high profile hires to the contrary, they just don't seem to "get it," and also seem determined to prove that at every turn. One thing for sure, they should be taking a long hard look at their social media practice. Will they? That's Richard Edelman's problem, not mine.

What can we learn from this latest fake blog? Toby's post above, which talks about the importance of the blog culture, and a separate post by blog buddy Mary Schmidt Why Sci-Fi is Relevant to Business (and Life) got me thinking.

Mary's post covers a bunch of things we can learn from science fiction. To her list, I'd like to add one more "rule" that drives the ethos in much of the science fiction I really love, from Star Trek, Foundation and Doctor Who to Farscape and Stargate, and can also be considered a key rule for working in the blogosphere. To sum it up: don't f*** with the natives, don't hurt the humans.

Starting with  the Three Laws of Robotics created by Isaac Asimov (Wikipedia):

  1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

and the Prime Directive of Star Trek, which "dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society, chiefly meaning that no primitive culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or alien races. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept completely secret." (from Wikipedia),

science fiction understands some fundamental principles about human nature and culture to which we should pay attention.

Even shows like Stargate, Doctor Who and Farscape which aren't quite so hands off as the Prime Directive understand quite clearly that you have to fit in with the culture and do your best to not let your technology, or values, overly color where you are or what you do. And more than anything, first, do no harm.

And that is what we have to do with the blogosphere. Because the blogosphere isn't a thing. It's people. When we lose sight of the people, when we stop respecting the people, we make stupid mistakes. We think that because, yes, there are stupid people in the world, all people are stupid. They won't penetrate our fake blog (flog). They just wanna shop at Wal-Mart. Wrong.

We need to understand that our Prime Directive, if we choose to engage with bloggers, either on their blog or our own, is to be honest. About who we are, why we're doing what we do, and who is paying the bills. It's okay if you have an agenda. People expect, and respect, that. I've done a number of blogger outreach projects for clients, and I always identify my interest in the project. Why wouldn't I? Doesn't make the story any less interesting, and it respects the intelligence of my correspondents.

And that's the lesson, my friends. Respect. For differences. For opinions. For the culture. When we have mutual respect, we have a conversation. Without it, it is just vocal chords moving, bits and bytes shifting.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice.

Jees, I don't know. Whaddya you think?

Tags: , , ,

Posted @ 5:10PM in Blogging, Ethics, Fake/Fictional Blogs, PR | Comments (5) | TrackBack (2)

Jun 13, 2006

Bloggers aren't journalists

Robert Scoble posted late yesterday that "Great journalists call" in reference to the fact that some reporters actually called to confirm the rumour that he was leaving Microsoft while other bloggers simply went with the story as it unfurled its way through the blogosphere, without calling.

Journalists can be bloggers. Dan Gillmor. The folks at BusinessWeek. There's no shortage of examples. And some bloggers are journalists, subscribing to  a code of ethics that demands balanced reporting, objectivity or at least fairness, verification of the facts, and, dare I say it,  Truth. I'll leave you all to find your own examples here -- anything I do will leave someone's favorite out, and then everyone will focus on that rather than my point.

Just having a blog does not make someone a journalist. Even if they happen to break the news. 

And before the citizen journalist advocates get up in arms,  I *do* think citizens can be journalists. But not simply because they want to be or say they are. A citizen journalist has to do the same job we expect from a reporter from the daily paper. Fair and balanced reporting. Check the facts. Check your spelling or get a copy editor to do it for you.

Break the news right, you can call yourself a journalist. Spread a rumour? That's gossip. Nothing wrong with doing that on your blog if you want to. It is your blog.

But reporting a rumour is not telling the story. Let's not confuse the two.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted @ 6:06AM in Blogging, Ethics, PR | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

May 22, 2006

Technorati-Edelman joint project: It's a good thing!

Information may want to be free, but most often it isn't. There is a cost to just about everything. In this exciting new media world, we tend to forget this. In particular we tend to forget that many (most?) of  the companies providing the goods and services that power the new world are for-profit endeavors.

Such as Technorati, which experienced a little PR blogger backlash today after the details of its joint project with Edelman were revealed. Folks were concerned about Technorati having such close ties with a PR agency. What would that mean for all the rest? Will the blogosphere be damaged somehow by this deal? To which I say, respectfully: Come on, folks.

