Reaching Trends: Social Media Adoption

Accenture, a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company, released some compelling survey results. Its poll suggests: while not all companies are engaged in social media, media executives are focused on it.

Almost two-thirds of media executives (66 percent) surveyed see multiple-screen short-form content as the largest growth area over the next five years. Even better news for ad-supported online networks, almost the same amount said such content will continue to be the prevailing business model. (Partial Source: Broadcasting & Cable).

Fifty-two percent said digital will drive all media and may even replace traditional advertising in five years. Even more amazing, 68 percent said social media will continue to be the leading growth area.

“It is great news that media organizations are developing a consistent strategic view of the key growth areas, but execution is slow,” said Gavin Mann, digital media lead for Accenture’s Media & Entertainment practice. “There clearly remains a huge effort to put in place the necessary capabilities, and it is apparent that the size of the task is still not fully understood.”

The discrepancy between perception (that social media has yet to hit full adoption) and realty (adoption is hitting exponential growth of the adoption curve) is apparent. If large companies are not talking about adopting social media today, chances are that they are planning to launch a social media presence in the near future. So what’s the hold up?

Simple. While many executives are already participating in social media on various levels, many are unsure whether consumers are ready. However, as we recently saw in the Universal McCann report, consumers are more than ready — with over 80 percent of the U.S. population already participating in social media on some level.

In addition, most companies are moving into social media at a much faster pace than they have in other adoption cycles like cell phones and desktop computers. But social media, in particular, has set itself apart from other technology-driven innovations in that it has a concept-to-implementation rate of 90 days or less. That is must faster than most companies can operate.

“This is just the beginning for a rapidly changing landscape where the media content environment grows more fractious and the user gains more control and power,” said Mann. “Traditional, established content providers will have to adapt and develop new business and monetization models in order to keep revenue streams flowing.”

More than half (57 percent) of the respondents identified the rapid growth of user-generated content—which includes amateur digital videos, podcasts, mobile-phone photography, wikis and social-media blogs—as one of the top three challenges they face today. In other words, media is embracing social media because they want to be part of it before it bypasses them all together.

Some of our own independent research supports the Accenture poll with one key exception. User-generated content will continue to expand, but consumers are likely to want more guidance and content support from the platforms company’s create. Only about one in four participants in the U.S. wants to be a content creator.

Challenging Good Deeds: Fragile Brand Theory

Unilever, maker of several leading consumer products including Dove soap, recently learned that no good deed goes unpunished. They now know better than most: attempting to maintain a brand as a good corporate citizen and environmentally friendly company is a tricky business these days.

Despite scoring at the top of global ethical and sustainability indexes during the last year, and being considered a company that takes environmental issues seriously, Unilever continues to be the target of Greenpeace because it buys palm oil from other companies that are destroying the rainforest, which is also endangering Indonesian orangutans.

Unilever is not alone. According to Greenpeace, the world's largest food, cosmetic, and biofuel companies are driving the wholesale destruction of Indonesia's rainforests and peatlands through growing palm oil consumption. In a report, Greenpeace predicts the demand for palm oil will double by 2030.

For an Advertising Age article, Greenpeace said it did not single out Unilever because of its high-profile environmental and social stances, but added that there “was an element of greenwash there.” In fact, he said, Proctor & Gamble and Nestle may be the next targets.

”Most activists of whatever persuasion on whatever issue tend to believe that they get most traction (and news coverage) by aiming at the biggest name rather than the biggest challenge," a Unilever spokeswoman e-mailed Advertising Age. "In most instances, it seems that the biggest 'name' tends to be the one that has done the most to attack the ... problem."

From a communication perspective, the spokesperson’s e-mail interested us the most because it supports our fragile brand theory, which suggests: the further perception travels from reality or the more unsustainable it might be, the greater the potential for brand damage. Overreach too much and, eventually, the brand might face total collapse.

It doesn't always matter that there are companies with much more environmentally or socially deplorable practices than Unilever. However, those companies do not receive a brand boost from the perception that they might be green.

So maybe it’s not always that activists are after the biggest names. They are after the biggest contrasts between perception and reality.

