Telling Fibs: Why BP Photoshop Blunders Are Big News

With Tony Hayworth, CEO of BP, stepping down to be replaced by Robert Dudley in October, many people have the same question. Can Dudley turn BP around, clean up the Gulf, and restore the company's reputation? At the moment, the answer is maybe.

October is a long time away, which may give Dudley a cleaner start than if he took over today. But the real challenge for BP isn't a change in leadership but a change in company culture. As one of the world's largest energy companies, that won't be an easy task.

The smallest fibs, not the largest, can be the most telling.

BP's liberal and enthusiastic use of Photoshop, not once but twice, became one of the biggest stories because the fibs were so terribly small. And that might mean something beyond the Photoshop lessons some very creative folks have left sprinkled around the Web. (It's hard to pick a favorite.)

• The company's code of conduct is being ignored.
• The culture has accepted a standard of deceit.
• The smallest of details don't really matter at all.

Years ago, when I was working on one of my first political campaigns, we discovered that the primary opponent had lied. Not only did he not have a degree in the field stated on his literature, but the college he had attended never offered such a degree.

Upon discovering this, we began a much more rigorous investigation better known as opposition research. Of about twenty points made to convince people that he was the best candidate, about 14 of them were either made up or patently false.

One fib on its own might have been forgiven by the public. But anything more than a dozen fibs was a lofty number. It didn't matter how small some of them seemed to be. Tell enough half truths, spins, and misstatements and any brand or reputation will eventually collapse. There seems to be a mountain of them related to Deepwater Horizon and the Gulf Coast oil spill.

Have you ever read the BP Code of Conduct? It begins as "one of the world’s leading companies, we have a responsibility to set high standards: to be, and be seen to be, a business which is committed to integrity."

How do you feel about that statement today, knowing that the company culture seemed to have embraced a general rule that tiny lies, little breaches of protocol, and miniscule lapses in following safety standards were somehow acceptable. As long as the paperwork looked good and nobody was hurt, did it really matter? It mattered on April 20.

On some things, it's better not to give an inch. The poorly done Photoshop pictures weren't being sent out as cover shots for the annual report. They were being provided as part of a slew of shots meant to convince us that BP was on top of the problem.

Obviously they weren't. The problem is on the inside.

*The above commenter photo can be found on Gizmodo, posted on July 22 by Jeremy "Bobafett."

Interpreting Influence: Intuition Over Infatuation, Part 2

The reason I initially chose the title of this two-part post was to illustrate that we can be infatuated with someone, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have influence over us. I like many people online, but I don't always agree with them. And generally, the people I like, don't always agree with me either.

Our influence over each other is confined to the validity of our ideas at any given moment. And what makes that a stronger relationship, in my opinion, is mutual respect because neither of us is so enamored with each other that we fawn over every word. It's an unspoken, sometimes subconscious, connection. The ties that bind are ideas, not personality, popularity, or any other measure.

This post is part two of a two-part post. If you missed the first one, it's called Interpreting Influence: Intuition Over Infatuation, Part 1. It includes a link to an extensive education study commissioned by The Wallace Foundation. This post is an extension of my own conclusions in applying it to the discussion of online influence.

What Is Influence, Anyway?

1. A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events, especially one that operates without any direct or apparent effort.
2. An individual or group's power to sway or affect based on prestige, wealth, ability, position, or presentation.
3. A person who exerts influence such as friends, family, co-workers, and customers.
4. A power such as the moon and the stars, divine intervention, genetics, or law of nature.

The order of most definitions provides an insight into the meaning of the word, with the most weight being given not to people but to the ideas, actions, and reflections they make. Ideas are powerful, which is why some men with mistaken perceptions or malicious intent have worked diligently to control them.

During one of my presentations earlier this year, this became an important part of the introduction. Every innovation in communication to help messages, thoughts, and ideas spread has led to advents in how to manage, control, manipulate or snuff them out.

However, as influence applies to the concept of collective leadership, the power outlined in the leading definition is derived by a singular individual as much as it is derived from inherent truths that already exist within a public. And even individuals in definition 2 or 3 stand the best chance to succeed when they adhere to that principle.

Six Considerations Of Influence.

1. Ideas. If someone proposes a good idea, performs an action worth following, or reflects the feelings of an audience, then the idea (assuming it reaches the right mass) will be propelled forward. Consider how many ideas you have shared over the last few months and how frequently or infrequently you remember the originator of those ideas.

2. Authority. People in positions of authority have a degree of influence. A boss can set expectations. A legislative leader can pass laws. An expert might be given our attention. However, even people in positions of authority rely on the ideas they propose and the outcomes they produce. Allowing them to influence us is voluntary, even when it doesn't feel that way.

