The Real Price Of Public Shaming On Social Media

Years ago, I worked with a film and television producer who brought me in as a senior copywriter for several dozen of his accounts, including American Greetings and McDonald's. It was fun and challenging work with considerable visibility. The scripts opened countless doors in my career.

One of the things that always struck me about his home office was a plaque that hung prominently by his front door. You couldn't leave the house without seeing it. Neither could he. That was the point.

The plaque unapologetically warned: "Be careful what you think for your thoughts become words, your words become actions, your actions become habits, and your habits become your destiny."

If you search for it, you'll undoubtedly find several variations. Most of them don't have any attributions, largely because the variations were built around Proverbs 4:23. It warns to be careful what you think because your thoughts run your life. It's an idea that was shared by Buddha too. 

Public thinking might be a worthwhile prerequisite for social media. 

More and more, people have been caught sharing any number of thoughts online with reckless abandon. But what they sometimes don't consider is that they aren't sharing their thoughts online. They're sharing words, some of which invite people to interpret them and predict future actions. 

That is what happened to a 27-year-old single mother who lost her job over a Facebook post. She posted that she was happy to start a new job at a day care, but added that she hated being around kids. 

The outrage that followed eventually landed in the laps of her new employers. They let her go. 

There are scores of other stories just like it. Victor Paul Alvarez was fired for making jokes about Congressman John Boehner. Adam Mark Smith had to sell his home after posting a YouTube video. Justine Sacco regretted her joke too. She was fired after a single tweet on Twitter. It goes on and on.

It goes on so often that people aren't always sure who is the real monster. Is it the person who made the offense, internationally or not? Or is it the mob that follows? And what about the people who relish jumping on the public shaming band wagon? Or bullies? Or those with thin skins?

The truth is that it is all of those things and none of those things at once, mostly because we haven't quite adapted to an environment that provides plenty of borders but very few barriers.

What I mean by that is that we build most social network platforms around our friends and colleagues much like we have always built social circles — based on proximity, similarity, ideology, special interests. The only difference is that the Internet removes all physicality and invites in the world. 

The whole world includes millions of people who have absolutely nothing in common with us. They have different dreams, needs, beliefs, backgrounds, feelings, experiences, prejudices, and tolerances — so much so that their entire reality is completely different. They don't even have to live half a world away. Living in an urban, suburban, or rural community is enough to create a polar opposite.

So when someone says something that would have otherwise been relegated to a coffee klatch with a few friends — people who have an entire context of who that someone is — to the entire world without any such context,  they can expect very bad things to happen. They're no longer thinking out loud or within the safety of a few friends who may either chuckle or politely correct their ignorance. Instead, you're making declarations (no matter your privacy setting ). So choose your words wisely.

If you don't, there is a better-than-average chance to find yourself in the crosshairs of public scorn. It's a weird place to be, especially because retaliation doesn't adhere to the same sensitivity it demands from those it persecutes. Read the comments after any public shaming session and see what I mean.

The comments are generally vile, often even more so than the initial infraction. Some of it is even penned by people who are bullies with a temporary permission slip to threaten, ridicule, and demean someone else. In fact, I would not be surprised if the majority of children who have been bullied online earned their bruises from being publicly shamed. Some of those kids go on to consider suicide.

How to manage a successful social network presence, semi-private or fully public.   

Proverbs 4:23 is even more right on the Internet than the era in which it was written. Your thoughts run your life and your public thoughts invite others to run it for you. Think before you post it and think twice before you pile on. What you contribute says more about you than anyone else anyway. 

Never build a network for numbers unless you're a professional, preferably one with some public relations training. Instead, build your network based on your level of tolerance. The more tolerant, patient, and forgiving you can be, the bigger your network can be. Sure, being thick skinned can help too, but mostly in connection with and not as a substitute for those other three traits I just mentioned. 

Of course, as much as we would like it to be, tolerance is not a two-way street. Appreciate it, but never expect it. Unless you pretend to be someone else, there will always be those who will dehumanize you and others over differences or disparage your ideas as a means to affirm their own. And no, I don't get it either.

Then again, after blogging for the better part of a decade, I no longer see the price of public shaming to be the corrosion of culture or even a threat to an individual's reputation as some might claim. The real price of public shaming is giving ourselves over to it by allowing the initial offensive remark or the public pile on to change our thoughts, words, and actions into something completely unrecognizable. 

Absolutely, criticism can be healthy but only when we remember to take on the behavior and not the person. Try to contribute something positive instead because, after all, your thoughts are words and actions online — actions and words that can determine your destiny. Good night and good luck.

The Future Of The Everywherenet, Part 2

Never mind all those social media and marketing tactics that everyone wants you to remember. The life span of most online marketing tactics lasts about six months if you are lucky. Sure, some last a little longer. Some last a little less. But all of them change.

The future of the Internet is poised to leap well ahead of wearable technology that quantifies the self. It's one of the reasons I both praised and dismissed some of the tips featured in 99 Facts Every Entrepreneur Must Be Aware Of In The Digital Age. Most of those tips will last only a blink.

Ergo. Some people predict 90 percent of all Internet traffic will be video by 2017. I doubt it. It will much more likely be interactive mixed medium and augmented reality interface. Some of the other presentation facts are much more valuable because they monitor the past as opposed to predicting the future.

In fact, some of the most powerful slides from that presentation demonstrate just how powerful change can be. More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies in 2000 disappeared by 2010.

The future is flexible. It can be as bright or as dark as we make it. 

The first part of this post — The Future Of The Everywherenet, Part 1 — expressed some of the brilliant innovations we'll see in the near future. This one touches on something else all together.

Anytime I present On Spreading Messages as part of my Writing For Public Relations series, I point out one ugly truth about communication. For every innovation that propels us forward, someone inevitably invents a manipulation that drags us backward. The same can be said about technology.

As Geoff Livingston reported from SXSW, some of the biggest buzz centered on the surveillance. He suggested that keynotes Julian Assange and Edward Snowden set the tone. Maybe. Maybe not.

I see it as a sign of the times because some of the greatest innovations ahead come with some of the greatest potential for abuse. It's part of an older conversation that often gets shuffled away into the shadows because it creeps people out. Why? The downside of an everywherenet is the inability to escape it.

Concepts like proximity advertising, consumer profiling, and big data collection are not new, but we tend to ignore them (except when we actively embrace them without wisdom). People frequently tell me that privacy concerns are merely a topic for conspiracy theorists, but conversations that I've had about the future of an everywherenet point to surveillance as a side effect of something better.

In other words, nobody will willingly agree to everything they do being captured, quantified, and assessed. But when you package it as a benefit, everyone wants to sign up. Privacy always seems optional.

Technology is an excellent servant and a relentless master. 

Case in point. My doctor smiled when he said he couldn't wait for the day that I would walk into his office, step in front of a display, and immediately see a complete diagnostic. While working in energy medical services, first responders were among the biggest advocates of transportation computer chips that pinpoint location and provide damage assessments at the scene of any accident. Some technology futurists I know frequently fantasize about a world where you can wave a hand in front of a cash register to make a purchase or unlock your front door without a key. The benefit would be convenience, crime abatement, and (given the option) consumer discounts and rebates.