It's a business deal. I highly doubt whether anyone is in anyone's pocket, now or ever. Each participant had a good business reason for doing the deal, both benefit, and lucky for the blogosphere, so do we.

Let's start with the Edelman. This is one of a series of smart business moves by Richard Edelman. He is establishing his agency as the premier PR agency for social media. Doesn't really matter yet whether they've delivered anything yet or that there was a flap over Wal-Mart or even whether there is a real competitive advantage in the short 6-8 month period that they'll have an exclusive over the new localized stuff. The perception is that the agency has made a commitment to blogging and is willing to do what it takes. And it's not just lip service or having a blog or recruiting well-known bloggers. With this deal, they've made an actual investment in the blogosphere. And that is one smart PR move.

Whatever competitive advantage this exclusive period gives them depends on their execution. And quite frankly I don't think it really matters. Six-eight months is nothing. The real competitive advantage is owning the position of  "the" social media PR agency. Big company clients who want to look into "this stuff" will know where to go. Eventually, the agency will have to deliver on the perception, but from his speech at Syndicate last week, sounds to me like Richard Edelman is ready for the challenge. Is that hard for PR agencies to swallow? Probably. Bad for the blogosphere? No, because it seems we will get the localized Technorati far faster in this scenario.

Now to Technorati. I may be over-simplifying, but it just seems like a smart business move. After all, Technorati is a for-profit business, not a public service. Good for them that they've made the service so central to our blogging experience -- at least if we speak English or Japanese. But... Technorati has a business problem -- it needs to deliver  localized versions of its service FAST or risk losing first-mover advantage. However the deal materialized and whatever the terms, having a customer to fund the development makes everything a lot easier for Dave Sifry and team.

From what I've read, it also sounds to me like Edelman's interest is in the monitoring of global blog conversation. I may be naive, but I didn't get the sense that Edelman was involved IN the development, simply funding it and reaping the initial benefits. I wouldn't call that a Technorati sell-out. I call it a business deal.

Technorati may be the most well known RSS search engine but it is by no means the only one. If some of the nefarious deeds speculated upon elsewhere did happen, it wouldn't take long for the crime to be discovered.

I'm sure both companies weighed the potential blogstorm of their announcement, and determined that the benefits outweighed the negatives. The good news for us is that no matter how much Edelman and Technorati benefit (and no question, they will), in the end, we all benefit, because we will have these localized Technorati services next year. And that is indeed a very good thing.

Disclosures: None. I have absolutely no inside information. This is just my opinion.

Update: Andy Lark has a good post, updated with some additional info from Steve Rubel. 

Update 2: Stowe Boyd makes some good points.

Tags: , , , ,

Powered by Qumana

Posted @ 6:05PM in Blogging, Ethics, PR | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 1, 2006

It's not about blogs

"I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER." - Groucho Marx

Okay, here goes nothing. I think Daniel Bernstein from Bite PR is a good writer. It's swell that he included me with Jeremy Pepper and Steve Rubel in his post. Yeah he called us  "fanatical" -- but maybe it was a compliment, so I am taking it as such. Hey, I've been called worse things this week, by far lesser "people."

But... the idea that any group, no matter how it is constructed, should take over "management" of the PR blogosphere is wrong. So wrong.

Here's why.

It's not about blogs. Or link rank. Or any other rating system you can dig up. The reason blogs have traction is that they deliver on the promise of the World Wide Web. Everybody *can* be a publisher. That completely changes the equation -- the "printing press" is no longer scarce, limited to those with deep pockets. Companies really have to give a shit about their customer.

Is that killing PR? Some think so. I don't. Or at least, it is not killing PR as I know and practice it. PR is about telling the story. Yes to the media, but also to other publics. And no matter what, it has to be a good story. Bloggers like a good story as much as, if not more than, anyone.

The mushroom mentality (keep 'em in the dark and cover them with shit) doesn't work anymore. About time.

If you want to succeed in the new world, it really is all about the customer. And not lip service. Really about the customer. As a marketer, that is a state of affairs I have strived for most of my career. Blogs facilitate this, but truly, it doesn't matter if a company EVER does a blog. If it engages more fully with its customers, we've got a win.

