Playing Shell Games: Communication Experts

All you need to play a shell game (or Thimblerig according to Wikipedia), is three shells and a pea. Sometimes it is portrayed as gambling, but it is often an illegal confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud.

Now, I am not saying that most people in communication (marketing, advertising, public relations, and related fields) mean to do it (oh, a few of them do), but social media has accidentally unmasked the communication shell game with industry buzz terms and gibberish.

For example, and I cannot be clear enough, social media cannot replace reputation management. Reputation management is a strategy. Social media is a tactic. For the most part, strategies are not measured. Tactics are measured. But the tactical measurement can influence the strategic direction. Confused yet? It gets better when shell gamers get hold of it.

You see, there are plenty of firms who agree that social media is a tactic, but then they try to sell social media "strategies" complete with analytics (the fancy name for Web tracking), saying "never mind the reputation management, because everybody knows reputation management cannot be measured by click-throughs."

Oh gosh. So now it's all about click-throughs? Stop. You're killing me. What about those folks who don't click-through? I see those people all the time who mysteriously find their way to the exact page they want on my blog because those sly little Internet savvy voyeurs don't click ... they re-input the Web address. Darn you. You know who you are (and I'm joking ... come here any way you like).

Or how about those experts who damn traditional media, er, mainstream media, er, MSM, er, whatever, because blogging, er, social media, er, SM, is so powerful that businesses just don't need traditional media anymore. (By the way, they say, did we mention that we are so right about this ... that we're being interviewed by a major print publisher? Egad! I thought you said it didn't matter so why brag!?!)

Or maybe, if you're very lucky, they'll invent a whole new term to explain what other people are already doing, just so they can look like experts. It works like this ... today, I'll call social media, um, a social computing network. Then, when competing firms come knocking, I'll say "Naw, they are no good, I bet they don't even know what the social computing network is." (I don't do that ... as I have said before, I'm happy to speak any variation of English, having already learned if the client wants to call a brochure "chicken soup," then I'm all in for chicken soup. Why split hairs?)

Recently, a self-described student of social media (I love his humility, considering he's more an expert than some experts), Amitai Givertz unmasked one of them on a slide show at Blogversity Blog. At first, it gave him pause.

There's nothing wrong with that. And then, when I hinted that the entire slide was baloney, he was all in to be more specific in what he was thinking. And, not surprisingly, we agreed.

The presentation said things like this (no order):

"Blogging changes the writer’s behaviour more than it changes the readers’ behaviour."

"If your brand is going to blog you need to understand what you want to change about it."

"Social media demand that you trade control for influence."

"Brands only have a role if they can make the conversation more interesting."

"We have to get comfortable with managing the immeasurable."

"Maybe media agnostic would be a better term."

Media agnostic? Remember what I said about inventing terms. Yeah, now you're seeing it.

This is all utter nonsense. Twenty-six slides that smack of a shell game. For instance, if your blog controls your brand and affects your behavior more than than the consumer, you've got real problems.

However, as I pointed out at Blogversity, there is an erroneous assumption that brands can be controlled. It only takes … one tanker spill in Alaska … one tire recall … one bad bunch of spinach … to see how fragile brands can really be.

Givertz goes on to point out some of the flaws in the slide (there are too many to correct in a single post; each slide could be a post in fact). One of my favorite slide rebuts from him reminds us that the brand and its message to communicate and stimulate emotional attachment and identification of the subject with its consumers must somehow correlate with the medium, when in fact, whether the medium is a billboard, blog, or urinal splash-mat ... it is nothing more than a means to an end.

Yep. The medium is the messenger for your brand, but not necessarily the message. Or, in other words, your brand and message should dictate how you use any number of tools at your disposal, including blogs or social media or whatever the term du jour is.

Hey, I'm coming dangerously close to touching on the validity of strategic communication, something I know a lot about. But I don't want to do that today so here is a nutshell version...

Strategic communication is the best method of thinking to align strategies like reputation management, mission statements, corporate values (and whatnot) AND integrate marketing, advertising, and public relations to deliver a core message (not key messages) interwoven in multiple mediums like blogs, ads, direct mail (and whatnot) to change the behavior of consumers, specifically to get them to buy your product as opposed to someone else's product and, at the same time, make them feel good about their purchasing decision so they'll tell other people to do it too.

Wow! That's an awfully long sentence and here is the rub: anything can influence strategic communication at any level, but the control is best preserved by the executive management team with consult from your lead communication expert (provided they know what they are doing).