All of those benefits sound too good to be true, but none of them are free. The price is a complete and total erosion of privacy. And once privacy is given up freely, analysis is only a few key strokes away.

One day, your doctor could be required to submit your health information to a federally-monitored health care system with consensus-approved procedures to help you modify your health. One day, your vehicle might not only be better equipped to assist you but also better equipped to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal laws. One day, all of your data could be confined to a single processor either embedded in your body or a federal or state issued identification card that must be carried at all times.

Some thought leaders in the technology sector look at these solutions as being vital to what they call the technological evolution of mankind — where our biological circuitry can freely interact with the Internet. And in some thought exercises, they imagine a world where working for the good of society is a foregone conclusion and the pursuit of individual luxuries (what some might call happiness) is old hat.

Think it's all science fiction? Some of it has already been done. What hasn't will be old news by 2020.  

But what does this have to with marketing and public relations? Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. Personally, I think communicators need to be more than cheerleaders for their organizations. They need to service both the interests of the organization and the public. And by that, I don't mean what needs to be done for their own good. The question always needs to be: If not you, then who?

Voting: Personal Business Becomes Public Policy

According to a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll released today, most Americans are ambivalent about new regulations aimed at governing lifestyle choices. In most cases, the public is happy to support regulations that they perceive have little impact on themselves, personally.

While 61 percent worried that legislation aimed at lifestyle choices might be too coercive, impeding individual freedoms, 81 percent agreed (33 percent strongly agreed) that these same laws are important to protecting safety. This creates a paradox in that Americans vote their immediate moral conscience without considering consequences.

"The public is somewhat schizophrenic about laws and policies that are intended to improve health and safety and reduce injuries and accidents," said Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll. "Most people favor many regulations that protect them but they worry about our becoming a 'nanny state.'"

Issues that respondents supported or strongly supported.

• 91 percent supported the ban on texting and driving.
• 86 percent supported child vaccinations.
• 86 percent supported safety belt laws.
• 82 percent supported motorcycle helmet laws.
• 80 percent supported smoking bans in enclosed public places.
• 78 percent supported requiring nutritional information on menus.
• 70 percent supported cell phone use while driving.
• 68 percent supported reducing salt in packaged goods.
• 61 percent supported mandatory HPV vaccinations for girls, ages 11-12.
• 38 percent supported a tax on high sugar soft drinks.
• 35 percent supported employers not hiring people who smoke.
• 24 percent supported employers not hiring people because of weight.

The same respondents said that people should be free to make their own decisions (81 percent) unless those laws reduce accidents, improve health, save lives, and reduce health care costs (78 percent). And it is in this paradox that the survey doesn't go far enough, one that is prime for psychologists.

Packaging and propaganda are driving Americans to make decisions for others.

When you look at many of the controversial issues today, many are packaged with an intent to reduce accidents, improve health, save lives, and reduce health care costs (on both sides of the argument). The only difference between one argument and the other is how it is framed and how directly it impacts the individuals making the decision.

This is a compelling study in that it pinpoints a growing ease for people to vote for what used to be considered lifestyle and personal choice. However, with the adoption of a national health care program, people are increasingly willing to make personal, medical, health, and lifestyle choices for other people.

The extremes tell the story. Most people support the texting and driving ban because it represents an activity considered by most to be the highest form of distracted driving, and a significantly increased risk. But the bottom of the scale tells another story. How much you weigh may become a public issue.

Opting Out: How Important Is Privacy?

Danny Brown's recent rant about Klout could not have been better timed. The company, like many analytic-based companies, makes money tracking consumer behavior and they do it whether you want them to or not. And they do it at the peril of their own industry.

On Monday, Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, Calif., called the self-regulatory privacy program created by online advertisers a failure on the same day it begins.

The advocacy group outlined several areas where the self-regulated program fails to address consumer concerns for a comprehensive "do not track" option. According to the advocacy group, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) fails on several fronts.

Current online privacy failures, according to Consumer Watchdog.

• Consumers are not notified before tracking begins of how and why they are being tracked.
• Consumers can only "opt out" by clearing cookies, and then their opt-out choice is cleared.
• Companies are currently not required to participate; only 11 percent of advertisements do.
• Enforcement is limited to the FTC, but not state attorneys general or individual consumers.
• The elective opt-out program does not currently apply to mobile devices.

"Consumers have no more control today than they did yesterday over whether their information is tracked and collected by companies online," said Carmen Balber, Washington director for Consumer Watchdog. "This industry program is another example of the failure of self-regulation to protect consumers from unwanted monitoring of every move they make on the Internet and their mobile devices."

According to Consumer Watchdog, the only recourse is action to be taken by Congress and the FTC. Consumer Watchdog did not address other tracking companies such as analytic-based companies that collect data and then sell the information to companies, marketers, and anyone hoping to target consumers with perks.

One of the most recent surprise participants in targeting is Stephen King. King is allowing an advanced ebook copy of his new book Mile 81 to be distributed to targeted people. The irony is King recently launched a Green Party talk show on two of his radio stations, claiming to be a little bit left. The Green Party is against Internet targeting without opt out.

The split between public and private activities online.

Consumers have growing concerns about privacy issues, primarily because of continued abuse. On one hand, they have every right to be. We seem far, far away from the original FTC direction.

On the other hand, people are generally too free with their information online. The latter story talks about kids, but adults share more than kids on any given day. And what they don't give up normally, they're willing to give up for an incentive.

What do you think? Is it time to make dramatic changes to the amount of information marketers and analytic companies collect or do people need to come to the conclusion that we lost our privacy somewhere back in 2009?

Mocking Tiger: Spirit Airlines & Everyone

"I think that the public is very used to it at this point, this happening, not only with athletes, but with people in general, from all walks of life. I think that infidelity is prevalent in all realms of society worldwide." — Rita Ewing

With almost everyone attempting to cash in on the Tiger Woods scandal, we almost passed until the Spirit Airlines advertisement landed on Adfreak. Saying the airline hasn't been "this inspired since holding its 'Many Islands, Low Fares' (MILF) sale," Adfreak featured the cheesy online advertisement of a tiger driving into a fire hydrant. The copy read...

"It's a jungle out there! Make sure you avoid all the obstacles and get the lowest fares."

In terms of generating publicity, the advertisement worked. In terms of selling seats, it's hard to say. However, Spirit Airlines is one of the few U.S. passenger airlines generating a net profit during the recession, despite being fined $375,000 by the Federal Aviation Administration for violating consumer protection regulations .

Tiger Woods is big business, and perhaps even bigger business in a crisis.

The Ottawa Citizen published a top ten list inspired, in part, by the buzz up from comedians Jimmy Kimmel, Jay Leno, George Lopez, and Wanda Sykes. It seems only David Letterman, not surprisingly, took a pass.

The same cannot be true for public relations professionals. Most of them are jumping in to rehash the classic bullet points, with the most obvious being that Woods waited too long to say anything at all. It's par for the course, they all say.