Tell the truth. If it ain't pretty, fix it. If you can't fix it, do something else.

So, I don't want to regulate anything. It is the Wild Wild West, and that is as it should be. At least for a little while longer. Command and control. No way. Engage and educate. Ethics. You bet. PR and marketing practitioners that take that approach will be successful.

But let's not repeat our mistakes.

Try to stuff the genie back in the bottle.Um. No.

Try to impose old style agency models. Um. No.

Identify the leaders and tell everyone else they are in charge. Um. Really No.

Focus on helping our clients (and ourselves) figure this all out and do the level best we can in this new world. You bet. Will we get it right every time? Probably not. But that is okay.

Is blogging the "killer app?" Some say yes. I say not really. The "killer app" isn't the tool we use. It is the change in attitude that blogging represents. We no longer tell the customer the story. We let him be part of it, for good or ill. Whether he or she does that through a blog or a podcast or a wiki or even a regular old Web site, it doesn't matter. The killer app is the customer.

And blogs give her a voice whether the company ever blogs a word. Yup.

Now, some measure success by the Fortune 500 and what they adopt. More power to you. I do not, because that isn't where change starts. In fact, it takes a good long while. Big companies are slow to move and risk averse.

Change usually happens in small to mid-size companies. And guess what, there are way more of those than there are big guys.

And I do see change. Companies (large and small) are looking at social media as part of the marketing mix. Customers are valued, not just counted. And you know, even some of the Fortune 500 are paying attention. Bonus points.

But it's not just about blogs, folks, so expand your vision.

It's about people.

Tags: , ,

Posted @ 11:05PM in Blogging, Ethics, Marketing, PR | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

Apr 27, 2006

The power of language

I've been thinking quite a bit about words lately -- and please read until the end, there will be some choice ones. Promise.

A few things kicked off this rumination. First, Mack Collier and Nellie Lide  posted some thoughts about the word "consumer." And then my son asked me about the International Association of Nobodies-- he was initially concerned about being one :-) and I had to explain why being one was a good thing.

That got me started on words. What do they mean, really? Isn't the meaning delivered by your context and your own filters? For example, the word consumer. For me, it is nothing more than a word to distinguish people as individuals versus people in their business roles. Ie business media, consumer media. It is the aggregrate. I appreciate Mack and Nellie's comments about the word consumer, but I wonder -- isn't the real problem HOW we market, not the label we use, whether it be consumer or customer or whatever. Changing the label doesn't change the behavior, much as we wish it might. If you are a change agent, and I do consider myself one, you need to focus on the behaviors first. Don't worry so much about the words. Make the customer the focus, and he won't give a damn WHAT you call him :-)

Which brings me to nobodies. I was on vacation last week, so apparently missed the bulk of the contretemps (thank god, my testosterone meter clearly would have gotten a workout). But nonetheless, it is worth revisiting. For me, the whole point of the nobodies wasn't the insult to any one person; it was a collective reaction to "rankism." The idea that one has to be a SOMEBODY for one's opinion to matter.

I have always believed that everybody's opinion has value. When you stop learning from others, you stop living. The wonder of blogs is that they give so many the opportunity to speak. Even if only to one other. As I posted in a nobody's blog comment, everybody is a somebody to someone. All you need is one reader to make a difference.

Translation: you are f***** the minute you start believing your own press ;-) It is really about what you do. With your words, with your life, with whatever influence you have. Not about how many stripes you perceive you have on your sleeve. Not about what you write or your Technorati ranking. Not about whether you have the status conveyed by the print press.

Whoever you are, make your words matter.

Utopian. Probably. Oh well. C'est dingue mais on y va.

Which brings me to the promised choice words. I made the decision yesterday to leave a comment on Shel Holtz's blog relative to a nasty comment made by a blog troll about Shel. I made the comments knowing that said troll would probably use them to insult me again. Yes, l'il old me has been a target of this troll's bile more than once. And predictably, (she he it) disparages me once again in the comments on Shel's post.

Why am I bothering to mention it again? Not because I think it will make a bit of difference to this troll, hiding under her (?) bridge, sniping and spewing venom at the PR industry. She'll probably show up in my comments with the usual bile, since I will not link to her. Or not. Catch-22.

