« Main

Oct 12, 2007

Feeding the trolls

This week, events in two blog circles in which I travel drew the trolls out from under their bridges: the League of Maternal Justice's BreastFest and the "retirement" of a PR blog character whose public face was attractive but who was best known for its ill-spirited, trollish attacks on other bloggers.

When a topic is controversial, even if only mildly so, the trolls are inevitable.  What do you do when they show up in your place or in your face?

The safest and sanest approach is to ignore them.

That's why I don't feed the trolls. Sure, I've had them here from time to time, but  lack of sustenance leads them to go elsewhere for their jollies. I don't respond here, and if they attack in the comments on other blogs or Web sites, I ignore them there.  It's hard, especially when they get personal, as they always do. But the child's nursery rhyme is true: sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

Dealing with the trolls was particularly hard for some of the women actively engaged in the breastfeeding debate. The act and the decision itself are so highly personal, and  it didn't take long for the trolls to get offensive.  But remember: the troll is the one with the problem. Not you.

If a troll or two turns up here as a result of this post, I'll ignore them. But unless a comment  is obscene or libelous, I won't delete it. I stand by my words. Let them stand by theirs.

Some folks take a different approach. They bait the troll, on the theory that a troll's arguments are so ridiculous, the troll will end up proving the initial point it is attacking. This can be successful, but you have to have a really strong stomach. Because a troll is not rational. No matter how logical your argument, it will never penetrate the troll's generally thick skull. You will never convince him. Or her.

But maybe, just maybe, proponents of this approach argue,  if you can stay the course, the weird non-logic, personal attacks and ramblings of the troll, as compared to your logical, reasoned arguments, will convert a few folks on the fence. And of course, initially there is an adrenaline rush from building your argument to beat the troll.

The rush doesn't last, the troll will get ugly, and the chances of changing anyone's mind this way are pretty slim. So, think hard before troll-baiting. Because it is going to hurt.

As for the late, not lamented blog character, Robert French's "eulogy" for the not-so-dearly departed says it best. 

Tags: , , ,

Posted @ 9:10AM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Gender | 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)

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)

Aug 4, 2006

Anonymous blogs

This sums it up just about perfectly (courtesy Doc Searls).[warning strong language]

Have a great weekend.

Posted @ 6:08PM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Apr 12, 2006

Cleaning out my Bloglines Closet

I read a lot of feeds, on a variety of subjects, and take advantage of bloglines "keep new" to save things to look at/blog later. When I'm busy, the "blog closet" gets pretty full, and quite often, many of the things I've saved for later are over and done with.

But some things are timeless.

Others worthwhile.

And of course, some things, you just know I am going to comment on.

Like character blogs.  At Beyond Madison Avenue today, Mack Collier writes that character blogs would be a good solution to carry on cancelled TV shows. You betcha. Just take a look at the sheer volume of fan fiction on the Internet.  I would still pay for a Whedon-produced character blog featuring the characters from the Buffy/Angel-verses.

Great advice from the Copyblogger. Writing about this week's NY Times article "This Boring Headline Is Written For Google," which discussed the ramifactions of search engine optimization on the news business, he reminds us: "Write for people, people." Amen. We don't need fancy footwork (or cute headlines) as much as we need clear, concise writing. A little time spent there can save a boatload of hassle, not to mention cost.

Bonus links

Two from Neville Hobson: a European business blogging survey and some info on search behavior

Tags: , , , ,

Powered by Qumana

Posted @ 8:04AM in Blogging, Charity, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Humour, Media, Politics/Policy | Comments (0) | 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 10, 2006

The Week in Review: March 6-10

A new (and very interesting) client has just come on board,  I had deadlines for some other projects, and I had to take a quick trip mid-week. Time has been tight, so blogging has been light.

So this post is going to be the week in review --  comments on the things I probably would have blogged in more depth had I more time.

Of course, the top PR blogging news of the week was the Edelman-Wal-Mart blogger relations story, starting with the New York Times article on March 7th, and continuing on with commentary from just about every PR/Marketing blogger on the planet. Except me of course. I was at a client :-) Check out the great round-ups of the commentary written by  Constantin Basturea and Tom Murphy. And don't miss Richard Edelman's post. For more coverage, here are the google and technorati searches on "Edelman Wal-Mart"

My .02 -- this really does look like a simple effort at blogger relations, perhaps not the best execution, but not intentionally sinister.  In fact, I think Wal-Mart would be foolish to not engage in grassroots blogger relations, given how well organized its critics in the blogosphere are.