Or is it?

Sure, Ari Adler is right in that under most circumstances, crisis communication requires disclosure. Scott Soshnick is right in that a loss of privacy is often the price of being a public figure. Gerald Baron is right in his frame up of a fictional crisis communication conversation.

And yet, all three are very wrong.

In terms of personal branding, Woods is playing just below par. While this golf celebrity had gone to great lengths to preserve a certain image in the past, he has also passionately pursued keeping his personal matters out of the public spotlight. That much, at least, remains.

Woods is not Mark Sanford or Gavin Newsom or Michael Phelps or take your pick among those who demonstrated poor judgement this year.

Overall, Woods is a golfer whose image was created less by his own effort than those who wrote about him. He didn't market himself to earn endorsements; he played the game better to earn them. He didn't seek out publicity; the tabloids frequently sought him out. Nobody bought products because he 'endorsed' them; his presence merely made people more aware of them.

So if public relations professionals took a little more time to think before riding the Woods wave today, they might remember that crisis communication is situational. And this situation requires an accounting of key considerations. Here are some...

• Woods has set his priorities, and it does not include public discourse.
• Most of his sponsors support his decision, including Nike, Gatorade, and Gillette.
• It appears that the Woods family has yet to find resolution in what might come next.
• There was no risk of public health or safety in regard to a matter involving his family.
• His family has a long history of attempting to separate their private lives from public exposure.

How the Tiger Woods story could play out, depending on personal decisions.

The Tiger Woods brand will remain intact, though a little worn at the edges, provided his wife decides to work past present circumstances and if he continues to win tournaments in the aftermath of this personal crisis. It would have less chance to remain intact had he held a press conference, played victim of circumstance or ignorance, or suddenly tossed himself on the mercy of the court of public opinion. All of those options, for Woods specifically, would have been less than authentic.

Sure, there are those who are making the case that Woods is missing an opportunity to allow others to learn from his mistakes. I submit he has offered up a lesson that might help some people learn from their own mistakes. Perhaps we might even consider that transparency is a gift and not an expectation, under certain circumstances. What do you think?

"But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don't share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions. ... I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology." — Tiger Woods

Making Myths: Public Relations On Social Media

There are a couple of public relations firms in my market that have mistakenly adopted the notion that social media is free, much like a shrimp cocktail, hot dog, or breakfast buffet used to be in Vegas. As the old adage goes, you get what you pay for. And in this case, the only thing their clients get is indigestion.

Case in point, I was recently forwarded an internal e-mail sent to all the employees (and ex employees) of one company, which was recently advised to adopt social media because it's free. The pitch presented the myth: social media is free because you can require your employees to market for you. In fact, they concluded, the more employees, the better the reach.

How Do Executives Interpret A Free Lunch?

The executive not only bit, he sent an e-mail that smacks of astroturf in the making and might be illegal (which is why we omitted the offending company's name). And instead of a free lunch, all he received was an internal crisis communication situation of epic proportions. How do I know? If it wasn't epic, someone would have never forwarded this to me...

This is not a request.

If you are receiving this email, you are part of the acme company and we all need to participate in these marketing efforts.

By the end of the week, we will audit the sites and if you have a facebook page and did not sign up, you will be written up.

Participation in making our company better is never an option.

SIGNED

There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

While it would certainly be easier to illustrate what is right about this e-mail (um, nothing), there are dozens of reasons to reconsider the free lunch concept. Here are the top ten reasons why marketing executives cannot eat for free, especially when they are really asking employees to pay for it on the backs of their friends and family...

• Requiring employees to turn personal accounts into mini-marketing vehicles is wrong.
• Asking employees to work overtime without compensation is wrong and could violate federal labor laws.
• Not every employee is suitable as a customer service spokesperson, especially if they're sequestered.
• Most employees are already overburdened with work and don't need online marketing distractions.
• Some employees share painfully vivid personal information about themselves online, better left unshared.
• Most social network accounts are personal; asking people to blast family and friends is futile.
• When employees leave, and one day they will, they will take those customer connections with them.
• Launching a social media program without a strategic communication plan increases company risk.
• Customers feel overwhelmed visiting Facebook pages or groups with a 10:1 employee-to-visitor ratio.
• Participation in making a company better is ALWAYS an option; it has to be earned by an employer.

Whereas no one can blame the executive for hoping employees might give the business a boost, the launch and entire program is fundamentally flawed. And, after the e-mail, even those employees who might have been inclined to promote the company were turned off by the apparent lack of mutual respect.

From what I've seen, a second marketing person tried to save the day with cheerleader follow ups, but the real kicker was the second e-mail from the marketing executive. It wasn't an apology nor did it exhibit any sense of empathy. His next e-mail retracted the threat, conveyed desperation (but we'd still like you to be our friend), and concluded that "open communication between all levels of our team is important in maintaining long-term success and a happy work environment."

As for those employees without Facebook accounts? They are not required at this time. (Seriously.)

Bad Communication Is A Sign Of Bigger Problems.

So how did this all start? Simple enough. The company is in trouble. And as a solution, its public relations firm offered up the notion of social media as a free lunch. While we don't know if they suggested it as an added value service (free) or for an additional monthly consulting fee, we do know the why behind the lie. If all the employees had signed on to spike the social media reach of this company, the public relations firm could have added the outcomes to its column inch counts. Sick.

Sure, digital communication is moving forward. Social media presents some compelling case studies. It can augment other communication efforts for a fraction of the cost.

However, not all public relations firms can make it work. Most lack the skill sets. How can you tell? If they open with the notion that social media is free, run away. If they fit somewhere on the carpetbagger list, find a new firm. And if they boast about taking seminars for six months to become experts, they are the furthest from it.

As the above e-mail illustrates, a little bit of knowledge about a subject doesn't make someone an expert. It makes them dangerous.

Policing Employees: Not Today; Tomorrow

According to a new Deloitte survey recently featured on The Wall Street Journal blogs, 60 percent of managers believe that businesses have a right to know how employees portray themselves or their companies on sites like Facebook and MySpace.

“While the decision to post videos, pictures, thoughts, experiences and observations is personal, a single act can create far reaching ethical consequences for individuals as well as employers," said Sharon Allen, chairman of the board, Deloitte LLP. "Therefore, it is important for executives to be mindful of the implications of this connected world and to elevate the discussion about the risks associated with it to the highest levels of leadership.”

The percentage is lower among employees but still significant. Forty-seven percent believed those managers might be right. However, that number dropped to 37 percent among workers ages 18-34.

It still raises an interesting question. Where does employer representation end and personal privacy end online? And can policing employee behavior backfire when breaches in ethical behavior or common sense are still dependent on titles? After all, the Domino's employees were fired. Yet John Mackey still helms Whole Foods.

Employees are currently left alone to figure it out

• 27% of employees said their companies talk about leveraging social media.
• 22% of employees said their companies have formal guidelines for their use.
• 22% of employees said their leadership team uses social networking to communicate.
• 17% of employees said their company has a program to monitor and mitigate risks.

Still, employees are aware their behavior can damage their companies. Seventy-four percent said it's easy online. For the full report, visit here. What do you think?

