Monday, January 29, 2007

Wikipedia vs Microsoft

Did Microsoft really suffer a black eye in its controversy with Wikipedia last week?  

I keep thinking about the notion that all PR is good PR.  Yes, it reinforced Microsoft’s bad guy image among the blogger community, but it clearly has the blogosphere buzzing about Microsoft and whether they have a legitimate beef.  More broadly, it shines a light on the conflict of interest policies of Wikipedia.  As discussed on makeyougohmm, it wouldn’t be the first time that Wikipedia got something wrong. 

The whole controversy centered around Microsoft being unhappy about the open source entry on Wikipedia.  Based on Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, they could not post their views directly to the site.  Unable to persuade editors to accept their “corrections,” they offered to pay a third party PR person – one Rick Jelliffe, chief technical officer of Sydney computing company Topologi – to insert the changes for them.   

The proposed payment was supposedly for Jelliffee’s time, not for his endorsement.  Unlike last year's WalMart grassroots campaign, Microsoft was upfront in what it was doing.  From what I have read, Microsoft employee, Doug Mahugh, encouraged Jelliffe in an email to be straight forward about their relationship and reassured him that Microsoft would not approve any of his Wikipedia edits. 

According to the AP, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said "the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a 'white paper'' on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside website and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles' discussion forums.”  A valid approach, but unlikely to draw the interest of many who regularly use Wikipedia. 

Personally, I find Wikipedia incredibly useful even though I am not incredibly happy with EarthLink’s entry.  The service is popular, influential and viewed as a credible source by the millions who use it.  Once more, it is free, easily accessible, and I like the collaborative, emergent spirit that is its guiding principle. 

But the whole controversy puts me in a quandry. I would not have taken the path that Microsoft took.  Payment would not be an option, but I am sympathetic to their situation.  I get paid for what I do.  I am also upfront about whom I represent.  I don’t want my compensation to get in the way of a fair hearing.  As Scott Karp points out on Publishing 2.0, Wikipedia wields a lot of power.  In the mainstream media, companies unhappy with their portrayal in an article would not be denied a forum or an opportunity for inclusion just because they represent a particular point of view.   

Microsoft or any company, for that matter, has a real challenge on their hands when it comes to influencing the debate and defending itself on Wikipedia and in the world of new media.   Where the goal is transparency, openness and honesty, payment of any kind is frowned upon, even if the intent is to be transparent, open and honest about the point of view that is represented.   

In the age of new media, companies will need to work doubly hard to be acknowledged and get their point of viewed accepted.   The good thing is that PR does not have to solely rely on reporters to reach the public.  The challenge/opportunity is that we now have many more citizen journalists to contend with.   Aaron Uhrmacher who works on the EarthLink account at Text 100 suggested an alternative approach.  Perhaps Doug could have begun a conversation on his blog and try to get people to correct the mistakes on their own as vigilant and knowledge XML community members. Or as Michael Arrington suggests:  "It’s clear that the only way to safely clear the record on Wikipedia when you are an involved party is in the discussion area of a page.”  

In the end, no matter what your intentions, making direct changes yourself or paying third parties is not the answer – even if the opinions are unbiased.  On Wikipedia or in the blogoshere, collective intelligence is the currency of power.   That is a hard lesson for companies that cling to traditonal ways of communicating. 

Let me get back to you. 

Technorati Tags:

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

 

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 20:18:36 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Political Reflections: An Interview with Paul Begala

Below is an interview that I recently did with Paul Begala.  Paul was a rising political star when I first met him in Des Moines in early 1988 on the Gephardt for President campaign.  Later that year, we worked together on the Lautenberg for Senate race in New Jersey.  That contest was “nasty, brutish and short.”  But we won.  I was hoping to meet up with Paul for a Lautenberg for Senate reunion in Washington, DC in early January.  Sadly, it was the day after my CEO Garry Betty passed away so I was unable to attend.  

I decided to use the reunion as an opportunity to get Paul’s take on how political communications has changed over the years.  As his custom, Paul quickly responded and graciously agreed to share his insight.