Here's my take-away from this tempest in a teapot:

First, we have to be fair in our criticisms. Part (but not all) of the outrage about the Wal-Mart outreach was outrage about Wal-Mart in general. You have to put both your friends and your enemies to the same test. If something would be okay if your buddy did it, but it is bad if the evil empire does it,  you are not being fair. This is not dis-similar from what happened in the initial outrage more than a year ago about character blogs. GourmetStation and others were being lambasted for having characters as the blog authors. I pointed out a certain inconsistency using the example of Spencer F. Katt, the PC Week/eWeek mascot for 20-plus years who has both a column and yes, a blog. Somehow, a character everybody knew and liked was okay. It was only the new ones that were bad blogging practice :-)  Wrong. Be consistent in BOTH your flames and your kudos.

Second, as PR practitioners start reaching out to blogs... as they should, and as most of us have preached, dare I say ad nauseaum, we have to expect mistakes. Given the ongoing commentary on PR blogs about the general quality of much PR practice, we shouldn't be surprised if some PR agency efforts at blogger relations are better than others. I have no particular opinion about Edelman's blogger outreach program. Time will tell whether it was good, bad or something in between. I am certain however, that no blogger outreach program will be (or should be) successful without complete transparency. You MUST be completely honest about your role and your vested interests. And not surprised if your entire campaign is published on a blog somewhere.

Again, a comparison. When I started to get a great deal of media exposure as spokesperson for Cyber Patrol in the late 90s, I was very careful to make sure that my public statements passed the ultimate test: would I be embarassed if this were on the front page of the NY Times? Different times, same general principal. Ain't no such thing as "off the record."

Moving on, conferences. Without a doubt, the model of conferences where the panel is presumed to be the "experts" and the audience the "students" is outmoded. In tech and in marketing, the two arenas where I have spent most of my professional career, the audience often knows as much, or more, than the panelists. I've written about this here a bit, and it was one of the inspirations for the Room of Your Own proposal for Business Blogging currently under consideration for BlogHer 06. Our idea is that the panelists are there to kick off the discussion, but in fact the entire audience is the panel, and an active part in building our takeaway "best practices" for business bloggers.

This week,  some smart bloggers asked some great questions about the "conference issue:"

And if you haven't figured it out yet, Elisa Camahort brings it home: BlogHer is the conference that takes a truly different approach. See you there in July.

In the category of smart business advice:

  • PR Squared has a series of three posts of "bad advice" about customer references which of course are excellent advice for PR and MarCom pros. Here they are:  one, two, three
  • Converstations gives some great advice on how to best write your posts in A Blog Posting Mantra.
  • And Jill Konrath has some great advice on thinking like your customer.

In the news:

And finally, if you stuck this post out this long, you deserve some fun. Don't miss this clip on trendspotting from the Daily Show. Thanks to Small Business Trends for the link.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Powered by Qumana

Posted @ 8:03AM in Blogging, BlogHer, BlogHer06, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Humour, Marketing, PR | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Dec 1, 2005

Random acts of blogging

I have a series of posts in mind to wrap up the year, which I will probably start over the weekend.

For today, I have a whole bunch of interesting stuff to comment on that has accumulated over the past month or so, while I was feverishly working so I could take two weeks off, followed by the mostly off-line vacation. 

In no particular order.

Blog comment spam: I increasingly find myself the victim of blog comment spam. I usually just delete it and move on.  Here are two takes on the issue: from Blog Business World, some ideas for how to manage it and from Jeremy Pepper, some words about blogs that do not allow comments for fear of spam.

One thing I am thinking about: I have noticed that the comment spam always seems to be on the same old posts, leading me to suspect a script of some sort. I AM considering turning off comments on these older posts, with a note explaining why comments have been turned off for any legit folks who want to comment on the topics.

Web 2.0. Okay, I am trying, really, to understand why we need to define a Web 2.0. Sexist though it may be, I'm wondering, is this kind of a "guy thing" -- the need to define and box up things? How does any of this help customers and who really cares? Why do we have to put it in a box? Because as Elisa Camahort says in her post, a version number implies something finished and definable,and that ain't the web that I know.