Dangling Cookies: Alaska Airlines & Everybody

According to The New York Times, Alaska Airlines is introducing a system on the Internet to create unique advertisements for people as they surf the Web. Called retargeting by the industry, the ads will consider combined data (demographics and psychographics) from several sources to adjust the ads and ticket offers. The trade off, as always, is online privacy.

“I come from the direct marketing world,” Judy Gern, the chief executive of DesignBlox told the New York Times, referring to ads that are mailed to consumers’ homes. “And consumers should really worry about what direct marketers know, not what online marketers know.”

What Direct Mail Has Always Known.

Gern has a point. When as much as half of my time was dedicated to writing direct mail years ago, some companies would provide pretty pointed data about the people we were writing to — from the cars they drove to the magazines they read to where they preferred to take their summer vacations. With direct mail, it was not all that uncommon to present a second and third offer, increasing the opportunities for those who did not respond to the first, much like retargeting ads hope to do.

Generally, all the information was complied by magazine publishers, past direct marketing campaigns, and other survey mechanisms, with participants agreeing to answer questions upon request or for an incentive. What tends to spook people about Internet data collection is that it is comprehensive, constant, and not always clear who sees the information (or what threat that information might pose).

Privacy For Perks Is Today’s Bargaining Chip.

But marketers and network developers have noticed something else. As Marston Gould, director of customer relationship management and online marketing for Alaska Airlines, alluded to in the article: When people know that they might see an advertisement promising a $200 ticket to Hawaii, the priority for privacy quickly drops. And it takes much less than an offer that good.

In fact, for every story about consumer groups considering online privacy, there are an equal number of stories about consumers who are ready to make the trade.

What seems to be is that as long as a marketer provides a clearly defined opt-in and opt-out feature (which is where Facebook faltered on the front end), people are ready to share anything and everything about themselves. Many of them already do. The basic concept behind many personal blogs, vlogs, and even network programming like Big Brother is sharing everything with everybody.

In fact, tomorrow's consumers who are teens today, do not hesitate to share information about themselves. According to PEW/Internet study last year, they are surprisingly open.

• 82 percent of teens already use their real first names online
• 79 percent include a real photo of themselves online
• 55 percent of teens already have profiles online
• 66 percent of these profiles are limited to “online” friends
• 49 percent of them use online networks to make new friends
• 46 percent say some of their profile information is false

Teens are not alone. Their parents are happy to share information too. Most need a tiny incentive. I learned this last year after questioning tying GPS tracking to advertisements. Several people said GPS advertising went to far, until they learned it could help them find a little black dress, on sale, in their size.

Data Accuracy Remains A Question Mark.

While sometimes I consider some of the advances in consumer profiling a bit spooky, it does seem to me we are trending toward total transparency, with relatively few question marks as a marketer ...

• The randomness of “discovery” Web surfing, popularized by networks like StumbleUpon and Digg.
• The potential for savvy Web techs to game any retargeting ad structure, driving offers down so they might land the $200 Hawaii price.
• The fact that people sometimes lie on surveys and contest entry forms.

”I usually check the first box on every question because it saves me time,” one contest entrant told me. “Otherwise, entering them would take forever.”

In fact, even when consumers tell the truth, it doesn’t always mean much. One visit to a “recommended for you” list on Amazon or iTunes might demonstrate how close or, er, far away online profiling really is. And, since that is the case, one might wonder the trading privacy for perks is really as effective as we pretend it might be.

E-Mailing Everybody: Marketers Say Spam Works

Forget Facebook and other online advertising models for a minute. Datran Media released a study that says direct-to-consumer e-mail spam works.

More than 82 percent of the marketers surveyed indicated that they plan to increase e-mail marketing this year. That’s a whole lot of e-mails.

Why? As much as everybody complains about e-mail advertising, it seems to work. The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) even released a report that says e-mail ROI can hit as much as $45.65 on every dollar spent, which is twice as much ROI earned from other mediums.

This study mirrors other industry specific releases sent out by the DMA, including one that predicted e-mail from the insurance industry will increase as much as 23.4 percent in the next few years. The insurance industry is not alone. E-mail advertising has become a red-hot choice among marketers nationwide.

Except. There are some things working against e-mail ROI. There is the increasing pressure on state legislatures by the public. There are the issues that cross over into the Federal Trade Commission’s consideration of online advertising. And, of course, there is the growing problem of over saturation.

Simply put, the more e-mail advertisements that consumers receive, the less effective the medium will become and the more likely it will be prone to stricter regulation. There are other considerations too, including that the DMA study on ROI in terms of dollars does not adequately consider long-term brand consequences or negative impressions. It also doesn’t consider the risks that more consumers associate with it.

Like most advertising and communication, direct e-mail advertising is a tool. It does not work for all companies or products, and can even be detrimental for some. Inc. recently published a great column that helps temper the hype and brings it back into focus.

Personally, before considering an e-mail campaign, I think many companies are better off thinking about a well-executed social media plan. Social media can be equally, if not more, effective because it allows the consumer to receive information when they want it and how they want it: RSS feed, e-mail subscription, social network announcement, Google search, etc.

Sure, social media, such as a blog, is considered passive by comparison. But then again, the communication doesn’t rely exclusively on an e-mail list either. In other words, while more than 70 percent of marketers said they intend to use e-mail to enhance consumer relationships, one wonders if consumers share their point of view.

Self-Regulating The Net: FTC

The Federal Trade Commission released five proposed principles and guidelines for self-regulation in the behavioral advertising industry, which includes the tracking of consumer activities online (searches, page visits, viewed content, etc.).

While the FTC has been looking at privacy issues related to the Web for more than a decade, it was expected that the high visibility of privacy issues recently created, in part, by Facebook, that the FTC would be taking a Facebook hard look at privacy issues in 2008.

In sum, the FTC suggests that companies involved in tracking and targeting consumers always inform consumers of the data they collect, how it is to be used, that they have a choice to opt-in, and that any changes to this agreement are stated, which would require their expressed consent.

Here are five principles for behavioral advertising (paraphrased):

Transparency and consumer control. Every Web site where data is collected for behavioral advertising should provide a clear, concise, consumer-friendly, and prominent statement that (1) data about consumers’ activities online is being collected at the site for use in providing advertising about products and services tailored to individual consumers’ interests, and (2) consumers can
choose whether or not to have their information collected for such purpose.

Reasonable security, and limited data retention, for consumer data. Companies should retain data only as long as is necessary to fulfill a legitimate business or law enforcement need. (The FTC staff is also seeking comment on how long companies should retain such data.)

Affirmative express consent for material changes to existing privacy promises. Companies must keep any promises that it makes with respect to how it will handle or protect consumer data, even if it decides to change its policies at a later date. Any changes in how collected data is used requires obtain affirmative express consent from affected consumers.

Affirmative express consent to (or prohibition against) using sensitive data for behavioral advertising. Companies should only collect sensitive data for behavioral advertising if they obtain affirmative express consent from the consumer to receive such advertising. (The FTC staff is also seeking input defining sensitive data and whether some data should never be collected.)