So much has changed since those frigid days in Iowa when we were fighting the good fight.  I was 25 then – new to politics and PR.  I wasn’t exactly sure what spinning was, but quickly got caught up in the excitement of a political campaign.   This week, as the list of presidential candidates grows and the President issues his State of the Union address, I can’t help but get a little nostalgic for a time in my life now far behind me. 

Dan Greenfield: Back when you started were communications and technology so closely bound together as they are today or was technology just a means to an end? 

Paul Begala: When I started, in 1983, the state of the art for me was an IBM correcting Selectric typewriter.  Liquid Paper was new, and cutting edge meant taking a pair of scissors and snipping different paragraphs together.  Faxes were rare and the quickest way to get information from here to there (absent the phone) was FedEx.  [James] Carville and I started out running a US Senate race in Texas.  The communications technology we used in 1984 was not significantly different from that which LBJ had used in 1964:  fly around the state on a small plane (Johnson preferred a helicopter), hold a press event, and have it covered by TV, radio and print.  But in the 20+ years since then, the whole world has changed. 

Greenfield: What was the really cool technology back in 1988? 

Begala:  By 1988 faxes were in fairly common usage.  Of course, they used waxy, thermal paper that curled up.  It was almost like reading a scroll. 

Greenfield: How has the news cycle changed in 20 years and how does it impact the way you work? 

Begala: The news cycle is inestimably faster.  We speak of 24-hour news cycles today.  Every story can be changed, answered, defended, attacked, critiqued -- and all in real time.  There is no more waiting for the nightly news at 6:30 or rushing to the loading dock at dawn to get the bulldog edition of the paper.  Everything is online first -- and our ability to respond rapidly is greatly increased. 

Greenfield: The 1988 Lautenberg race gained a reputation as being particularly nasty.   Does the Internet make things nastier today (e.g. bloggers not journalists breaking news, opinions and emotions over facts and reason)? 

Begala: The internet has made news -- and especially campaign coverage -- much, much better.  In the bad old days, publishers, who are generally conservative -- they voted for Bush over Gore by a 3 to 1 margin -- had the last word.  Now, thanks to the Internet, we the people can have unlimited words after the fat-cats are through with their endorsements.  Has the internet coarsened the discourse?  I don't know - hell, I hosted "Crossfire" for years.  I think the American people are tough.  And what is said about George W. Bush these days is nothing compared to what was said about Thomas Jefferson.  So I don't join the chorus of hand-wringers and whiners who complain about the internet.  It is a democratic phenomenon (with a small "d") -- so it reflects all of us:  the good, the bad and the ugly.  I just believe that most of us are basically good. 

Greenfield: Will politicians creating avatars and hosting meetings in Second Life ever replace good old fashion pressing the flesh? 

Begala:  Replace? No. Augment, yes. Only tiny fraction of Americans will ever meet a presidential candidate in person, so smart politicians are always looking for ways to get close to more people.  Technology allows that better than ever before. 

Greenfield: Has the Internet made your job easier or harder? 

Begala:  Inestimably easier.  Computer-assisted research -- principally Google -- has made my work much easier.  I can fact-check anything in less than one second.  If I'm debating Rev. Jerry Falwell about the separation of church and state, I can find Jefferson's letter to the Danbury, CT Baptists in a nanosecond.  Rather than paraphrasing it from hazy memory, or spending half the day going down the library and looking it up in a reference book, I can quote Jefferson directly and accurately when he called for a wall between church and state.  It's right there, on the Library of Congress's website...In fact, that statistic I cited above about publishers voting 3 to 1 for Bush over Gore in 2000?  I got that from Editor & Publisher online by searching with Google. 

Greenfield:  Does the Internet redefine what it takes to be a successful candidate? 

Begala:  Somewhat, but not much.  We still want someone who is strong and brave and wise and kind.  Someone who cares about people like us, who has an open mind and a loving heart.  Lincoln would excel today just as he did in the 19th Century. 