Seriously, please, can someone explain to me what Web 2.0 is all about, other than a way for companies to promote their offerings ("Web 2.0 compatible, whatever that is), and for consultants and analysts to make money explaining it to everyone. Simple words please. I'm just wondering, "where's the beef?"

Here are a number of other posts about Web 2.0. I've read 'em all, and I am still confused....

I would be remiss if I didn't comment on the call to action by Steve Rubel for PR agencies to figure out this new media thing. Huh?!  If you don't know what I'm talking about, actually you are very lucky -- it is a tempest in a very small teapot, a major ego-fest and I am 100% with David Parmet: YAWN!! He has the link in his post to the memeorandum thread if you have the inclination.

Those who are doing things will just keep on doing. If you want to posture, position and pontificate, go for it, help yourself to happiness. I'd rather just get on with it. Some other interesting commentary on same: 

Character blogs. As many of my readers know, I have strong opinions about character blogs --I believe they are a valid blog form, albeit hard to do well. About a year ago, this debate took off flying. A year later, here are a couple of anniversary commentaries:

That's it for random acts of blogging. This weekend I will start my end of year series.....

Posted @ 5:12PM in Blogging, Customers, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, Web/Tech | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Jul 6, 2005

More on character blogs

Lots of interesting stuff from my blogroll today. I'll start with a comment on the July 4th Hobson & Holtz report.

Early in the show, Shel and Neville discussed a query from a listener, Sebastian Keil. Sebastian has a client, a rental car company, that is considering having a character blogging feature on its corporate blog, where the CEO will also blog. The idea was to have an occasional post from a rental car about where it recently went. Neville and Shel discussed the whole character blog thing at some length, and both agreed that it was not a good idea. You should listen to the show for the whole conversation.

It seemed to me that in the discussion about the character blog aspect (a question of form) they were missing the most important element: WHY the company thought this might be a good idea (the issue of content). Because in the WHY was the clue to perhaps a better idea for the company. I sent the following comment as soon as I got home:

As you both know, I am not at all opposed to character blogs in principle. In this case, however, I agree with you both – a character blog in the voice of a rental car is not the way to go.

My advice: I’d focus on two things Sebastian said about the project, first the WHY: they want a way to show all the ways you can use a rental car, and part of the HOW: they plan to put disposable cameras in the cars for the renters to take the pics that would tell the story.

So – I’d go with a customer blog: put the cameras in the cars, and provide an incentive for the renters to tell their stories. Then you post the best ones in the blog. The incentive could be you’d give everyone who used the camera and provided a brief diary of their trip with a custom digital photo album created from the pix and for the ones you actually use, you could give them a free day or whatever discount makes sense. End of day: you get your stories and you increase customer loyalty in the process.

With this format you could do it as a separate blog or on the blog with the CEO, whichever you preferred.

There is nothing wrong with a character blog. It is just a form. But as marketers, we really should look first to the real voices available to us. Odds are, they will be just as, if not more, compelling. Executives. Employees. Customers. Evangelists.

If after evaluating the real voices, you still believe that a character blog is the best choice, by all means, try it. It could be just the ticket. Just remember: it is hard work to make characters real, believable, compelling and consistent. After all, if it were easy, we could all be best selling novelists or award winning screenwriters. And even the best fictional franchises have been known to "jump the shark." :-)

A character blog isn't a bad idea just because it is a character blog. But it is a bad idea if there's a better way.

Posted @ 6:07PM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, Web Marketing | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)

Jun 29, 2005

Roadmaps Round-up

Adrants on the promotion campaign for the John Twelve Hawks' book The Traveler.  Program includes a character blog, and as I said in my comments on Adrants, I've long believed that fans of books/tv/film will embrace well written character blogs. This is slightly different, as it is promo for a new book, not a build-on to an existing franchise, but it will be very interesting to watch this play out. From my quick glance, the program looks very well done, and there is certainly no subterfuge.

Amy Gahran over at Contentious has a great idea for a unique gift: the gift of conversation.

From Creating Passionate Users, Featuritis vs. the Happy User Peak  Main takeaway: give the right features and make them usable as well as useful. Don't provide a feature just because you can. Make sure it is something that your user actually wants.