Call for additional information: Using tracking data for purposes other than behavioral advertising. FTC staff also seeks comment on what constitutes “sensitive data” and whether the use of sensitive data should be prohibited, rather than subject to consumer choice. (Comments will be received through Feb. 22.)

The latter suggests carrot dangling (perceived benefits) for sensitive information (like social security card numbers) might not be an option.

Overall, the FTC has been very balanced in its approach to online advertising, recognizing there is a fine between protecting consumers and allowing companies to develop advertising programs that fund content and benefits for consumers.

But what is most important is to consider that self-regulation is generally maintained by the willing participation of companies to adhere to these principles. Every abuse, especially by visible companies, will move these principles toward permanent federal regulation. You can find the complete FTC guidelines here.

Gaining Ground: Consumer Relationships

It’s about time. According to Jonah Bloom’s article in AdvertisingAge, marketers are moving away from numbers and toward measuring changes in consumer attitudes and behaviors.

I’m not sure the solutions that the article alludes to are the right ones, but the premise — as the media landscape changes so is advertising — is spot on. Marketers and advertisers are beginning to consider media reach as less important than the platform's relationship to the audience.

Effective communication is about changing behavior.

Now that more are adopting the concept, one question remains: do they know how to do it? Procter & Gamble (P&G) seems to.

"Historically at P&G we looked at product performance. We didn't pay as much attention to product experience," Claudia Kotchka, vice president of design innovation and strategy at P&G, told ADWEEK, discussing how Gain Joyful Expressions’ curvy shapes and bright colors played a factor in it becoming a billion-dollar brand. "Obviously the product cleans fabulously, but this is all about joy. When consumers open the bottle, they like the smell. The bottle itself is much more whimsical. It's about taking the elements people wouldn't think are important and having them add up to the overall brand experience."

Product design is not the only place P&G is working hard to win over consumers. P&G recently rolled out an online campaign within Facebook to tout odor-eliminating Febreze to college students. You can access the group at Whatstinks.com. (Talk about changing behavior. I wish it were around when, as a resident advisor, I had to counsel a young freshman why his unsanitary habits were driving roommates away.)

Of course, few things are wrinkle free; online consumer relationships included. Specifically, online consumers have noted that new custom advertising is kind of creepy. In fact, it took Facebook and MySpace proposed ad platforms to open their eyes to just how much online tracking there really is. Enough so that Facebook’s idea to target consumers based on what is in their online profiles has caught the attention of online privacy advocates and the Federal Trade Commission.

In other words, any backlash from overzealous consumer profiling could land squarely on Facebook. We mentioned that potential hazard when Harris Interactive released preliminary information about mobile advertising back in April. During the Webinar, Harris had cautioned advertisers not move too fast without opt-in and opt-out features or consumers and privacy advocates might push back.

It looks like some are pushing. In fact, some are pushing so hard that BusinessWeek noted how a "do not track" list could backfire because it could mean even more advertising, not less.

Firing Punchlines: Wal-Mart

If Julie Roehm thinks she has a wrongful termination suit after, er, allegedly breaching ethics policies, then David Noordewier, a former Wal-Mart cashier in Michigan, might get in line. He was fired for joking on his MySpace page that "the average IQ would increase if a bomb were dropped on the company's stores."

According to The Flint Journal, his bosses at the Shelby Township Wal-Mart store in Michigan weren't laughing. Noordewier said he was called into the office as soon as he arrived at work. Officials had him sign an acknowledgment that he was fired for "gross misconduct - integrity issue," which the company described as "theft, violent act, dishonesty or misappropriation of company assets," none of which Noordewier believes fits his situation.

The story says Wal-Mart spokesperson Kory Lundberg would not discuss the incident except to confirm he no longer works for Wal-Mart. Noordewier had a near-perfect attendance and exemplary customer service record, which included customer compliments. Unemployment officials now say Noordewier did not qualify for benefits because he had made a threat.

It seems to me that corporate might consider stepping in on this erroneous local decision. Firing employees for a single MySpace joke (though it might be ill-advised to use the word "bomb" and "employer" in the same sentence nowadays) is a blatant overreaction. The Shelby Township Wal-Mart store manager would have been better off talking to Noordewier rather than taking action.

Besides, this comes at the worst possible time while Wal-Mart is still attempting to perform damage control on its apparent appetite for snooping on, well, everybody. Its heavy-handed surveillance tactics were brought to light during the ongoing battle with Roehm.

Lately, it seems the only good public relations news for Wal-Mart is that Minnesota businessman Irwin Jacobs is suing Roehm. Jacobs, who owns a company that supplies Wal-Mart, says former Wal-Mart executive Roehm defamed him when she published statements about the relationship between his company and her former employer.

The new lawsuit comes after Roehm's ill-advised attempt to exonerate herself of ethical breaches by accusing other executives at the #1 retailer of ignoring company ethics policy too. Now that's a punchline.

Using The Force: Social Media

"It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together." — Obi-Wan Kenobi

I'm fully prepared to take a little flack for drawing an analogy between social media and the Force from Star Wars, but the comparison can be as startling as it is humorous. Like the Force, social media has various manifestations with the light side focused on elegance and beauty and the dark side aligned with fear, hatred, aggression, and malevolence.

One side doesn't impose any restrictions on the use of this binding, metaphysical and ubiquitous power. While the other, well, it includes a moral compass. No wonder businesses are reluctant to use what I recently called a 5-in-1 tool because some people are bent on making social media more mysterious than it is with terms like "social computing," "message salience," and "first source analytics."

This thinking serves as a precursor to tomorrow's post on the shell game being played with social media when I'll try to sound more like Qui-Gon Jinn than Yoda who might say "social media is everywhere, and everywhere is social media." Ha! Today, I'm more inclined to address a few heroes and villains in the new world of social media.

There's a smart post from Dina Metha in India pinpointing a very real Sith-minded threat against what I would say might be the least likely blogger to deserve it, Kathy Sierra. This is pretty serious stuff despite my resolve to remain light in this post. What else can you do?

Death threats against people in the public eye or with a public opinion predate blogs by a few million years. Ask any celebrity or politician on the planet and you'll find most of them have more than their fair share of nasties tucked in between the fan mail. It's not right, but it's certainly the price of being a public figure. My sympathies to Sierra; I am hopeful they catch the perpetrators. Indeed, a death threat is NOT protected speech.

In a seemingly unrelated-yet-related story, stands Julie Roehm, who is hoping social media begins to buy into the idea that the evil empire is Wal-Mart. She told the Associated Press in a statement and anyone else who will print it that "...Wal-Mart is insinuating things about my personal life and pretending I violated some code of ethics with advertisers, all to distract from the reality that it didn't want my form of progressive marketing." And then goes on to say: "When you patch together pieces of messages sent at different times, you can create pretty much any story you want."

I'm sorry. For all of Wal-Mart's overspun and supposed "public relations" woes (which is baloney, considering the public seems to shop there with a clear conscience ... giving rise to the notion that Wal-Mart has media relations challenges, not public relations challenges), it's hard to misconstrue "kissy face" e-mails. I write e-mails to people all the time, and don't recall ever needing to mention how I like to look at their face when I'm kissing it, in context or not.