Our environmental policy sets out our commitment to meet the needs of consumers and customers in an environmentally sound and sustainable manner, through continuous improvements in environmental performance. — Unilever

In reading through the company’s environmental policy, it does seem to achieve some goals (packaging reduction, for example) better than others. Specifically, the policy states that the company aims to “ensure the safety of its products and operations for the environment” and will be “exercising the same concern for the environment wherever we operate.” If they are enabling foreign suppliers to do the opposite, then Unilever is not meeting those standards. That’s a problem, but not only in action.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not making a case against Unilever as much as I am making a case for communicators to resist messages that overreach. The truth is that relatively few companies (and even fewer people) can produce a perfect environmental scorecard.

All I'm suggesting is that we don't claim to be avid recyclers if we’re sharp on putting newspapers in the bin but shoddy on plastic bottles (because they have to be rinsed out). Authenticity simply suggests that we stop at touting our efforts at paper products if that is the case.

Rolling Dice: Crisis Communication Meltdown

Following the crisis that surrounds the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada over the last several months has been an exercise in evaluating futility. It can best be likened to crisis communication and common sense gone horribly wrong, with dozens involved in making decisions that resemble games of chance.

For example, the majority of physicians who helped Dr. Dipak Desai create a multi-million dollar gastroenterology business, which was closed after causing the largest hepatitis C scare in the country, are reportedly working together to reestablish practices in southern Nevada. Their decision has left the community perplexed.

The few who would comment might have refused to speak about the past and ongoing investigation, but were happy to offer that they wanted to “
get back to the community and give good quality medical care. Our patients deserve the best.” According to the story, at least three clinics may be opened by former Desai physicians.

For example, while no one had reported questionable procedures at the clinics, the investigation has revealed several nurses had complained and at least one quit on the same day she started. In addition to original reports of unsafe injection practices, the investigation has revealed that devices put in patients’ mouths for some procedures as well as single-use biopsy forceps that snip tissue were being reused.

These findings came after a poorly thought out full-page advertisement taken out in the Las Vegas Review-Journal last March. Since, most decisions seem to have followed public outcry.

For example, legislators seem to have prompted the state Board of Medical Examiners to take action after almost two months. The state’s attorney general just recently filed complaints against Desai and Dr. Eladio Carrera, another of the one of four co-owners, on behalf of the board. Both doctors were directly linked to patients who were infected. Desai had voluntarily stopped practicing medicine during the investigation weeks ago.

However, the once prominent physician continues to make decisions that further erode his credibility. The latest speculation, according to the Las Vegas Sun is that Desai may attempt to flee the country while multiple agencies continue their investigation.

The speculation arose after sources said Desai took ownership of two leased Mercedes-Benzes so they may shipped to the country of Dubai. While authorities have not charged Desai with any crime, authorities have flagged his passport, asking that they be notified if he tries to leave the country.

Sometimes public relations practitioners liken crisis communication to proper spin and damage control, rolling the dice on the location of press conferences or playing the “advice of legal counsel” card too frequently, when questionable actions — like shipping your cars off to another country — are patently more damaging than full disclosure.

Besides, sooner or later, public relations practitioners need to remember that reporters learn quick fix tactics as fast as professional dream them up. If you think they don’t know that press conferences are sometimes held across town to avoid on-site coverage, the only person you are really fooling is yourself.

Stirring Media Revolutions: Citizen Journalism

"You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." — William Randolph Hearst

With the financial support of his mother, William Randolph Hearst bought the failing New York Journal in 1885. And, within a few short years, his name, along with that of Joseph Pulitzer, who purchased his way into the publishing business (he originally bought the Post for $3,000 and other papers before the New York World), became forever associated with yellow journalism.

Hearst, in particular, was ridiculed and criticized by Upton Sinclair for having newspaper employees who were "willing by deliberate and shameful lies, made out of whole cloth, to stir nations to enmity and drive them to murderous war."

The assertion is linked to the idea that if it had not been for the publishings of Hearst and Pulitzer, there may have never been popular support for U.S. military adventurism in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898. But neither Hearst nor Pulitzer were alone in their endeavors to shape the news.

Earlier in American history, it was Alexander Hamilton (1801) who pooled together $10,000 from investors to start the New York Evening Post, specifically to take aim at Thomas Jefferson and the rise in popularity of the Democratic-Republican Party. And, before that, it was newspapers that helped spur on the American Revolution by taking creative license when publishing images such as the famed Boston Massacre. The image, of course, did not represent the facts. The British soldiers were later acquitted for acting in self-defense.