Finally, from Jim Logan, some thoughts about CRM -- CRM is an attitude and a set of processes, not a piece of software   Main takeaway: Focus on doing active customer relationship management, using whatever software tools you want, versus on a piece of software as savior.

Posted @ 12:06AM in Blogging, Business Management, Customers, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Integrated Sales & Marketing, Marketing, Mathom Room | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 26, 2005

Panera Blog

So, Panera was not behind the fake Panera blog of yesterday. Apparently it was an ad agency trying to win their business. Unlikely, I'd say :-)

This is why I try to avoid jumping to conclusions (see yesterday's comment). After all, as the cliche goes, we know what often happens when we assume......

Thanks to Topaz Partners for the link

Posted @ 8:05AM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 25, 2005

Roadmaps Round-up May 25th

From MicroPersuasion, a link to tips for being a more productive blogger

From AdRants, news of a possible fake blog from Panera. For my part I truly don't have much more energy to devote to this topic, at least for now. So, I stand by what I've said before: to be a fake corporate blog, it has to be sponsored by Panera, without the sponsorship being clearly indicated on the blog and without clear indication that the writer is a character, not a real person. If it isn't sponsored by Panera, but written by someone else for some other purpose (as suggested on the blog's comments) it still may be stupid and lame, but it isn't fair to diss Panera for it.  The market will decide about character or fictional blogs -- if they creatively meet the needs of their audience, like Manolo the Shoe Blogger or the Audi one for example, they thrive. And if they don't, they'll die.

Posted @ 10:05AM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, Mathom Room | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

May 14, 2005

Marketing Roadmaps Round Up

From Joho: comment on a fictional blog from Audi. Since Cluetrain is the “bible” for many of the most vocal opponents of character blogs, and any blog form that isn’t by “real people,” I'm pleased that one of the authors seems to have an open mind on the subject. I do disagree with his terminology (faux blog); faux means false, and false or fake for me requires intent to deceive. I would call this blog a fictional blog, as it tells a fictional story using the blog form. And as Dave points out, good or bad is determined by the target audience; it is all relative.

Quick Link: Dave Taylor at the Intuitive Life Business Blog tells us about Your Daily Art, a unique small business blog.

Posted @ 4:05PM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Weblogs | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Apr 27, 2005

What's a blog?

Shel Holtz posted a plea to the blogosphere to Stop defining blogs:

"I’m getting tired of people insisting that blogs are one thing but definitely cannot be another."

Me too Shel. 

There's room for more than one approach. I think that to insist that there is only one right way is well, clueless.

I also take offense at the idea expressed by some bloggers that those of us who allow for more than one right way to blog, to engage, to go to market, should get off the Train. That we are wrong.

That attitude strikes me as simply replacing one bad model, the much maligned old-style corporate marketing fortress, with another equally intransigent one:

"You can see the politics of 'being right' throughout most organizations. People win arguments- and thus secure their position in the hierarchy- through the cutting remark, through megatonnage of evidence, through agreeing with industry consultants, and through the smug refusal to ever admit being wrong."

- from The Cluetrain Manifesto

Hmmm. 

Posted @ 10:04AM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Weblogs | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Apr 26, 2005

Flogging a dead horse & BusinessWeek

So, did you hear? BusinessWeek just did a cover story on blogging :-)

By and large, it was a good article, and definitely a nice overview for someone who had heard a bit about this "blogging thing."

At the risk of being accused of "flogging" a dead horse, I really only took exception to one thing -- the somewhat misleading definition of fake blogs:

"FAKE BLOGS, SOMETIMES CALLED FLOGS
Fake blogs created by corporate marketing departments to promote a service, product, or brand. The flog's writer often uses a fake name. Derided by bloggers, fake blogs are an increasing trend. McDonald's created a flog to accompany its Super Bowl ad about the mock discovery of a french fry shaped like Lincoln, while Captain Morgan created a fake blog in March for its Rum drinks."

This definition perpetuates the problem that Neville Hobson identified last week -- inconsistent definitions of what we are talking about when we say fake blog, character blog, fictional blog.

