Bridging The Gap: Where Social Media Can Miss

Only one question keeps coming to mind when I read about the anti-critic sentiment expressed by the MyRagan team, the lack of communication and customer service that underpins Facebook, and (in contrast) the sending of flowers and the power of forgiveness. Is there any room for ‘high touch’ customer service in the rapid-fire world of the Internet or social media?

A few years ago, when I asked Curtis Nelson, president and CEO of Carlson Hospitality Worldwide, he certainly hoped so. He saw technology as a way to enhance guest expectations and the high touch service provided by hospitality employees.

“Information is an advantage, but informed decisions will depend on how much you know about your customers and how strong of a ‘high touch’ relationship they can establish,” Nelson said. “People make decisions (including purchases) based on emotion,” which is why customer service plays an increasing important role in terms of value and the profit of repeat customers.

In the hospitality industry, he wasn’t the only one who thought so. Virtually every executive I spoke to had the same message and similar warnings despite the fact that the hospitality industry was investing as much as 3.4 percent of its total annual revenue in technology at the time.

“Always remember, no amount of technology can provide guests an informed opinion,” offered Nicholas Mutton, then senior vice president of Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts.

Consistently, they all pointed to simultaneously increasing guest services and technology because they viewed such investments as a critical part of their and strategy of the operation. Now, a mere five years later, is it any wonder why hospitality continues to be one of the fastest-growing industries in the world.

Not only did hospitality have an ideal environment—one where more governments assist their tourism industries by consolidating efforts and collecting vertical and geographic buying patterns, trip motivations, and psychographic profiles (information made increasingly available because of technology)—but the best of them always remembered what so few seem to remember in the world of social media.

“Some things must remain very, very human,” said James Brown, then president of Rosewood Hotel & Resorts. “The last thing I would ever want to see at a concierge desk (for example) is a guest asking for a good Italian restaurant and someone looking it up on a computer. A concierge should know it — serving as the buffer between the technology.”

Given the advent of technology with social networks and various social media platforms, I can only imagine that those who remain vigilant in bridging the gap between high tech and high touch will be those left standing two or three years from now. In other words, once the excitement of something new erodes, the rush of new members begins to flatten, and the initial purchase based on emotion gives way to logical review, all that remains is the collective impressions created by the individual, firm, or company.

In the lead above, only one seemed to get it. For the other two, they might remember that as big as some companies or social networks might get, none is exempt from losing ground as fast as they gained it.

Advertising Conundrum: America Online

If you are still wondering why content is king on the Internet, even beyond blogs, consider that American Online (AOL) continues to lose ground after reducing its reliance on subscriptions and shifting to an ad revenue model despite having what once was the largest place to connect on the Internet.

So what happened? As made all too apparent by Miguel Helt in The New York Times on Monday, ad revenue alone cannot replace the splendor AOL once enjoyed as the darling of online subscription services. The Internet has changed and AOL changed too late.

What is not clear in the article is the true culprit behind the AOL slip. Its slow transition from subscription to ad revenue hastened the pace of member defection. Basically, its members left because it didn’t make sense to pay for advertising-infused services that they could get elsewhere. Then, as its members left, AOL had fewer numbers to pull down ad deals.

It has been a long time since I visited AOL (not counting yesterday), but I did two years ago. What I found made me realize my decision to leave was a good one. Chat rooms, once a core service offered by AOL, were overwhelmed with little lines of advertising and bothersome bots, leaving people to wonder if anyone was real. (Probably not. Real people were using Instant Messenger.) Hardly something worth using let alone paying for.

And that brings us to today. According to the article, the newest idea to save AOL is to re-engineer the site so its customers can choose various channels and services they like and then include them in their blogs, personalized home pages, or favorite social networking sites. (In other words, they still do not get it.)

“We are not trying to build yesterday’s portal,” said Ron Grant, president of AOL told The New York Times. “We are trying to build a network of sites that users can combine or do whatever they are most comfortable with.”

Where is the added value? When you consider our shiny new object syndrome that tends to sweep the Web every few months (or is it weeks?), our apparent desire to customize as opposed to accept package deals, our disdain for intrusive advertising (which AOL has built right into its new page layout), and our thirst for fresh content, AOL really is only offering yesterday’s portal today.