3. Persuasion. Novelty can influence us to look, but only in that it attracts our interest. The fictional Old Spice man didn't influence anyone as much as he attracted attention. It was creative, clever, and funny. Did it compel, convincing men to start using specific scented body washes? Maybe. Persuasion is powerful, but it relies on ideas to remain sustainable. (The ads also had a reward mechanism. They made us laugh.)

4. Proximity. People who are closer to us — friends, neighbors, family — can be influential, even if that influence is unseen. Over time, people tend to adopt the behaviors and beliefs of those they associate with on a regular basis, even if that proximity is not geographical. And yet, individuals don't necessarily set the stage as much as the collective of a community.

5. Popularity. Most social media measures record popularity. And while it is true that popularity can propel a message forward, giving it the reach it needs to impact more people, popularity on its own doesn't hold much influence. Consumers snub reviewers all the time to make movies into blockbusters because the collective ideas of many consumers might outweigh their popularity or authority.

6. Reinforcement. There are positive and negative reinforcements that can influence behavior. I've seen it in labs. It is one of the few actions that can trump ideas, good or bad. In a social network setting, for example, a popular person or someone with authority might influence someone to do something for a reward, whether it be affirmation or a prize (reward). As a negative reinforcement, it might be banning them from a site or the threat of diatribe (fear).

But the question I keep asking is does this type of influence come from the individual or the action itself? When I was in college, teaching mice to press a bar for water, it wasn't difficult to figure out that I did not influence the mouse. The design of the experiment and reinforcement did. (Surely, you would laugh at me for presuming I had influence over the mouse.)

What About Reputation?

Reputation fits in rather nicely. Yesterday, I mentioned that people did not march to Washington D.C. for Martin Luther King, Jr. They marched for civil rights and social equality. However, I am sure there were a few in the crowd that would have marched specifically to see him, no matter what the reason.

It seems to me, for those few, his reputation was based on not much more than the collective ideas and actions he had taken prior to that point. But what made him a great leader, much like many great leaders, is that his greatest ideas didn't make him influential. His influence — the ability to refine and reflect what was already in the American psyche — made him great.

Others, unlike King, rise to greatness only to see their ideas do not produce stated outcomes. They quickly wither. And as they wither, some of them begin to rely on other mechanisms of influence, with fear being the most commonly employed.

What's The Point, Anyway?

I don't have to be right, but what I do hope some people get out of these two posts is that real influence doesn't come from the number of followers, retweets, or any other popular online measurement. Real influence comes from something that connects two people — a shared idea (even if one person has refined it).

And while other factors, like those noted, can be influential or sometimes work in tandem, they also tend to be more fragile on their own. If you want to influence people with positive intent, the best course of action is to pay careful attention to what they already think and then refine and reflect their ideas back to them. Just don't make the mistake of believing that makes "you" an influencer. If you think that, there is a different word. It's called narcissism.

Interpreting Influence: Intuition Over Infatuation, Part 1

There are dozens of influence measures on the Web. Most of them are reliant on some sort of algorithm. There is the Fast Company measurement disaster. Klout, which suggests Mashable is more influential than the President. TweetLevel, which even places me above him too.

When it comes to understanding influence, social media has certainly taken the wrong turn in understanding it. The continued attempt to make the unimportant look important is preposterous. Influence isn't about people or clicks or retweets or even trust. It's about ideas, actions, and reflections. And there is a new study that supports this observation.

A Study In Collective Leadership.

The study doesn't come from social media. It comes from education. It took six years to complete. It's 338 pages long.

Commissioned by The Wallace Foundation and conducted by the University of Minnesota and University of Toronto, "Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning" (Hat tip: Genesis) makes this case in a different area of study.

In studying 21 different leadership styles, the researchers discovered that collective leadership by school principals led to improved student performance. Collective leadership is a style that evaluates various stakeholder points of view, and then reflects those ideas back on the people where they came from (sometimes in a refined state that goes beyond what stakeholders imagined).

In other words, people don't follow the "principal" as much as they follow their own "ideas" as refined and retold to them by the principal. Not surprisingly, this is supported by long understood empirical evidence that groups and subgroups yield better results when they have a stake in the direction.

In education, the best performing schools all have principals who observe this leadership style, alone or in concert with other styles. And what this means is that the principal's "influence" has nothing to do with the principal, but the ideas and direction they give back to their audience.

The outcome is better performing students, supported by participating parents and dedicated teachers. And, when you think about it, it might even reveal why private schools tend to perform better than public schools, even though private school teachers are paid less.

What History Teaches Us About Influence.

Apply this thinking to history and you'll find the same conclusions. When leaders first rise to power, it's often on the promise of pushing the ideas of the community to the forefront of the agenda. Unfortunately, however, once many leaders are elected or assume power, they change the paradigm. They trade community ideas in for popularity, authority, or some other agenda.