It also perpetuates a negative stereotype of corporate marketing departments, almost making it sound as though all blogs created by marketing would be fake blogs. Not at all true. We have already seen some good examples of corporate blogs - among them GM FastLane and Stonyfield Farms, both covered in the BusinessWeek article. Not to mention: an individual could just as easily create a fake blog, as a Roadmaps reader pointed out last week.

So how should we define these different types of blogs -- fake, character, fictional etc. Neville's definitions are a good start. Here they are (from the same post linked above):

"A character blog means a blog which appears to be written by a fictional person. An example might be a blog that's authored by a toy - Barbie, let's say. Or by a brand - Captain Morgan's Rum may be a good example.

A fake blog is one that appears to be like a character blog yet the conversation is fake in that comments (for example) are not what they appear to be nor written by genuine people. An example might be the McDonald's Lincoln Fries blog."

And here are my additions:

The main characteristics of a fake blog are:

  • the author creates a persona, although not necessarily under a fake name;
  • there is an attempt to deceive. Either or both of the following apply: the persona and/or the sponsorship by a company is not disclosed;
  • fictitious comments;
  • Examples: aforementioned LincolnFry; a blog surreptitiously sponsored or funded by a company -- paid opinions without disclosure.

The main characteristics of a character blog:

  • a fictional character "writes" the blog and interacts with visitors;
  • the fictional persona is disclosed, as is any company sponsorship;
  • comments are left by the audience, interacting with the character(s);
  • Examples: Barbie, Captain Morgan, Moosetopia

And here is my third category: the fictional blog. These really don't exist much yet, but I believe they will. A fictional blog will use the form of the blog, but have more of the characteristics of a roleplay game or novel:

  • fictional characters write the blog and interact with each other in the main blog. This creates a story for the readers;
  • there may be a message board for the audience to interact with each other, but they probably won't be interacting with the characters;
  • the fictional nature is clear as is any company sponsorship of the experience.

For me, to apply the label "fake" requires an intent to deceive. Whether the person is "real" or not doesn't matter, if the details are disclosed.

Enough flogging.

Posted @ 2:04PM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Apr 19, 2005

Character blogs, collaborative blogs

A good friend of mine refers to the type of conversation we are having about character blogs as "inside baseball." It's the kind of conversation where those inside it are very engaged and those outside of it can't follow it, don't want to follow it, and if they do manage to figure it out, think it is pretty silly. That said, I just can't seem to let it go, so "batter up."

Rok Hrastnik posted an essay about character blogs, and used as an example the Buffyverse. In his example, he cites different types of blogs that the creators of the two television shows that comprise the Buffyverse [Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel] could create to entertain the fans of these two dearly-departed shows.

The reason I think character blogs have potential is that pretty much all the examples he cites have already sprung up, albeit in unauthorized fashion, in the online fandom already.

Fan fiction. WHEDONesque, a fan blog where Whedon posts from time to time. Spoiler sites. Bulletin boards. Role plays in which people take on the characters and create a collaborative story (often using livejournal). There is an obvious hunger to interact with these shows and these characters as well as the real people behind them. And the interactions among the fans are pretty real -- friendships and flamewars alike.

Rok's example resonated with me because I am a fan of the Buffyverse. If Joss Whedon, the creator of the two shows, decided to build a character blog as the next installment in the story, and brought his talents, his great writers and perhaps even some of the actors to occasionally give voice or visual to the new story, I would subscribe. I'd even pay :-) I would not be alone, not by a longshot. Are you listening, Joss?

This would be a character blog for which I AM the audience, and only then would I judge its content. As I have said before, we have to separate the form, the character blog, from the content.

BTW trust me, I know "Spike" is just a character. I still really love the lifesize cardboard figure of him that my mom gave me for Christmas. To my husband's chagrin, it is still in the living room.

Neville Hobson also posted on character blogs today: Just because you could doesn't mean you should. He's got a nice definition of the difference between character and fake blogs, and also provides a bit of a recap of yesterday's Hobson and Holtz Report discussion on the topic.

Okay, enough about character blogs. Intellectually, I think they deserve a shot, and that's why I have been so vocal on the topic.

Personally, however, I think the blog form that holds the most promise for companies is the collaborative weblog. As I mentioned a while ago, I am working on one for a client. We are just about to start promoting it, so I should be able to post more details by the end of the week. To whet your appetite, here's a preview.