The formalization of objective journalism is a relatively new idea.

These are just some of the historic footnotes I consider every time I hear the term “citizen journalists,” which is generally defined as citizens playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information. Most notably, the moniker seems to be assigned to bloggers to suggest that they are somehow they are less than journalists (assuming they even want to be journalists).

Yet, with relative ease it seems, all of those mentioned above — Pulitzer and Hearst and Hamilton and Jefferson — and many others not named — Sam Adams and Benjamin Franklin among them — certainly fit the definition as very actively engaged citizens, without rules, who pursued printing the news as they felt fit.

In fact, Reese Cleghorn, former president of AJR and former dean of the College of Journalism of the University of Maryland, helped put some of this in perspective in 1995. In his article, he leads with how Walter Lippmann commented on "the new objective journalism" and what it might mean for journalism schools in 1931. An excerpt:

"I do not know much about the schools of journalism," Lippman said, "and I cannot say, therefore, whether they are vocational courses designed to teach the unteachable art of the old romantic journalism or professional schools aiming somehow to prepare men for the new objective journalism.

"I suspect, therefore, that schools of journalism in the professional sense will not exist generally until journalism has been practiced for some time as a profession. It has never yet been a profession. It has been at times a dignified calling, at others a romantic adventure, and then again a servile trade.

"But a profession it could not begin to be until modern objective journalism was successfully created, and with it the need of men who consider themselves devoted, as all the professions ideally are, to the service of truth alone."

Think of it for a moment. According to Cleghorn, professional, objective journalism was a mere 64 years old when he wrote his article. And, even then, he was not sure journalism was a profession.

Journalism has always been the art of participating citizens to report.

So it is often with this understanding, I am amused by debates between Michael Tomansky, Guardian America, who suggests that “Journalists relinquish rights frequently in the course of doing their work responsibly, as you well know.” and Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine, who counters that “We journalists have long traded in the currencies of access and exclusivity with the powerful. But the price we pay is complicity in a system of secrecy.”

Gentleman, please pause a moment to consider that you are debating a concept that has yet to survive a complete century against another that is less than five years old. So-called professional journalists, those who evolved out of objective journalism, were never meant to be bound by rules, except one, also penned by Lippman.

“There is no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and shame the devil.”

As one of my journalism professors, Jake Highton, reiterated again in 1978: “Although it has codes of ethics and credos, journalism really has no laws. Yet what Lippman said in the 1920s remains true today: Telling the truth is the highest law of journalism.”

So as unfortunate as it sounds, Jarvis stands correct on those grounds. For a journalist to adhere to a promise of omission for the privilege of inclusion ... well, that strikes me as a promise to not tell the truth.

The division of citizen from journalist ought to be struck from our tongues.

Throughout history, journalists were simply citizens who hoped to make change, with the concept of reporting the truth a secondary consideration in the early 1900s. The only criteria for admission into the field was the cost of a printing press or the ability to knit prose with enough efficiency to be paid by someone who could afford it.

Certainly, social media has lowered the entrance fee considerably, but I propose it has not lowered the bar by any other measure. You see, there have always been journalists who have adhered to and/or relinquished their sense of ethics. But never has there been a code that has withstood the test of time or shackled the profession beyond individual reputation.

Let's face it. Even today, the largest publishers in the world remain tabloids that are willing to publish unsubstantiated fact and fiction at their leisure, sometimes with startling accuracy and other times without a sliver of truth. Should we impose more rules on bloggers than we would the largest publishers in the world? I think not.

And to that end I guess, as important as the conversation might be, what right would any group have to propose such unspoken governance over anyone? Truly, if there are any laws that bloggers might consider, I believe those laws might already be on the books with no other rules necessary.

As professionals continue to discuss the merits of somehow distinguishing the citizen journalist from the professional journalist, I suggest we not tread so heavily to put self-imposed etiquette over free expression. As wiser folks remind us…

“Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." — Charles Bradlaugh

Promoting Citizen Journalists: CNN

Valeria Maltoni, Conversation Agent, did her usual excellent job covering the debate between Jeff Jarvis and Michael Tomansky about citizen journalists. It's a conversation I'll be picking up tomorrow (today got away from me).