The tie-in here is how some folks like Roehm attempt to manipulate mainstream and social media. Sorry Ms. Roehm, the ethics debacles are your own and I have yet to see any progressive marketing. (Clarification: I have nothing against Ms. Roehm, but I disagree with the concept that you can sue your employer for your own bad behavior.) Still, it's working. Ho hum. Some bloggers are beginning to feel sympathetic toward her (Google: Julie Roehm sympathetic and you'll see). Given many of her supposed professional decisions were obviously for personal gain, how can we really separate the two?

And finally, in what almost became its own post entitled "A Tale Of Two Idols," some folks seem confused as to why Antonella Barba and Alaina Alexander can create such different online images by doing virtually the same thing. In what some might call the school of new social media ethics, it's pretty easy to understand.

Barba, who doesn't sing well (but wants to be a singer without selling sex), presented herself as a good girl but secretly enjoyed bad girl behavior. While Alexander, who can sing pretty well (but is happy to sex it up), presented herself as a borderline bad girl (who burps) who decided to go for it without any remorse on MySpace. The difference is miles apart, but both hoped to sway public opinion by employing traditional and social media directly and indirectly for their own gain. Given the two outcomes, it proves once again that publicity without strategy is fraught with disaster.

The lesson for today, before tomorrow's more business-minded post, is simple enough. Social media (and the publicity that comes with it) is not all that dissimilar from the Force. The big picture is that the social media world, or blogosphere if you prefer, is a collective that binds people together, and is ripe with Sith, Jedi, and everybody in between. There will be those who use it to create wonderful things and those who abuse it for their own agenda, even if that agenda is nothing more than to fulfill their own source of self-loathing by sending death threats.

Really, it's not any different from any community with its heros and villains. It just "feels" different because the community is newer, bigger than ever, and the people, by in large, seem less reluctant to interact with anyone they meet in passing. For those who use the Force for good, you need to know that it takes some resolve, courage (preferably fearlessness), and skill to swim in these waters because the better you swim, the more likely someone will come along to try and sink you.

No wonder executives are unsure of social media. It seems crazy, unless you accept that most often, like anywhere, you create your own experience in the blogosphere just as Roehm, Barba, and Alexander created their own experiences. (I'm excluding Sierra here because I just don't get it beyond the idea the death threats are merely random acts of violence.)

You see, business blogs or any other blog ideas I shared a few days ago do not need to be controversial to be effective. They simply need to be strategic. Oh, and you might want to look for social media Jedi, avoid the social media Sith, and use the Force for good. Just don't fear it because, well, you know, "… fear leads to anger... anger leads to hatred ... hate leads to suffering."

May the Force be with you. Ha!

Selling Change: Roehm & Womack

Emotional Intelligence enthusiasts might see a "change agent" as the perfect person to help a struggling company or industry out of a rut, but CEOs need to be careful with them because change agents can put big holes in the wall as easily as they can pound nails in the right spot.

In other words, a change agent might fearlessly introduce new ideas to enhance a company. Or, a change agent might might become addicted to seeing themselves influence the world around them. In a marriage, one might respark the existing relationship while the other will have an affair.

Juile Roehm and Sean Womack seem to be the latter. Unable to secure a dream offer after the Wal-Mart scandal, they are back in action, pitching a concept that "change for the sake of change" really works, because, well, everything is changing so everyone must change all the time. They call it "marketing 2.x" because they say people are more receptive to "upgrades" than "changes."

There is an irony here because the real drawing power of the dangerous duo seems to have little to do with anything new. Roehm has made sure of that. Back in December, she said "I have enjoyed my time at Wal-Mart and I wish my many friends and colleagues much future success." Of course, that was before she filed the wrongful termination suit, which seemed to beg that Wal-Mart release all its evidence of the illicit affair and other ethical breaches that broke company policy (to say nothing of the vows they once had with other people). As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

As a self-proclaimed marketing expert, she should know that when you wrap up a brand too tightly to a single negative event, eventually the incident will become the brand. It is the very reason that not all publicity is good publicity. Sure, you might capture headlines, but with what consequences? Did Firestone benefit from denying the need for a recall? Did Stoern succeed in establishing scientific credibility? Does anyone really want to hear Barba sing?

Embrace the wrong message and sooner or later everything published about you on the Internet will stick, proving that what is published on the Web can impact your personal brand and future employment. This is the very reason Roehm was ill-advised to file a wrongful termination suit, further damaging her already questionable credibility as a public figure.

In Wal-Mart's countersuit, there are even claims that the pair "misused the agency review process and engaged in travel paid for by Wal-Mart and for the ostensible purpose of furthering Wal-Mart's business interest, but for the actual purpose of spending personal time with Womack." As reported by BRANDWEEK, the court papers reveal Womack was very candid in his e-mail during the review process: "Speaking of equity ... we're both interested in having a stake in our next gig ... More importantly to you, in the two of us you have a team that can help lead your organization in a powerful way. But the opportunity will need to be broad enough."

In another signed "Sean & Julie," the message was: "P.S. These Gmail accounts are WM [Wal-Mart] safe. So, we can have candid conversations."

What lessons can be re-learned from all of this? Several. Not all publicity is good publicity. Never attach yourself too tightly to one bad incident. Protect your personal brand by being ethical, if nothing else. While adaptability is an asset, don't let anyone fool you into believing that change for the sake of change is a good idea. And, as I have said before, e-mail is NEVER private.

Punting With Legal: Roehm

As if Wal-Mart didn't have enough antics from Julie Roehm last year, the retailer has filed a countersuit against Roehm's legal punt. The suit purports to include the texts of steamy e-mails between Roehm and another former Wal-Mart executive, Sean Womack. I'll be looking at this issue a bit more tomorrow (since I keep suggesting that e-mails are NEVER private).

In the interim, you can catch a good summary of the story by BRANDWEEK. There, you can even see things like a message from Womack to Roehm as saying: "My Gmail is secure ... write to me. Tell me something, anything ... I feel the need to be inside of your head if I cannot be near you."

Pushing Ignorance: Julio "Assad" Pino

Last week, Julio "Assad" Pino, an associate professor at Kent State University (KSU), came under fire for posting on the now-defunct "Global War" blog (global-war.bloghi.com), a Web site purported to support al-Qaida, the Taliban, militant Palestinians, and opened "Are You Prepared for Jihad?"

Plenty of journalists and bloggers have covered the story, including: Markedmanner, which lists a collection of media and social media links related to Pino's history as well as the current story; and Bill Sledzik, an associate professor in the School of Journalism & Mass Communication at KSU, on ToughSledding. Sledzik does his usual splendid job at dissecting the public relations aspects of crisis communication endured by KSU, including potential consequences such as "a handful of students will likely choose a different school next fall, and a few alumni may not send their checks this year."