Look, the Internet is not hard to decipher. There are three distinct offerings that attract customers to any platform and portal (or even blog): exclusive content, exclusive products, or exclusive services. Google: exclusive services. eBay: exclusive products. The New York Times: exclusive content. Sure, there are other examples that can be plugged in and other ways to make an impact. For example, Southwest Airlines attributes $150 million in ticket sales generated by a widget.

Once you have exclusive content, products, or services, a growing number of members, subscribers, and consumers will follow. In time, this following will be more likely to pay for a product, service, or submit to some mysterious amount of advertising (assuming you have the right audience). Even AOL, once upon a time, had all three ingredients, which justified the subscription fee. For many of us, at least for a short while, it was also the only connection game in town.

But as the world grew up around the company, AOL's once exclusive services began to erode, its content became more generic, and its products were improved upon by others. Worse, its branding all but imploded under the weight of aggressive control and generic content, increasingly sophisticated customers, poor “user” service and cancellation policies, and an inability to leapfrog the competition.

Ho hum, if AOL wants to remain relevant today, it seems to me that it might forget trying to build a better mousetrap to be all things to all people. A better strategy would be to focus on the next bright shiny object. And, given the amount of space it has available, who knows? Maybe this shiny object could be solving the broadband limitation ratio of “many to 1,” which is the last known hurdle in true convergence between traditional media and the Internet.

Redefining Reporter Finesse: Steve Friess

The last time I saw Jerry Lewis, it was years ago and in passing at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas. Most people didn’t recognize him because he’s an unassuming traveler. There was no entourage. There was no fanfare. He was in a wheelchair; the medication he was on at the time was less than kind.

He is good to his fans; it is not impossible to write him a nice letter and receive an autographed picture on request. He personally donates funds to the MDA and as most people know, he is the MDA national chairman and will be leading the Jerry Lewis MDA Labor Day Telethon.

But credentialed local freelance writer Steve Friess wanted to write about something different. So Lewis’ publicist Rick Saphire passed, mentioning that Lewis had a sizable fee unless the interview was related exclusively to MDA. Friess, in turn, wrote about his experience on his blog, which has since landed over at The Huffington Post.

Yesterday, Saphire was fired. Lewis agreed to the interview. His team noted that the fee was never intended for mainstream U.S. media, but merely an attempt to cut down on the number of international interview requests. Some celebrities, as you might imagine, could make a full-time job of doing nothing but interviews.

Most people seem to be celebrating Friess securing the interview out of the misunderstanding. In truth, it seems to me only Lewis handled this right. Saphire might have known the facts, which makes me wonder why he was on the payroll. Yet, Saphire wasn’t the only one mistaken.

As seasoned as Friess is, with by-lines appearing in USA Today and Newsweek (among others), he knows well enough that interviews are almost never so restricted. Our credits include the Los Angeles Times and The Denver Post, and we know it: a little finesse during an interview can go a long way.

So where does all this drama lead social media? When freelance writers cannot get the interview they want, is the appropriate action to publicize the rejection? I hope not. It seems brutish to me. Not to mention, the rejection seems to be getting a lot more mileage for Friess than the update. And, unfortunately, that comes at Lewis’ expense.

Simply put, Friess could have contacted the MDA publicity team, arranged the interview, and had a different experience all together with no harm done. Instead, it seems to me that he set out to teach the publicist a public lesson, and mirroring yesterday’s story, that seems to say a lot about his reporting style. It also seems to demonstrate once again that news creation is alive and well in Las Vegas.

Acting Big, Looking Small: Anchor Kim Wagner

Morning anchor Kim Wagner at Las Vegas NBC-affiliate KVBC News 3 lost her cool a few days ago and the whole world is talking about it after the local clip made it on to YouTube. Wagner, on live television, degrades a camera operator.

“I have a big problem. Whenever I’m out in the community,” Wagner comments, after crossing in front of the shot to adjust the camera's angle. “People say I’m so small.”