Ironically and unfortunately, a good number of communication experts know that strategic communication (meaning all communication within an organization) can be influenced by any department or subcategory or tool to such a degree that it places a stranglehold on the entire organization and forces them to move in a direction that does not make sense for the company (Ah ha! That IS what Julie Roehm tried to do to Wal-Mart!). And THAT is also the communication industry's shell game.

No wonder recruiters and executive employers always seem miffed when every interviewee is using terms that are alien. Worse, recruiters and employers become so entrenched in buzz words perpetrated by the last "expert," they begin to perplex the next interviewee with useless questions like how big is your Rolodex. Frankly, it gives the industry a bad name.

Here is the bottom line: If you're a recruiter or executive, don't be fooled by all this nonsense. At the end of the day, there is only one measurement. It's called SALES.

Sales and cost savings are the ultimate ROIs (not to take anything away from market penetration or market dominance). So if your communication is driving sales or at least helping your salespeople make sales — or some new communication tools are saving you money — then your communication is working, provided your company is reaching its full sales potential.

So the next time you meet with a communication expert (marketing, advertising, public relations, social media), ask them what are the quantitative and qualitative (measurable) results of their work. If they cannot tell you, keep your eye on the pea ... 'cause they might start talking about click-throughs and being comfortable with non-measurements.

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!

Spinning Silly: Julie Roehm

The Wall Street Journal has published a statement (for subscribers) from Julie Roehm. Here's the opening of the 520-word story:

"When I look back over the whirlwind of the last 15 months of my life, here's what I see: I left a successful career in Detroit, uprooted my family to move to Arkansas, and took on a demanding job at Wal-Mart as part of its shift in marketing strategy. I threw myself into the job, traveling constantly and working tirelessly to master several components at the same time. ..."

Apparently, Roehm has decided to put on her best spin until the very end. Here's what I see: someone who regrets a whole bunch of choices she made because it didn't work out as expected, despite saying she has no regrets. From this opening line, it is difficult to buy into a message that ties in the very family she recklessly gave up for what she thought was an marketing upgrade.

Wrapping Up Mooninites: TBS

A few days ago, Marianne Paskowski, writing for TVWeek.com, covered the Women in Cable & Telecommunications conference in New York, and shared how Shirley Powell, senior vice president of corporate communications at Turner Broadcasting System, was quite open about Cartoon Network's marketing ploy for Adult Swim that went awry, costing the company $2 million.

Although Powell said there is no crisis management playbook that prepares public relations executives on how to deal with this kind of outcome, there really is. Just not the play book people want. They want multiple choice if A = B then C answers when most communication problems are problem-solving exercises.

Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman wrote about the same problem in science, noting that students were very adept at remembering facts but not so good at thinking new problems through. "I discovered a strange phenomenon," he wrote. "I could ask a question, which the students would answer immediately. But the next time I would ask a question—the same subject, and the same question, as far as I could tell—they couldn't answer at all!"

Simply put, Feynman was writing about memorized bullets vs. applied thinking. Communication is like that today, with lots of people trying to write rules and then forcing those rules to every equation. It's crazy of course, but that has pretty much been the approach to most crisis communication problems in recent months with rare exception.

TBS is one exception because it did a fabulous job for its part, while its vendor, Interference Inc., struggled with the viral outdoor marketing campaign crisis. What's the difference? TBS applied thinking. That's what Powell told the conference attendees when she said "You just jump in" and put out the fire.

I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure most attendees considered that information useless though Powell was mostly right. There is a play book, but there is not a play book. And the probelm with the play book is that most people use it wrong anyway.

Back in February, for example, Sam Ewen, founder of Interference Inc., finally talked to BRANDWEEK about the subject of the unfortunate Boston bomb scare. Here's an excerpt of Ewen wrapped up a bit too tightly in his message:

BW: Were these devices supposed to look like bombs? Was that your intention all along?

SE: It was certainly never our intention to create something that would scare people. I couldn’t comment on whether they looked like bombs or not. It’s not my training or specialty. I know that they were designed to highlight the show’s character.

BW: Was there any concern in the planning stages that it could be taken out of context? Somebody could see this as a scary threat? If so, did you have any kind of backup plan or any idea . . . just in terms of maybe a brainstorming meeting? Do you have to get permits to do that sort of thing or was it all kind of done on the sly?

SE: The signs were never designed to scare people, to get people into a panic state. They were designed for what they were, which was a showcase, the characters, the flight. That’s as much as I can tell you, anyway.