We went with a blog for two key reasons: it fit with the overall marketing strategy and it gives voice to our customers.

The company is in the education market, which is particularly fertile ground for collaborative and online communications. The company has happy, loyal, articulate customers and we wanted to find a way to include them in our marketing efforts. We believe that their experiences, both with our products and in general, would be far more useful to our prospects than any brochure we could develop. In the past, we might have posted a bunch of case studies on our website. The collaborative weblog offers a much richer communications environment.

Initially, our bloggers will be drawn from our customer base; hopefully, over time, other educators will join us, first on the blog and then as customers.

Our goal is to create a rich community resource about topics that are at the intersection of the company's and the customers' interests. We will post company information from time to time, but the intent is for the bulk of the content to be community created. The combination of the blog content and our sponsorship of it should drive interest in our products without "lame marketing posts." In other words, we do good by doing good.

More later this week.

Posted @ 11:04AM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, PR, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

Apr 18, 2005

Character blogs

I thought I was done with character blogs for a while. Oh well.

Yesterday Steve Rubel posted on the subject: he's against, and I'd say the commenters to his post are mixed. I was going to comment on his blog, but then it got too long so here we are back on mine.

IMO there is a place for good character, or fictional, blogs, just like we make place in our lives to read fiction and non-fiction. I have no strong opinion about any of the ones currently being discussed everywhere because I am not the intended audience so whether I like them or not is irrelevant.

As others have pointed out and I have blogged here, if people are reading and enjoying a character blog, it serves its purpose. Personally, I can't dismiss the form of a character blog just because we haven't seen the great one that makes it all clear. As did one of the commenters to Rubel's post, I also see enough parallels with fan fic and roleplay games, which are extremely popular, to believe that fictional blogs are highly viable alternatives.

The other thing I wonder about is how the folks who are so vehemently opposed to character blogs feel about anonymous blogs.... I wrote about this yesterday. It is entirely possible for an anonymous blogger to adopt a persona that is quite different from his/her real-life personality. It is still true: on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

When that anonymous blogger adopts a different persona, how is that different than a character blog? I can really think of only one significant way -- the character blog may be fictional but it is honest. The person e-mailing Spencer Katt or commenting on Spencer's blog knows Spencer is a character. On the other hand, the anonymous blog with a persona doesn't admit it. To me, that is far more fake.

Now, not all anonymous blogs adopt a persona that is different from the writer's real-life personality, so it is unfair to dismiss the form of an anonymous blog just because some anonymous blogs have turned out to be fakes. The character blog is the same -- we should not confuse the form with the content.

I really like what Shel Holtz said in a post about The blog versus journalism debate. I urge you to read his whole post but for the purposes of today's argument ... err discussion... below is the part about character blogs:

"The rest of the piece is worth reading, but as the argument against character blogs continues with Steve Rubel’s dismissal of the tactic, I keep coming back to Craig’s notion of confusing the medium with the message. There’s a blogosphere with genuine voices of real people talking about things that matter, and that’s a great and powerful thing. There are also lightweight CMS tools called blogs that can be used for all kinds of other purposes. If Barbie starts blogging to little girls, it doesn’t diminish the power or value of the blogosphere, and little girls might just eat it up.

Whether we’re talking about news blogs vs. personal journals or “real” blogs vs. character blogs, let’s not forget that blogs are just a medium that can and will be put to multple uses (or what I have defined as “multiple evolutionary paths"). It’s the quality of the message that matters."

I agree 100%. Thank you for putting it so well.

Posted @ 1:04PM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Weblogs | Comments (2) | TrackBack (2)

Apr 17, 2005

Persona Redux

Okay. I have a few more things I want to say about fictional blogs and personas, and then I am going to get back to some real work. Or maybe go out and sit in the sun, since Spring has finally sprung.

Personally, I have absolutely no interest in doing a fictional blog. I think it would be very hard to maintain the quality and consistency of voice that would be required. I'm just not that good a writer. BUT I can imagine that an excellent writer, one who could get really into character, could pull it off, and create a fun experience for his or her readers.

There are tons of examples of role play games on the Internet (the grandchildren of Dungeons and Dragons) where people do something very similar. Each writer takes on a role and they collectively write the story. Not hard to imagine that the same people who enjoy this activity might get into having a conversation with a fictional character, even a "for-profit" one.