The reason I commented, and the reason I am posting this now, is that this troll is just about the worst example of  elitism that I have ever seen. Obnoxious. Condescending. Insulting. Devoid of any positive contribution -- in fact, I sense a real ax to grind. The troll's blog ain't about making PR better, it's about spewing bile and venom. And with bad spelling to boot.

The list goes on. I really don't care what (she he it) has to say. The words don't matter.

J'en ai marre. Nous en avons marre. Allez-vous en.

Doesn't it sound nicer en francais?

UPDATE 4:30pm EDT: I've been told that the online translation services have a bit of trouble with slang, so here's the rough meaning (not literal translation) of the phrases I used above.

C'est dingue mais on y va -  It's crazy but we'll do it anyway. Also the name of a French comedy released in 1979.

J'en ai marre. Nous en avons marre - I've had it. We've had it.

Allez-vous en - Go away permanently, get lost, drop dead are all reasonable approximations.

Tags: ,

Powered by Qumana

Posted @ 8:04PM in Blogging, Ethics, Marketing, PR | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Apr 5, 2006

By Anonymous. By a Character.

After the recent spate of character blogs in the PR space, I started thinking about character and anonymous blogs. Which are not that terribly different, in concept and in execution.

There are good reasons to use both forms. And both can be abused, to the overall detriment of blogging.

Let's start with the good reasons. Anonymity. If you are in real danger.. for your life. If your company discourages blogging of any sort, on or off the clock (boo hiss), but you have something to say. Not about your company but maybe your life or your hobbies or your politics. Doesn't matter. When attribution is dangerous, anonymity makes sense.

It also makes establishing credibility a bit harder. WHO are you and why should I trust you? More on that in a minute.

Character blogs are not that terribly different from anonymous blogs (and vice versa). Someone creates a character as the blog voice. Or they leverage an existing popular character as the voice. The writer isn't "real."  [To some degree, all of  us create a blogging persona, but the more closely aligned your true self is to your blog self, the better off you will be in the long run. ]

I digress.

A character blog is extremely hard to do well. The blogosphere is conditioned to expect a real voice, and when it is a created persona, it reacts. Sometimes belatedly, but in the end, characters with unclear attribution are not well accepted. Bloggers want to know who you are. Are you credible? Do you have real authority in your blog-space, or is your authority as imaginary as you are?

 Now, in my opinion, character blogs can work, although we haven't seen that many examples. Yet.

But they have to be honest. At a minimum, they have to be up front that this is a CHARACTER. And clear about the objectives. The best example is Manolo the Shoe Blogger. Manolo is all about the shoes. Yes, there are gossipy type posts, but everybody who reads this blog knows: it is about selling shoes. Full stop.

So anonymity and characters can work. They can also fail spectacularly.

Anonymity and characters fail when they are used as a screen for venom and bile. When the writer uses the form to deliver criticism without credibility. Absent being in danger for their life, when someone criticizes something, we want to know who they are, and what gives them the right.

That's why companies typically frown on anonymity, even in internal blogs. A student in one of my recent workshops shared that her company actively encouraged internal employee blogging but would not permit anonymous blogging. Employees had to have the courage of their convictions.

By far, the worst evil is the character blog that does not admit it is a character nor provide us with information about the people behind the character.

When a blog is anonymous, we evaluate the content and make an assessment about credibility. When someone starts a character blog, and tells you upfront that it is a character, we make a decision about information and entertainment value.

But a blog that pretends to be written by a real person. Clouded in pretense and falsity? A fake persona?  Crystally clearly false, and definitely far from  honest and transparent. 

So, blog anonymously or as a character if that is your best or only choice. But if you can, speak up as yourself, or at least as the author of your character. And don't use your blog to advance a vendetta, settle a score or just to stir things up. Try to contribute a positive voice to the conversation.

Truly, it is just as much fun.

Tags: ,

Powered by Qumana

Posted @ 9:04PM in Blogging, Ethics, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, PR | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Mar 29, 2006

Are bloggers public figures?

This week, the blogosphere has been a-buzz with two brouhahas that raise an interesting question about how we define a public figure. 

In the PR corner, we had  l'affaire smurfette, a gossip blog which targeted Steve Rubel and Edelman PR in its initial attacks. In the tech corner, we saw a series of increasingly personal attacks on well-known Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble following  the Windows Vista "announcement."