BW might as well as asked if the signs had something to do with the "cow jumping over the moon." Ewen would have answered the same, he is not an expert on farming or planetary bodies, but the signs were not designed to scare people. We're sorry. And that's that.

Let me briefly interject that this is not a dig on Ewen. He had enough drama about this incident as far as I can tell, and Interference Inc. has often produced some pretty good viral marketing ideas before the the Cartoon Network one-upmanship stunt got away from them.

But as a study in post crisis communication choices, it seems someone gave him a formula to always bridge back to a specific message. What they forgot to tell him is that message management is often a framework for communication and not just a few lines you say over and over again. You may as well not do the interview if you are going to do that.

So what's the answer? Same as it always was: recognize the real issues, identify the crisis team, determine potential impacts, prioritize your publics, synchronize the message, designate and prepare spokespeople, determine message distribution, collect feedback, and adjust.

In such a simple, no-nonsense format, just recognize that this isn't a checkbox exercise. You have to have someone who can think it through rather than someone going through the motions. If I have learned anything over the years about crisis communication, it all comes down to understanding that every crisis is different and requires thought before formula.

It's very rare to have two companies handling the same crisis, especially when one did everything right and the other did everything not so right. The bottom line: Turner applied thinking. The guerilla firm did not. And as a bonus, they proved once again that not all publicity is good publicity. Case closed.

Peddling Fear: Royal Spring Water

There are several ways to effectively market an IPO, but distress direct mail marketing with multiple messages from a mysterious third-party publisher is not one of them.

Of course, that did not stop Texas-based Royal Spring Water from giving it a go last week. A "special report" published under the banner of American Water Stocks, but devoid of contact information, claims two billion people will soon be in dire need of drinking water and that is why you should bank on a water stock with potential gains of 220 percent. As a communication observation, I can only guess
that Royal Spring Water is gambling on the idea that even a faceless smoke-and-mirrors endorser (but disclaimed as a paid non-endorser) can generate capital to offset operating losses.

Sure, this bottler and distributor of pure water from the Artesian wells of the "Ogallala Aquifer" has added a warehouse and distribution center in Los Angeles in order to meet sales demands in the state of California. It has reportedly concluded a private label deal with Vista Ford dealerships and Pacific Athletic Club, both in California, among others. And, its pitch that it has an exclusive "structured water" formula, sold under the label "RHYTHM Structured H2O — A life Changing Experience" sounds interesting enough.

Yet, this is precisely why one has to wonder about a company that would gamble with its reputation and possibly garner legal consequences by spending $20,000 with American Water Stocks in a mailer that comes dangerously close to crossing the stock "solicitation" line. (Right. For $20,000, you too could see your company projection to be "overperform" if you don't mind the half-page disclaimer underneath that refutes its own claim, assuming you can find the ghost of a company that did the piece.)

The reason why aside, the multiple messages mangle any sense of logic. The opening message to "forward-thinking investors" reads:

"Forget about oil shortages, flu pandemics, and terrorist attacks. The world is on the verge of a crisis that's unprecedented in human history. Because when water becomes scarce, nothing else matters.

What I'm about to tell you in this special investor report may shock you, sadden you, and even make you a bit angry. But I feel it's my duty to let you know how the world's most precious natural resource is in serious danger of depletion.

I'll also show you how the demand for clean, safe water is exploding around the world, and I'll name a company that's gearing up to supply this growing demand—and which could potentially make its early investors very wealthy as it grabs a share of the $420 billion market for freshwater."

The mysterious "I" person is never named, but goes on to fulfill his or her promise that 12 pages of fear marketing can indeed shock, sadden, and even make people feel angry. Unfortunately, not for the reasons they hope.

You see, it's no surprise to me that the executive management team of Royal Spring Water got their start as independent film producers of movies that didn't go anywhere (one was about how a transcriptor struggles to keep up with the rapidly changing technology around her. Oh my!). Today's equally compelling plot line links the end-of-the-world water to unbelievable stock gains. Simply put, it is investor prospecting communication at its very worst.

Look, there is no refuting clean drinking water is an issue worth consideration or that the bottled water industry is booming (Aquafina, Dasani, Arrowhead, and others all posted gains last year), but this hardly doubles as an excuse to misrepresent paid advertising as a special report from a third-party source. And personally, I would be disappointed to see more of it.

Lessons for today: First, never risk your company's reputation for a get-rich-quick stock scheme, especially when you seem to have a markable product. Second, never assume in today's world that your targeted mailer will only be seen by unsavvy investors willing to gamble on your hype. One of them just may be a member of the social media with an eye out for communication. Good. Bad. Or indifferent.