Good leaders or bad leaders, the story always plays out the same. Stalin rose to power on collective ideas from the community, but then ruled with individual authority that refused to listen anymore. So did Napoleon. So did Hitler. So did many others.

There are some who didn't mistake influence for popularity or authority alone. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, George Washington, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King, Jr. all earned respect and influence because they remained committed to the collective ideas of their community. They were influential because it was never about them.

Ergo, people did not march to Washington D.C. for Martin Luther King, Jr. They marched for civil rights and social equality.

Sure, popularity or novelty can sometimes increase the reach of a message. But, at the end of the day, if the most influential person you know tells you to punch yourself in the head ten times, most people wouldn't do it, with rare exception. What exception? The same ones employed by those dark leaders mentioned — the positive or negative use of authority in the form of fear and consequence or praise and reward.

Flipping Social: Fresh Content Project

When you talk about communication in a social media space, the conversations tend to shift toward social media. Even when they do, I always try to remind fellow professionals, friends, and students that social media topics often have lessons that transcend online communication. Replace the nouns and most posts are about communication.

That's what you'll find in this week's lineup of Fresh Content picks. The context might be mostly social media, but the lessons are embedded in communication. Take Jason Falls's post as a prime example. Before social media bubbles, there were people who would invest half of their day in professional organizations and feel pretty good about their illusionary places of power as industry leaders. There is nothing wrong with that, unless you want clients too.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of July 12

• Get Out Of Your Comfort Zone, Or Else.
Jason Falls offers up a hard reminder why working too much or too long inside the social media bubble can dampen potential. With social media experts constantly talking to themselves and praising each other's ideas, there's still the rest of the world that doesn't know much about social media or communication. He then shares two encounters to illustrate his point. The greater majority don't follow the rules that communicators have erected and some never will.

• A Cupful of Wisdom.
Finding an analogy between social media and the World Cup, Ike Pigott points out the obvious. There is a tendency for social media pros to game their stats but never score a goal. Sure, all those blind follows look good on spreadsheets much like being the shots-on-goal leader. But unless there is a conversation that leads to something tangible, your communication metrics aren't much more than the sound and fury, signifying nothing.

• Social Media is the Servant of Strategy, Not the Master.
Writing a guest post for Jay Baer, Mike Cassidy shares his insights into why he sometimes feels that social media pros place too much emphasis on allowing the cart to drive the horse. He has a point. Embracing social media doesn't have to mean organizational change as much as it changes the organization. The difference might be subtle, but it's an important one. Social media can do an organization good, but not at the expense of a vibrant internal community.

• The Internet Is A Kennel.
Ike Pigott explores minion behavior that sometimes occurs within the organizational structures that develop within social media. The minion's reward for following a chosen one is quite clear. In exchange for social servitude, minions receive attention, transference, respect, and a sense of belonging. And when the chosen one is attacked, the minions band together to assault the so-called attacker, even if there wasn't much of an attack to speak of.

• The Million Dollar Pickle.
Communicators tend to be great storytellers, but that doesn't mean all stories are successful. Sometimes the stories we tell are memorable, but no one remembers the teller. It happens all the time in advertising, with one of my favorite examples being the company that ran a dazzling spot on cat herding. One week later, everyone remembered the commercial. No one remembered the company. Roger Dooley's pickle story is just as powerful.

Trading Pace: How To Increase Productivity Without Being Hasty

Jeremy Sherman, evolutionary epistemologist studying the natural history and practical realities of decision making, has some interesting insights into decision making. And how, as things continually speed up, expediency becomes driven by an emotional aversion of hard work. He's partly right, perhaps with the wrong word.

He really means hasty, with all the spoils of an over-eagerness to act. As Benjamin Franklin once coined, haste makes waste. It's even the theme of a hit song by 10 Years.

How to recognize haste with online communication.

• Speed reading our critics to avoid anxiety or confrontation.
• Focusing on feedback only by those who appear to have amplification.
• Writing short, incomplete posts to flood the net with more of them.
• Reorganizing social network lists in order to only listen to a few voices.
• Using SEO shortcuts to attract people, regardless of content relevance.
• Following folks who are popular as opposed to those with quality insights.
• Tweeting conversations when you had enough thoughts to leave a comment.

And the list goes on, online and off. As Sherman says in an article on what he calls disappointment psychology, trading in a fast set for proper form at the gym is counterproductive. There is no benefit, other than our brain telling us to meet the quota without doing the hard work.

Another great example, especially interesting for anyone who tracks feedback across the Web, comes from a different article by Sherman (and it doesn't sink in to the murky pool of politics like the first one). He suggests people tend to speed read criticism because they are threatened by it. Again, he's partly right.

So what to do about it? Anyone working with marketing and communication on the Web knows that expediency acts as a magnet. Shorter posts that require little thought are the bread and butter of many popular bloggers. The author and readers have an unspoken contract to be marginally beneficial provided there isn't much thought involved. And that's fine, I suppose.