I'm not going to rehash the details of either of these issues. I've said what I had to say about the PR gossip blog. And I didn't read all the Scoble stuff -- there was just so much, and a lot of it just junk. Suffice it to say that criticism is one thing, personal attacks are another. Some of the comments I saw on Scoble's blog were completely beyond the pale -- they weren't criticism, they were out and out attacks. What is the point of commenting in someone's blog that you aren't going to read it anymore? If you don't like the neighborhood, don't go. Just stop reading. If you want some more background, check out these posts from Naked Conversations and Neville Hobson.

Anyway, moving on from the details of these dust-ups, there is an interesting issue underlying both situations. Gary Goldhammer first posed the question in relation to the smurfette blog and Steve, but it is equally applicable to Scoble: are very well known bloggers  public figures, and as such, subject to a level of public scrutiny that normally we would call an invasion of privacy? In other words, negative attacks.

The possibility of negative attacks is one of the most oft-cited reasons why companies don't embrace blogging (mentioned by John Wagner in the comments). Companies are afraid that having/putting their employees in a public venue opens them up to negative attacks. And they are right. It might. Might not. That doesn't mean they shouldn't embrace blogging. They should. For all the reasons we all know.

But we truly haven't given enough attention to the fact that if you blog publicly (not anonymously), you are a public figure. Full stop. Some may be more famous than others, but the minute you post, you are part of the public record. What you say can be used "fer you or aginst you" and you can't control it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the only off the record comment is the one you haven't uttered or written. Once it's out there, it can go ever so far. Think of all the folks -- a to z list -- that have gotten into unexpected hot water because they just weren't prepared for the impact of their blogged statements or actions. They didn't realize that once they blogged it, they were no longer private citizens with personal opinions. It was public, baby. Subject to all sorts of new rules that most folks just aren't prepared for.

What should we do? I've mentioned this in past. I think companies should give their employees who blog (whether personally or for the company) some basic communications training to help them deal with the fact that they are now quasi-public figures. When you blog under your own name, you own it. Forever. Most employees in a firm have never been in this position, and the first time they get roasted, it is going to hurt. Help them prepare. That doesn't mean stifling or controlling their words. It means helping them understand how their posts will impact others so they can make an informed decision about what they write.

This kind of training would be at least as (and probably more)  valuable than the usual corporate orientation.

Thoughts?

Tags: , , ,

Powered by Qumana

Posted @ 4:03PM in Blogging, Ethics, Marketing, PR | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Mar 28, 2006

Women PR bloggers don't like stereotypes

This is the least pleasant post I have ever written. But I am going to write it anyway. Because I am really pissed off, and this is my blog.

Male PR bloggers: do you understand that the reason so many of your female peers are less than impressed with the blog that rhymes with Smurfette is not the digs at Steve or BL. They are big kids, they can handle it. It is the negative stereotype of women that drives us to distraction.

We have worked very hard in our careers, and are proud of our achievements. We have dealt with the "she's too pretty," "not pretty enough," "aggressive," "too soft," "sleeping with the boss," "going to get married and have kids anyway," not to mention the glass/plexiglass ceiling and have been successful despite the roadblocks. With all due respect, there is absolutely no way a businessman can understand the issues faced by a businesswoman. In any industry.

And that is why many of us were less than pleased with the stereotyped persona of the PR gossip blog that has consumed so much attention this week. It was everything we have worked so hard to overcome. It was hard to believe that another woman wrote it. Oh, wait a minute..maybe it wasn't a woman. And I don't really care who wrote the damn blog, it's the stereotype that does the damage. That it might be a man perpetuating his wet dream just makes it even more disgusting.

Yet the coverage in the blogosphere has been focused on the digs, and has (for the most part) ignored the women bloggers. Just today more than a few  posts that were really really  trying to be even handed still only represented the opinions of men on this topic. Pardon me, but yuck.

So let's hear from the women PR bloggers. What did they think of this PR gossip blog? Oh.. wait a minute. None of us fell for this crap. We thought it was ... crap.  Hmmm.

And to give credit where credit is due, more than a few guys stepped up to the plate.They got it. Robert French. Todd Defren. Daniel Bernstein. Gary Goldhammer. Mike Krempasky. Thanks.