It's truly is a worthwhile discussion. I only wish those discussing it would give a nod to history, making the point that this is not a new debate and appreciating that the so-called formalization of journalism is a relatively new concept, spurred on largely by the Internet. But I'll save that for tomorrow.

Today, it seems fitting to mention something else about citizen journalism. Both CNN and The New York Times are considering methods that may lift up citizen journalists once and for all. Both are discussing the feasibility of allowing citizens to submit stories online, some of which will then be sourced for the news. Along with them, other media outlets see the potential of citizen journalism as especially useful to shine light on non-profit organizations.

Currently, it's also slated to be part of "The Impact Of The Internet On Media And Community Outreach," a presentation being delivered by Veronica De La Cruz, news anchor and Internet correspondent for CNN’s flagship morning news program “American Morning.” Her speech will be given at The Lions HealthFirst Foundation Inaugural Dinner in Las Vegas on May 16.

I don't expect most people outside Las Vegas will hear too much about the event. Seating is limited to 50 people. I'll do my best to cover portions of it. Veronica De La Cruz is always very accommodating.

The dinner also comes at great time for the Lions HealthFirst Foundation, a public charity that maintains a community health education and preventive screening program for the purpose of reducing the rate of stroke, heart attacks, and cancer.

Sadly, the continuing health scare in southern Nevada has caused a 40 percent drop in participation of this low cost and free health screening program. It’s a travesty because the foundation had nothing to do with the crisis and their screenings are completely non-invasive.

Copywrite, Ink. is among the sponsors, along with Aaron Lelah Jewelers; CNN; Las Vegas International Lions Club; McCormick & Schmick’s; and Herb Perry, public affairs director for CBS Radio Group. All proceeds from the event will benefit Lions HealthFirst Foundation.

Wagging The Dog: Social Media Lessons

Next Friday, May 2, I will be teaching Social Media For Communication Strategy class for the Division of Educational Outreach at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) public relations certificate program.

In addition to providing an overview of various technologies — blogs, news aggregators, social networks, digital media, presence applications — I’ll spend some considerable time emphasizing real-life case studies, how to manage messages in the new media environment, and how to custom develop a blog and social media presence from the ground up. More importantly, I’m hoping those who attend take away one important fact about social media.

The long tail of social media need not wag the company dog.

You might know what I mean. Almost daily, someone immersed in social media writes about how companies just need to unfasten their safety belts and ride the social media wave in some sort of customer-driven free for all.

Yet, if companies simply succumb to the wisdom of the masses, adjusting entire communication plans based upon feedback from select customers and others within the same sphere, then their message is likely to spin further away from its center and not toward it.

Delivering only what people want is best left to politics, where these notions appear with reckless abandon, and voters are sometimes left to scratch their heads in wonderment when their elected officials seem to bear no resemblance to the candidates. In fact, it’s this very kind of thinking that served as a precursor to the struggles that this country faced in the wake of winning independence, with John Adams yielding principle by signing the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Even in social media, such thinking leads to erroneous ideas like “no criticism” controls. Those eventually erode.

Lead with core values and the tail will follow.

While such ideas come with the best intentions, they are almost as cliché as drinking the Kool-Aid. Of course, far be it from me to suggest we all need to put our anti-masses Charles Bukowski hats on either (though the man had a point about catering to the crowds). That’s just another extreme of the opposite color.

The only truth I have been able to discern is that most companies will never face blog dramas or social media stompfests that leave people bruised or banned. Those are best left to professionals who are trying to carve out a niche in the social media leadership scene and/or educators who are less sensitive to intellectual criticism because they know that open debate is simply a method to find the truth.

On the contrary, most companies will not likely become embroiled in the same colorful conversations that seem to spring up from time to time in social media. Sure, a few might aspire to, but only a relatively small fraction. All that means is that proven communication methods are largely the same.

So, as for those battle cries that online worlds need to be populated by customer input … well, I suppose that might work for some. Yet, more and more, it seems to me that if social media is all customer-driven content all the time, then we are merely supplanting one-way communication — corporate speak — with another one-way communication — customer speak. That’s not engagement.

Ergo, corporate speak and customer speak are the extreme ends of a much more robust bell curve, leaving companies with many more options then they have been led to believe. Of course, presenting this might make me seem a little less skilled at “telling” people how to do social media. But I have found it works very well in teaching people how to determine what might work best for them, their companies, and their clients.