The show quickly erodes into accusations that the camera crew is responsible for how "big" she looks on television. She then likens herself to looking like She-Ra, Princess of Power, a reference to a character that is part of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe.

Even when morning traffic and weatherman John Fredericks attempts to lighten the moment, offering “we have the best crew in the world,” Wagner cannot let it go. She chimes in again to say: “We love Tyra (the camera operator), she’s just a little pissed at us right now.” Fredericks even asks if that is the word for the day (meaning the last word).

As mentioned before, messages that leave lasting impressions usually come from one of four places: what we say about ourselves; what others say about themselves (newscasters in this case); what others say about us; and what we say about others. Although Wagner says plenty about herself, noting that she has a complex about her size, the most revealing segment of this program is what she says about others and what those comments reveal about her.

After watching the clip, Wagner seems to be miss this concept. What she says doesn't say anything about "Tyra" and everything about Wagner. No, Wagner does not come across or look like She-Ra, Princess of Power, as much as she becomes a dead ringer for Skeletor, the arch nemesis of He-Man.

Although coincidental, this fits perfectly within the context of a discussion about maintaining an expert image. I mention there that experts do not have to be overly cautious about what they say, but they do need to be accurate, consistent (in presenting their own image), and sensitive to the values of others.

Wagner not only fails in demonstrating that she cares about her team (crew or cast), but she also comes across as being vain, egotistical, and mean-spirited, a complete contrast to how she wants to be perceived in public.

Worse, what would have once amounted to being a completely forgettable local blooper is now making its way around the world. Lesson for today: don’t act too big on camera (or online for that matter) or you may look smaller than you ever intended.

Changing Television: The Jericho Effect

“Thank you for your article from the set of Jericho. I was disappointed when I heard the show had been canceled. With well-developed characters and a compelling plot, it is not to be missed. Kudos to those involved in the peanut campaign for helping bring this addictive series back for season 2. Note to CBS: If you want to maintain viewership, stop killing story-line momentum by placing shows on hiatus for three months in the middle of their run.” — Natalie Payne (Mississauga, Ontario).

If Payne’s comment in the feedback section of Entertainment Weekly (Aug. 24) is any indication of the growing number of fans beyond the Internet, CBS might take notice. Not only do they exist, but their messages match those promoted by Jericho Rangers during the campaign.

It happens right here as well. We received about two dozen entries in our fan fiction contest after seeding it on dozens of contest sites. (Winners to be announced Aug. 31; and published every Sunday after.) But even more telling is that there isn’t a day that goes by when more Jericho fans seem to surface and find their way here, searching for the Jericho Season 2 schedule. And from here, they can easily find dozens of worthwhile Jericho links that line our posts. We are not alone.

The Hollywood Reporter has taken to calling it “the Jericho’ effect.” They say “TV bloggers came into their own as a force to be reckoned with this summer when their campaign to save CBS' canceled post apocalyptic drama* ‘Jericho’ became a triumphant success.” (*post-apocalyptic drama is not an appropriate description, but we know what might be.)

Just how much impact are TV bloggers and fans who have become disenchanted with the Nielsen rating system having? According to the article, they are influential enough that some television critics fear for their status if not their lives.

Seemingly overnight, networks now realize that fan engagement means better results than catering exclusively to the mixed reviews of entertainment writers. On this I can only offer that having been a reviewer for years, the industry needs to retool anyway. Sometimes, the remarks made are a bit sloppy, overly skewed toward personal preference, and often lifted right from the releases.

The Hollywood Reporter also notes that fans are attempting to lobby critics for favored comment (this is the price of semi-celebrity). And some fear fanatical fans and their ability to track them down (I hope that is not the case). Jericho is not the only show to see growing movements.

Teev Blogger reported last year that fans of Joss Whedon’s Firefly have been clamoring for more. Part of their wish is coming true. Multiverse Network has the rights to create a “massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG)” based on the TV show. Here is the latest news. Will it be enough? I don’t know.

Veronica Mars fans have a brand new site that says they want what Firefly got in lieu of a continued series — a full-length movie. Add to that a confirmation on the comic expected to be released by DC Comics in the late fall. Overall, the new movie campaign site seems be well thought out (though still under construction) with a nice summary of places to go for news.