The rest of you? We still like you, but get with the program.

And Amanda. She (or he) just keeps insulting other women. In her/his/its blog and in comments on others. So pardon me, but fuck off until you have the guts to attach your real name to your opinions. Google Amanda Chapel.

PS - this replaces the post I promised to write about neutering my dog if the smurfette blogger proved to be male. Uncross your legs, guys, we're not looking for you....

Tags: , , , , ,

Powered by Qumana

Posted @ 8:03PM in Blogging, Ethics, PR | Comments (10) | TrackBack (1)

Mar 27, 2006

Disclosing your interests

It's inevitable. Sooner or later, you will blog about something in which you have a financial interest. Stands to reason. Your blog is about things that interest you, which is bound to include your work and companies you advise, either as a consultant or a board member.

But... you have to disclose your interests. Your readers need to know up front where you are coming from.

The good news is that most business bloggers get this, and handle it loud and clear in the text of  posts about something which they or their firm has an interest.

I think we have to take it a step further. Our relationships also affect how we think about  issues that may not be so clearly related to a specific company or client as to merit a mention in a post.

That's why I am now listing my current and past clients on my About page. There's also a link to my CV if readers are curious about past employers. Next step is to break out of the TypePad constraints to present all this info more clearly. When I have time. :-)

Many business bloggers already have this information somewhere on their blog. But not all.

It's time.

If you need something more robust, take a look at Stowe Boyd's Shorthand for Disclosure. It's probably more than most of us need, but if you have a number of varied and complex relationships, something like it might work for you.

Tags: , , , .

Powered by Qumana

Posted @ 9:03PM in Blogging, Ethics | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sep 9, 2005

Blogher takeaway: Blogs need a Code of Ethics

One of the sessions I attended at Blogher was a birds of a feather discussion of citizen journalism. As I sat there, listening to all the various points of view on whether bloggers are journalists (and full disclosure, I believe the answer is sometimes but not always, some but not all), I had one of those “aha” moments.

One of the things that distinguishes professional journalists from bloggers – “citizen reporters” – is the journalism code of ethics. For an example, check out the LA Times code of ethics (pdf).  Bloggers typically don’t have a published code of ethics on their blogs.

When I started this post, I expected to find that professional journalists and other communications professionals would have something like a code of ethics on their blogs. But for the most part, you won’t find an explicit code of ethics on a typical weblog, no matter who writes it….

Yet, it occurs to me that such a code of ethics on a blog would go a very long way to establishing the sort of credibility that bloggers need and crave.

Now, thinking back to the spring, I recall some discussion that we try to establish a blogging code of ethics. A single code of ethics to which all subscribe. Nice idea, but it isn’t going to fly. We don’t live in a utopia or a single worldwide dictatorship. We won’t ever be able to reach that level of agreement among ALL bloggers. And such centrality is in direct opposition to the spirit of the Internet and blogging --  a decentralized place that smashes barriers to participation.

But an individual code of ethics on a blog… A description of the blogger’s values and the “rules” by which she writes her blog… That would be a VERY good thing for all blogs.

Yet, I really haven’t seen too many codes of ethics published on blogs – even on the blogs of people who are deep into the discussion of citizen journalism.

Here are a few “code of ethics”–like things I’ve found (and this list is by no means exhaustive – please send me any other examples you find!):

In his about page, Steve Rubel of Micropersuasion offers the following disclosure:

Disclosure:
I work for CooperKatz & Company. Everything here, though, is my own personal opinion and is not read or approved before it is posted. Occasionally, since this is a personal blog, my company and its clients will be referenced. However, these postings are in no way any part of any PR program nor an attempt to influence reader opinions. Currently, I am working with the following organizations: The Association of National Advertisers, simplehuman, Vespa, the Kauffman Foundation, NYU and Topix.net.

Jeremy Pepper offers a Comments Policy on his main blog page:

This is not a public forum, this is My Blog.

This is very much my personal place. Please act as if you were a guest in my home, and I will treat you as one.

Opposing views are welcomed.
I will, however, delete your comment if you descend into personal attacks, excessive profanity, mouth-foaming hatred, or other such immature behavior that I deem unacceptable in my home.

Please craft your contribution accordingly.

Jay Rosen, PressThink has a pretty