But what about feedback? Are you shortchanging the opportunities that present themselves from voices that aren't amplified by 10,000 readers? I know people who do. Some don't engage critics for fear of giving detractors validity. Some don't like confrontation, preferring to prop everyone up. And others simply try to define which voices are more important. Whatever.

How to avoid haste and increase productivity online.

• Speed read for validity, with a sensitivity to your emotions.
• Read every comment, looking for ideas not personality.
• Write tight, but make sure to fully flesh out the ideas.
• Keep up with friends, but allow other voices into the conversation.
• Never measure for traffic when trying to construct relationships.
• Give everyone a chance to demonstrate they add value.
• If you don't have time now; save and circle back when you do.

Sometimes people ask me how I can be active online and still make deadlines (my time online is miniscule compared to some of my colleagues who have 10-100 interactions more than I do). Still, I have found ways to maximize participation. It has everything to do with developing systems to improve productivity. And most of them work for me, but they might not for you.

An offline solution, for example, is finding time to read books. It took awhile to figure it out, but I have about 15 minutes to half an hour after dinner (usually on a reader). And, I have about the same amount time before bed (thanks to audiobooks).

Online, it's much the same. I can look at 100 or so posts from a reader list of 250 every day, skimming for substance. I flag those that seem to be a cut above and then read them deeper, never mind who wrote them. If I have time, I comment on them, but only if I can add value. (For example, I just cut a paragraph on speed reading critics, meaning to save it for another day).

The takeaway here is simple enough. Look for ways to improve productivity without being hasty. It's the most valuable tip from Sherman, summed and paraphrased: When you shortchange the journey, you may not reach your destination. And even if you do, you won't value it as much.

The same holds true for leaders. Look for ways to make the team more productive, but don't risk quality by forcing production.

Spooking Social Media: Ad Agencies Wake Up

One creative, interactive YouTube campaign and, suddenly, everyone's concerned about advertising agencies moving into social media. Some agencies, like Interpublic's Universal McCann and Publicis Groupe's Vivaki, are already building dedicated divisions.

It could reshape social, with some people concerned about the silos and buy-ups that I mentioned what seems like 100 years ago. Except, back then, I was talking to recruiters who "got" social media well before public relations professionals and communicators. Jim Durbin was listening. He recently outlined how social media stacks up in the job market.

Are There Consequences If Agencies Dominate Social Media?

If David Teicher with AdAge is right, it could lead to more silos (subdivisions) and shortcuts (blended earned/bought media). If Dave Fleet is right, it could lead to short-term spike campaigns (viral) and sub-optimal results (popular channel focus). If Todd Defren is right, then agencies will put campaigns before relationships.

They're all good arguments, but it really depends on the agency. I've worked with enough agencies that have created public relations divisions to know. Some shops integrate communication. Other shops dismiss the division as an "also have" service.

The same thing happened when agencies decided it was in their best interest to buy up Web design companies (and direct mail shops before that). Some shops develop great integrated campaigns. Other shops have an abundance of strong and weak components, skewing to what they know best. Almost all of them place an emphasis on creative over strategy, which might be why Old Spice lost some shine.

What about public relations? I might teach public relations classes, but I don't always understand public relations firms' business thinking. Many jumped on social media because they were threatened by losing some of their retainers to social media specialists and because media seemed to be losing its relevance.

Sure, a few have a passion for the space. But otherwise, it was a knee jerk with the argument that they were better at "relationships." Yet, if that is so, then why all the focus on finding influencers to replace journalists? That is what many of them are trying to do, which basically means they couldn't care less about the individual customer. That is the whole premise behind why some firms use Radian6, isn't it? Find out which commenters have juice?

It's Not Who Owns Social. It's Who Owns Strategic.

Communication strategy, not social media, is what will shape the future of communication. Someone has to stand at the helm of any communication program, and that usually means the marketer (internal) will most likely dictate the team, skewing to the areas of expertise where they feel they need the most help.

And if they need help with strategic direction, you can bank on the idea that whomever is given the strategic lead will decide the rest of the marketing mix — what percentage of the budget goes to marketing, advertising, public relations, or social media.

Next year, when one of my students in public relations asks me what they need to focus on to have a successful career in a communication-related field, I won't tell them to sharpen their social media skills (although they will need to know it). I'll tell them to sharpen their strategic skills because the people outlining the strategy are the people driving everything else.

When you think about it, that really levels the playing field, doesn't it? Every public relations firm, advertising agency, and social media boutique eventually develops at least one or two strategists (and sometimes they are not who the client thinks). If you ask me, strategy dictates whether a campaign will succeed or fail, not the tactic (social media) everyone has their eye on.