Recognizing Change: Jon Ralston

Jon Ralston is one of the most recognized political analysts in the state of Nevada, particularly in southern Nevada, reaching readers in print, online, and on television. Last Sunday, he made a candid observation about social media, especially in politics, in his Flash Point column header that appeared in the Sunday combined edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal/Las Vegas Sun.

"These are embarrassing times for those of us in the MSM. That's mainstream media for those of you not savvy to the acronymic insults hurled our way by bloggers. We sit idly by and watch the bloggers do what we so rarely can: Move political establishment. And now it is on both sides.

First, the Democratic blogosphere types pummeled the Nevada party for partnering with Fox. What was just noise eventually catalyzed action and forced the dissolution of the partnership. Now, on the GOP side, led by activist Chuck Muth, the bloggers have forced the party to reconsider its caucus date, which now may be moving to Jan. 19 to compete with the Democrats. So I guess I should ask the cyber hit men: What's the next big story?"

Indeed. It's very telling when political analysts share observations with some apparent frustration over social media. It's not surprising to me that political bloggers are at the front of the social media pack, but not just because they blog. However, as I've said before, it's not the tool, but who wields it.

Muth wields it pretty well over at Citizen Outreach. Citizen Outreach is self-described as a limited-government public policy organization dedicated to putting the “public” back in public policy. Whereas Muth has always been adept at shaping policy and writing columns for various publications around the state, he has found blogging to be the best place to make a case for everything else. In Nevada, he is not alone.

The reasons are pretty simple. In politics, blogs are becoming especially impactful, primarily because politics has always been a forum where squeaky wheels either get the grease or, in some cases, get greased. Blogs are extremely useful in this quarter because unlike accepting the burden of becoming a print publisher, there is virtually no real overhead (print publications are exceedingly expensive to print and time consuming to publish if you want to do it right).

More and more legislators and elected government officials on every level, for better or worse, are also discovering that blogs can be a great way to keep in contact with their constituants, defend their positions, and perhaps maintain a base against future challenges. (Unfortunately, most will likely get in trouble because they write it themselves with little or no help from consultants, doing little more than penning the groundwork for their next campaign's potential hit pieces. Oh well.)

Regardless, as the MSM, as Ralston calls it, continues to see the influence it has enjoyed in the past erode, some will get grouchy about it. Others will recognize it for what it is: a redefinition of the landscape and the roles people play in them.

The way I see it, social media is suggesting the mainstream media take on new marching orders, asking them to cover the news rather than set it or have an agenda. Or, in other words, maybe traditional media was never meant to move the political establishment, but rather to report that movement. You know, tell the truth and shame the devil. It's an honorable profession, one devoid of stating which party you belong to or whether you personally think more taxes are in order.

Certainly, in some cases, mainstream media took the wrong path somewhere along the line with too few actually acting as political analysts and too many acting like the political activists they were supposed to cover. It seems to me this is precisely why online self-proclaimed media watchdogs such as Media Matters and News Busters broke onto the national scene to begin with, each claiming that media bias is too conservative or too liberal (sometimes both at the same time, depending on the topic).

Labels, labels, everywhere labels. So let's set the record straight. There are no cyber hitmen. There are only political activists with a new tool.

There is rampant media bias, except in rare instances when the truth actually overpowers political leanings (newspapers have been known to aggressively support candidates, but wash their hands of them if any corruption is exposed, preferably before people realize the paper chastising them today helped get them elected last month).

There is little difference between what Ralston did in 1993 when he began publishing the political newsletter "The Ralston Report," except that bloggers have less overhead and don't ask their readers to pay an inflated subscription price.

There really are no "bloggers" beyond those citizens who write online diaries, even though the label is often bandied about with ardent enthusiasm or apparent attempts to discredit (sometimes at the same time). In actuality, there are simply new political activists who never had a voice before, or, as in my case, industry experts who are willing to share their insights or business people who see the natural crossover to employ blogs as a tool not all that dissimilar from politics.

How so? While I maintain it's not for every CEO to have a blog, it does provide an answer to management consultant Laurence Haughton's question over at Recruiting Bloggers.com: "But what tells you that 'all the talk about how companies need to have a dialogue with customers' is serious talk?"

A few graphs up, I mentioned legislators beginning to use blogs to have contact with their constituants, defend their positions, and perhaps maintain a base against future challenges. Is that so very different from one of several business blog uses: connect with customers, promote products, and build brand loyalty? Unless you're hung up on semantics, not really.