The writers of anonymous blogs can also create new personas for themselves. There is nothing wrong with anonymous blogging, but when the persona is created, versus your "real" self (and online, what is that anyway, but I digress...) it is pretty much the same thing as the blog by a fictional character like Spencer Katt. The difference of couse is that often you won't know that the anonymous blogger IS a persona. In fact, Jozef Imrich who commented on my previous post on this topic included a link to an article about just such a situation in the legal profession.

For me, the key is transparency: if you are open and honest about the nature of your activity, you should be free to try out all sorts of new ideas. Some will work. Some will fail. Some people will hate 'em. Others love 'em.

Something isn't "lame" just because you don't like it. Something is "lame" if the people for whom it was intended, the desired audience for the thing, think it is lame. My 5-year old son loves a lot of TV programs that I personally think are pretty silly but he loves them (and the products advertised thereon). Home run for Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go, among others.

There is room for more than one opinion, more than one approach, and in the end, it will be the customers who decide what works and what doesn't. No amount of posting and cross posting is going to change that.

Posted @ 8:04AM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, Weblogs | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Apr 15, 2005

Personas and fictional blogs

Earlier today in an e-mail exchange with a fellow marketing blogger, we agreed that much of the sturm and drang around fictional blogs (see yesterday's post for my definition thereof) reminded us both very much of the brouhaha that occured when the World Wide Web went "commercial" in the 90s. Purists were aghast at the pristine Internet being used for commercial purposes. Well, we know what happened with that :-)

One of the main beefs that purists have about fictional blogs is that the author of the blog is not a real person, which they argue perverts the authenticity of the blog experience. I don't agree. As I commented on Paul Chaney's blog yesterday and he blogged today: what matters is the intended audience. As long as they know they are reading a fiction and interacting with a character, if the blog is well done, creative, entertaining, and the intended audience enjoys it, who are we to criticize. If you aren't the audience, it just doesn't matter what you think about it.

So I started thinking about other fictional personas that I have interacted with in my 20-odd years in the business (word choice intentional). And I came up with a fairly well known tech persona that is a fictional character with whom people have interacted with in the pages of PC Week (now e-Week) for many many years: rumour columnist Spencer F. Katt

Spencer has his own e-mail address, and a fairly rich back story that has been created over a number of years. Everybody knows that the column is written by someone or someones at the magazine, but that hasn't prevented people from engaging with the character.

So I ask the question: if the folks at e-Week decided to change the delivery format of Spencer's column to a blog, would that be any different than any of the current examples of fictional characters with blogs that are being pilloried: the Moose, T. Alexander and Captain Morgan.

Nope.

And in my book, it would be just fine as long as the intended audience enjoys it, and the company is honest about the fictional nature of the blog.

UPDATE: Tris Hussey dug a bit deeper and discovered that Spencer is indeed blogging (and flogging his column in every post I might add). So, given that we haven't had any backlash against the Katt, whose blog appears to have started in March, either the people reading it don't realize he isn't really a 20+ year old cat or it's okay for a blog to be written by a fictional character as long as you like him.

Since I think most people realize Spencer is fictional, I'll go with option 2. Which proves the point. If the intended audience enjoys it, a blog by a fictional character is just fine. If the audience hates it, it will die the death it deserves. Therefore, incumbent on marketers to create good, fun enjoyable blogs, whether written by real or fictional folk. 

Posted @ 10:04AM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Weblogs | Comments (17) | TrackBack (1)

Apr 14, 2005

Fake blog. Fictional blog. Potato. Poe-Tah-toe

Nice commentary by Shel Holtz on the whole fake blogs issue (courtesy Topaz Partners)

Here’s what I said on the subject about 2 months ago when the fake blog conversation started (remember LincolnFry).

Net it down: there are fake, or false, blogs, that purport to be something they are not. A fake blog is trying to deceive you. It doesn’t acknowledge its sponsorship by a company or let you know that the author isn’t a real person.

A fictional, or character, blog is simply using the form of the blog, but is upfront that the characters are fictional.

Shel nails it here:

“Ultimately, though, a blog is a lightweight content management system that allows people to comment. If someone wants to use that for traditional marketing, what’s wrong with that? It can fall into the category of “lame marketing blogs.” They may be lame. They may also work.”