At a glance, the surface story doesn't leave much left to write about. Peel back even one layer and you'll find a mountain of misconceptions and social media lessons that cannot be covered in a single post. This post, perhaps the first, specifically focuses on Pino's apparent ignorance of communication, academics, and history, one of the subjects he teaches.

Misconception 1: The First Amendment
When criticized for posting on the site, Pino claimed that "the Web site is not the issue - freedom of speech is the issue." This is not true. Although there is a petition being circulated to remove him from KSU, no one has attempted to silence or censor Pino's extreme and misguided views that I am aware of. In fact, given Pino refused interviews on CNN, Fox, and other media outlets, he seems to be his only censor.

Misconception 2: The Privacy Issue
As many executives, public figures, bloggers, and others sometimes claim, Pino attempts to use privacy as a protective shield, but only after his err in judgment is made public. Privacy in this case is invalid. Like anyone who addresses a public forum or publishes anything, Pino willfully surrendered his right to privacy the moment he took his views public. If you want to remain private, then remain private.

Misconception 3: Professor Privacy
Post-secondary education is a semi-public profession by its very definition. Unless you work exclusively within the research department or perhaps as an administrator (and even then, you have no guarantee your views will remain private), the very function of a professor is to facilitate the sharing of ideas and knowledge among a public audience (students) within the context of specific subject matter.

Misconception 4: Professor Privilege
The United States has traditionally been sympathetic to shielding those who hold extreme views within our education system, particularly in post-secondary education. However, most of these professors are sensitive to the fact that, by the very nature of their positions, their opinions carry more weight. The best professors spend more time telling their students "how to think for themselves" not "what to think." According to one account, Pino singled out and compelled a Jewish student to give the class lectures on Judaism and Zionism, which he followed up with inviting a guest speaker to refute the student's discussion.

Misconception 5: Forum Credibility
Writers, authors, and educators should always be mindful of their publishers (print or online), regardless of their story's context. While it might be appropriate to pen an opposition piece for a publication with an opposing viewpoint, it does not make sense to write ongoing supportive, or neutral "news" articles as Pino now claims, for a publication that endorses terrorism. The lesson: penning articles for a publication that encourages Jihad when supposedly you do not support Jihad (as Pino now claims) is unethical at worst and unduly increases the credibility of the publication at best, especially if you reference your credentials, which are an extension of your employer.

Misconception 6: Employer Credibility
Professors may benefit from having a greater appreciation for their employers, because, as noted, a professor's credibility is often an extension of where they teach. Pino's new claim that his views do not represent the university, after the fact, is disingenuous. On the contrary, he used his position to establish credibility on the Web site, which means he linked the school to his personal views. As an alternative analogy, one might conclude that you can be a vegetarian and work at McDonald's, but your employer does not have to retain you if you attend beef protests, especially if you represent yourself as a McDonald's employee in uniform.

Misconception 7: Misplaced Accountability
Pino has taken the position that he does not have to answer for what he wrote nor should he be held responsible or accountable for his public statements, leaving his employer, a taxpayer-funded educational institution, to bear the burden of the costs associated with crisis communication, public relations, and potential loss of credibility and revenue. He unjustly damaged not only himself and his employer, but possibly the entire faculty.

Misconception 8: Misdefining Martyrdom
Pino frequently demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of the term martyrdom, which he has professed can be attached to suicide bombers. This is grossly inaccurate. Martyrs are people who have their lives taken from them by others with an oppressive viewpoint, not someone who takes the lives of others to promote an oppressive viewpoint. The victims of terrorism (or extreme government oppression for that matter) are martyrs, not those who willfully steal the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others. All nations and many factions have participated in such theft at one time or another, Muslim nations and non-Muslim nations alike. Few of us are proud of every aspect of our country's past, but we must remain vigilant in our quest to one day prevent mistakes and tragedies from reoccurring rather than obsess in our regret over things that were beyond our control or the national past that we inherited (I think our country's net sum is pretty darn good). Likewise, I do not believe it is wise to glorify those who target non-combatants as suicide bombers do. Americans weep for their children as much as Muslims do, Mr. Pino.

All in all, Tim Roberts' comments on ToughSledding are among the best anywhere: "The lesson learned here is when you write or say something as inflammatory as he did, you better be prepared for a reaction as strong or stronger. That is a human nature issue, not a freedom of speech issue. Pino is suffering the consequences of his own poor judgment. He is a victim of his own bravado."

Roberts is right. In addition, from my personal perspective, it seems to me that Pino would be happier pursuing another career choice, given that he has recklessly and needlessly damaged his employer's and colleagues' credibility without so much as an apology for his actions. I certainly do not advocate the threats he has received, but Pino should accept some responsibility as he has indirectly, perhaps directly, supported threats and action against others.

In sum, Pino is certainly entitled to his privacy and divergent viewpoints. However, one might wonder how long a professor may be allowed to ignite fires that he has no intention of putting out, unless of course, they threaten to burn him.

Partial kudos to the public relations team at KSU. However, I agree with several industry experts that it is wishful thinking that an employer can defend an employee with Pino's track record and not be linked to the story, especially when the employee advocates hatred toward his employer. KSU's crisis communication also comes up short in outlining any real remedy to the situation.

I submit that Sledzik may be right that most crisis communication tends to be similar to an earthquake (not his words, precisely). However, I am beginning to see more evidence to suggest the advent of social media has a greater propensity to act like a tsunami. The reality of public relations in today's world is that there is no longer a single epicenter; last week's quake could become next month's disaster several thousand miles away. And then, the shock wave may roll right back again.

Selling No Comment: Antonella Barba

American Idol has no comment on 20-year-old contestant Antonella Barba's wet T-shirt (spoiler: just shy of topless, but no links here) photos that surfaced last week. This time, after learning public relations lessons the hard way with Derrell and Terrell Brittenum, American Idol is sticking to the statement that it conducts background checks (but largely stays out of the personal lives of contestants).

Indeed, there are a handful of times when "no comment" withstands the scrutiny of the media, and making comments or personal assessments on the private actions (or past actions) of employees is one of them. Considering this is true in extreme cases, American Idol will be smart to stick to the issues that involve the show and off any speculation of Barba's past.

The buzz has, however, driven Barba to the top of most search engines, outpacing Britney Spears' self-destructive behavior by a healthy margin according to TMZ. Several less flattering shots were taken from her Myspace (the photos have been taken down) profile.

While there seems to be a clear contrast between the innocence of the Catholic University student (she said she did the shoot to pay for college) portrayed and the one who might pose for a professional photographer in somewhat revealing poses, Barba's photos and the context bear little resemblance to those that resulted in second season contestant Frenchie Davis being booted from the show. (Davis was featured on a porn site.)

American Idol producer Nigel Lythgoe, who had not seen any photos when Entertainment Weekly first asked if Barba would go the way of Davis, said ''We have really good background checks on everybody, and we deal with that every season. It's sad, isn't it, that your best friends are the ones that come forward with information that will go to Smoking Gun or put your photographs on the Web?''

Over the weekend, several more sexually explicit photos that are allegedly of Barba have been produced, but their authenticity is in question. While the girl in the new photos seems to resemble Barba, it seems probable they will be disproved in time.