Even Masi Oka (Hiro from Heroes) got into the act, reviving The Black Donnellys name when he made a quip about the show while giving critics a tour of an Irish pub: “This is where I go back in time and save The Black Donnellys.” While he meant to be playful, it does strike a chord. Although most people had never seen the show, everyone suddenly seems to know exactly what he is talking about.

Understanding Gumballs: From Trunk To Maltoni

If there is one secret to be learned after conducting hundreds and thousands of interviews, ranging from an emotionally exhausted mother staying at a Ronald McDonald House to billionaire Sheldon Adelson, it is that the success of any interview hinges on effective communication.

And, if there is any prerequisite to ensure effective communication, it is to see the interviewee as a person, regardless of any perceived labels — status, position, gender, whatever. The concept is simple. The execution is not.

For the past few months, one label that seems to have galvanized, if not polarized, online communities and bloggers is the most basic of all — gender. To this ongoing discussion in its numerous forms, I say gumballs.

Right, gumballs. You know what I mean. When we were all kids and could not care less about silly things like gender, most of us claimed certain gumballs were better than others — blue, red, yellow. We were all delusional. The gumballs all tasted the same.

The gender issue is much like that. It doesn't matter where it turns up. Last month it appeared on a post penned by the popular blogger Penelope Trunk when she abandoned career conversations in favor of sharing her perspective on her marriage, which quickly turned into a war of words about gender.

“So I’m going to tell you the truth about stay-at-home dads…” she wrote.

Not surprisingly, most of the discussion quickly descended into non-communication, with some claiming that any man commenter who disagreed was somehow invalid, if not sexist, because, well, they were men. Never mind that not all of them were men.

Ho hum. What most missed was that if there is a "truth" about stay-at-home dads … it is that there is no truth about stay-at-home dads. Just as there is no truth about stay-at-home moms. Just as there is no truth that accurately defines a good marriage, spouse, or parent. Just as there is no truth to any discussion that revolves around a label.

We saw the same descent into non-communication after Valeria Maltoni published her Top 20 PR PowerWomen list, which prompted Lewis Green to write his much discussed post, which questioned the validity of an all-woman list (he has since yielded and agreed to support it).

Before I continue, I might point out that I already commented at the The Buzz Bin and agreed with Geoff Livingston’s decision to support the Top 20 PR PowerWomen. However, I also understand what Green was asking, but think that he asked the wrong question.

In sum, it seems to me that Green asked whether any list segregated by gender, race, or ethnicity was valid. In other words, he may as well have asked if we group our gumballs by size or color, does that place the other gumballs at a disadvantage. Um no, they still taste the same.

But let's say he asked a slightly different question. Does the promotion of a label — status, position, gender, whatever — further erode the ability of people to interact as individuals without regard to labels (such as gender) or does it simply draw more attention to their differences as identified by such a label and breed resentment?

Well now, that depends solely on the gumballs who make up the group. In this case, there is no evidence that the Top 20 PR PowerWomen are promoting that pink gumballs somehow taste better than blue gumballs simply because they are pink, which basically means that the list is no more exclusionary than a Top 20 PR PowerPeople in the Washington D.C. Area list or a Top 20 Bloggers Who Own Red Socks list.

However, Green's question also illustrates why labels are tricky things. On one hand, humans have great cognitive capabilities, which includes processing large amounts of information by categorizing it by labels. On the other hand, if we are not aware of this process, we can become enslaved by it — either by subconsciously taking on stereotyped behaviors that are identified with a specific label or assuming other people will likely act like the labels that they are assigned.

The simplest truth is there are no typical women and there are no typical men. And if you approach either with the preconceived notion that they will react or respond to you as their label suggests they might, you will likely be disappointed. Worse, you could greatly increase the likelihood of label-centric non-communication.

In a different context, freeing us from the trappings of gender: there are no typical mothers to be found at Ronald McDonald House. And there are no typical billionaires. They are all people and each of them deserve to be treated with respect as individuals. Treat them any differently and you may as well argue that one gumball is better than another gumball, when we all know that they taste the same.