And that is, of course, the key. One person’s trash is another person’s treasure. Just because I may think something is lame doesn’t mean that the intended reader of the “thing” doesn’t get into it, get something out of it, enjoy it, whatever.

Potato. Poe-Tah-Toe.

Posted @ 2:04PM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

Feb 24, 2005

Fake blogs again

Steve Rubel reports on MSN's fake blog campaign: MSN slips with fake blogs. Must be the one Scoble was so upset about last week. Apart from being pretty lame and missing most of what makes a viral campaign really work, just more proof that John Dvorak is right, and again, from Scoble: Dvorak says Microsoft's marketing sucks.

Posted @ 5:02PM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, PR, Weblogs | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Feb 9, 2005

When is a blog a "fake blog?"

Lots of conversation today about fake blogs, which got me thinking, just what is a "fake blog?"

The McDonalds fake french fry (FFF, also stands for fake fast food) blog is a creation from McDonald's ad people, but it was supposed to be poking fun at the "whole food that looks like dead people phenomenon." So is it really "fake?" Or should we criticize it not for being fake, but simply for being lame.

Pepsi Girl blog wasn't covertly sponsored by Pepsi, so not "fake" in that sense. According to the latest info from AdRants, Pepsi apparently had nothing to do with it, but it was developed as a joke. So it wasn't authentic, or "real" as we have come to expect of blogs. But does that make it fake?

Here's a round-up of the fake blog opinions I read today:

Jim Logan ; Matthew Oliphant/BusinessLogs (you'll find the links to the mentioned blogs in this post); BL Ochman's original post on the Pepsi Girl blog ; InsideBlogging ; Dan Gillmor ; courtesy Dan, I found Kevin Dugan's Strategic Public Relations blog and his review of the FFF blog as well as a later post Fake Blogs Should Sponsor Real Blogs ;  Andy Lark

So what's a fake blog?

On one hand,  I agree with Andy Lark -- these were jokes, and perhaps we should lighten up a bit, like 'em/love 'em/hate 'em, have a laugh and get back to something more interesting than a styrofoam french fry that is supposed to look like Abe Lincoln.

On the other hand.... we need to figure out how to tell a blog that has the reporting or opinions of a true live person (whether we think they are a wing nut or not) from a blog that is an invented piece of fiction (funny or sad, effective or lame, it doesn't matter). Why? Because we rely on blogs to be the voices of real people, people like us with whom we will agree some of the time, and disagree others. People we can respect and trust.

So I'll make a suggestion... if you want to write a fictional blog, go ahead. Just tell the readers somewhere ... like in the "about this blog" link ... That's what we do with books, right. We tell the reader whether they are reading Fiction or Non-fiction :-)

Now, the big brand marketers are definitely going to continue to try and manipulate blogs. By creating fake/covert ones, or by trying to pull the wool over our eyes about the "buzz" something has (example: the recent Ogilvy-Mather stunt for client American Express. For details, BL Ochman summarizes it here.) And it will probably get more subtle, even as we get better at sniffing out fakes. They just won't be able to help themselves. In the end, they probably won't do much damage to their brands.

But, of course, they won't do them any real good either, and that's the point that they miss: done right, real blogs can actually help build the brand.

Of more concern to me is the smaller firms who follow in the fake blogger's footsteps. Their brands likely won't be strong enough to survive a serious mis-step in the blogosphere. They have to get it right the first time.

Which is why I was so pleased by the news out of NY PR firm CooperKatz today. As covered in MarketingVox: Congratulations Steve Rubel: CooperKatz Makes Blog PR Practice Out of Exec's Blog.

Steve’s own post at Micro Persuasion provides more detail. CooperKatz's approach, and public commitment to "doing it right" is a much better example for companies trying to figure out the blogosphere than some of the other examples we've been reading about this week.

Do you want fries with that?

Posted @ 5:02PM in Blogging, Fake/Fictional Blogs, Marketing, PR, Web Marketing, Weblogs | Comments (4) | TrackBack (2)

About Susan


    Hire Me!

      GetGood Strategic Marketing

        View Capabilities Presentation

          Upcoming Speaking Engagements

          Speaking at BlogHer Boston