The net sum of all the photos is that Barba seems several levels shy of producing anything even comparable to the judgement lapse exhibited by former Miss Nevada Katie Rees. Then again, no one has ever said being "wholesome" was a key ingredient for an American Idol contestant.

Still, there are a lot of lessons that can be learned here for anyone who ever hoped to one day pursue a path that would make them a public figure. Just say "no" because what seems like a secret will always surface when you least expect it and possibly cost you a crown, or in this case, a little more time to polish lackluster vocals. (It will be interesting to see if the pics have any bearing on this week's vote).

Over here, we call it the Wall Street Journal equation. If you wouldn't want it featured in The Times or Wall Street Journal, don't do it.

For employers, with exception to how any incident might impact your company (or show), it's best to stay out of the second-guessing game. Stay away from assessing the personal choices of employees and stick to the relevant answers: will they stay or will they go. With the exception to Lythgoe expressing some sympathy for Barba, it seems to me that American Idol has finally got that part of its public relations right.

Being Semi-Public: Marcotte and McEwan

Amanda Marcotte learned a hard lesson when she lost her position on the John Edwards campaign: being a public figure, er, semi-public figure (as I call these growing middle ranks, myself included) is not always what it is cracked up to be. Some people have a knack for it. Others do not.

Despite some quarters trying to claim that Marcotte and Melissa McEwan are being unfairly persecuted as bloggers (they are not), the simple truth is that their decision to be semi-public came with consequences that they didn't expect. The rhetoric that landed them a gig on a presidential bid is the same rhetoric that may cost them their jobs.

The blog cited above, Pandragon, is making this case: "Whatever opinions Melissa and Amanda hold on a variety of political issues, they are completely their own. The fact is that they have used profanity in their posts, and wrote rants that many disagree with, but their forums are about personal expression and opinion, not journalism or op-eds for a major paper."

Wrong. It has always been common practice for political campaigns to pass on campaign people who are known to have made extreme, disparaging public statements despite their perceived talent.

Pandragon also says Glen Greenwood, author and former New York City litigator, hits the mark when he wrote: "I do not know of many bloggers, or citizens generally, who do not have some views that would be offensive to large groups of people and who periodically express those views in less than demure ways, but if that is going to be the standard, we ought to apply it universally to all bloggers who are affiliated with political campaigns."

Invalid. When campaigns consider someone who is semi-public for the team, it only makes sense for the campaign to weigh how many votes could be lost due to "views that would be offensive to large groups of people" as opposed to votes won for any other reason, which is why Greenwood's "Hynes" political spin doesn't hold water.

Look, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong as much as I am saying that if you strive to become a semi-public figure with heated, passionate, or bigoted remarks, you can expect that the loss of privacy is the price of admission. Good journalists have known this for a long time whereas some bloggers don't seem to get it.

Good journalists appreciate that the truth — not opinions — will be their shield if they eventually want to move onto another career. Likewise, even good op-ed writers temper their rants with reasoned arguments. Not so with some bloggers, who somehow think they are exempt from any accountability or responsibility when they write. It is delusional to think so.

For example, it would be silly for 15-minutes-of-fame-are-over blogger Spocko to apply for a position at Disney any time in the near future, after he berated the company for months and months over what its subsidiary KFSO did (or did not do, upon reflection of how much was taken out of context).

Likewise, it would be equally perplexing to think that I would be a top pick for a future Gavin Newsom campaign after yesterday's post despite my experience on city, county, and state campaigns. Of course, this post was an exception because I usually limit any observation to the "verb" and not the "subject."

In sum, it is absurd to think that any public opinion posted on a blog could never potentially interfere with your career, regardless of the degree to which you achieve exposure. Employers, political or otherwise, are becoming much more savvy in searching and considering blog entries and Myspace profiles in an effort to hire the best employees. Sometimes it might not matter what you have written. Sometimes it might. As a blogger, whether you want to consider this or roll the dice is up to you, but don't cry foul play if it bites you on the backside.

Specifically for Marcotte and McEwen, what they have written seems to matter for three reasons: 1. For Edwards, faith and family is part of the message. 2. For Edwards, it doesn't seem to make sense to keep people who aspire to capture more spotlight than the campaign, especially because their opinions greatly distract from Edwards' message. 3. They didn't offer to resign and/or exonerate Edwards, which left him in a no-win situation (if he keeps them, he's wrong ... if he fires them, he's wrong).

Hmmm... if they really cared about Edwards, they would resign (unless urged to stay on). It's the right thing to do as opposed to being right.

Reading Minds Online

Whether you know it or not, you probably have a ZEDO cookie in your browser (go ahead and look). Most people do.

ZEDO cookies are relatively harmless, put there by Silicon Valley's largest ad serving company. They track billions of online ads per month and their services are evolving.

Today, ZEDO announced the newest solution is a profile and behavioral tracking system that allows publishers to determine and prioritize up to 1,000 demographic tags and activity tags. In sum, a 25-year-old male snowboarder who earns $45,000 per year and a 35-year-old female lawyer who earns $120,000 a year can be served two completely different automobile campaigns when they are reading articles about cars.

What does that mean? For consumers, it means future Website advertising will become extremely personal. For those in advertising, it means you have another reason to up-sell your clients by producing multiple campaigns based on narrow demographics. And for online privacy advocates, it means marketers gathering too much personal information. For ZEDO, according to Roy de Souza, it means “Our new system is the first of its kind and ensures visitors are served ads they actually want to see. This benefits users, publishers and advertisers."

For the rest, it simply means thinking twice before you lie on a Web publisher survey. Not really. Your profile and behavior will simply be determined by which sections you click through, which may make you think twice before clicking hot topics.

Losing Fame In 19 Frames

It seems some people have an easier time forgiving the present than they do the past. Miss Nevada, from my home state, will not get a second chance.

Just days after Donald Trump refused to fire embattled Miss USA Tara Conner, Paula M. Shugart, president of the Miss Universe Organization, had no problem firing Katie Rees for photos that are five years old.

In a statement to the TV show "EXTRA," an attorney for Rees says, "Katie wants the public to know she was 17 and had a lapse in judgment. This was an isolated incident that occurred more than five years ago when she was a minor."

While I will not publish them here, the full set of photos has been published at TMZ. Despite block-out stars, several are explicit.

Ultimately, the decision to fire Rees raises an eyebrow over the ethical standards Miss USA is attempting to set. While impossible to defend the behavior in these photos, considering Miss Nevada is meant to be role model, one wonders about the arbitrary state of the pageant, given that press time played a role in the decision.

A week earlier, Rees might have been the one receiving a second chance. She seemed more deserving of one, given the photos are years old and she apologized more sincerely than Miss USA.

Yet, as I've often noted as a public relations instructor: it's always better to err on the side of caution in case you might one day be in the public eye. If not, your greatest embarrassment might be featured in the Wall Street Journal, er, on TMZ.

First runner-up Helen Salas will assume the Miss Nevada title and compete at the 2007 Miss USA Pageant on March 23 in Los Angeles. She was a second runner-up at Miss Teen USA.