Greenfield:  How much of a political campaign should be waged with new media vs mainstream media? 

Begala:  A lot.  Bloggers on both the left and right bedevil corporate media, and I couldn't be happier about it (even though, as a mainstream media pundit at CNN, I get my share of grief from both the left and the right).  They keep us honest.  You have to have a thick skin, but why should media be immune from the same sort of scrutiny we give politicians? 

Greenfield: How important are sites like YouTube in getting out the message?  Does it change the ad strategy for political consultants? 

Begala:  YouTube is enormously important because it is free, credible and egalitarian.  The old, canned b.s. from media consultants -- the candidate and his lovely wife Louise sitting on the front porch swing, (under perfect lighting and with two pounds of makeup) just won't work anymore.  YouTube compels authenticity; its viewers have zero tolerance for bullshit.  (As an aside, I once saw an interview in which the founder of YouTube said he got the idea for it after seeing how many people watched Jon Stewart's little hissy-fit on Crossfire online a few years ago.  I am proud to have been the inspiration -- albeit unwittingly -- of such a terrific website.) 

Greenfield:  If 2004 was all about the blog, what will 2008 be about? 

Begala:  If I knew that, I'd be creating it right now. 

Greenfield:  Thanks Paul 

--------------

No question, politics have changed since those days in 1988.  Just as video altered the debate, so has the Internet impacted political discourse.  As Paul points out, bloggers and citizen journalists have shifted the balance of power.  We used to complain that soundbites were getting shorter and shorter -- giving us abbreviated remarks with little context.  An editor or producer decided what was the most important part of a candidate's speech.  Technology has freed us from the restrictions of a thirty minute broadcast.  Now those wanting more information can go to political websites and see speeches and events in their entirety.  Position papers can be accessed in a nanosecond. Ironically the speed of the Internet is giving us more time to digest and reflect.  In the age of the Internet, the race may not be to the swiftest but it certainly gives an edge to the most technologically adept.    

Let me get back to you.   

Technorati Tags:

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 09:50:20 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

Monday, January 22, 2007

Reality Stalking

We are living in a brave new world where ubiquitous marketing and citizen paparazzi armed with low cost camera phones are forming new boundaries around our personal space.  

The Net result is that marketers and consumers simultaneously have never had as much and as little power as they have today.  The consequence is both an extraordinary opportunity and cause for concern.

The latest alert to my marketing border patrol was a recent New York Times article on something that we have suspected for sometime – the accelerating expansion of advertising into every crevice of our daily lives.  From toilet paper dispensers and plastic bins used at airport security to video billboards on the interstate, advertising is everywhere.  Blank space is a now at a premium, and interactivity is the name of the game.

In an effort to engage the consumer, we are seeing more and more instances where consumers can exchange text messages with outdoor advertising and where bluetooth enabled billboards can track your movements and send you information about promotions or the location of nearby stores.

Armed with new technology, marketers are looking for new venues to stalk us at the same time we use technology like Tivo to tune out traditional forms of advertising. 

On the flip side, the public is doing some stalking of its own.  From celebrities and politicians to customer service reps, technology is enabling everyone with a cell phone camera or tape recorder to capture private moments and make them public on blogs, YouTube and mySpace.  Ask actor Michael Richards and former Senator George Allen about the impact of the interactive age. 

 Now I know that stalking is an ugly word, but it proves a useful metaphor.  Just as a stalker crosses boundaries and violates our personal space – both physical and mental – so are advertising and camera phones eroding our personal space and invading our privacy.

What does this all mean for us?  Will reality stalking end?  Can we control its course? 

 It is just a sign of how readily we have embraced consumerism that we don’t stand up and announce we are not going to take it anymore.

Did someone say revolt?  On the contrary we revel in it -- making our own commercials for companies and advertisers and posting our private moments for the world to see.  We are looking for fame and want to share the spotlight with the celebrities we worship.

Technology can serve the forces of good and evil; it comes down to intent.  Helping me find a store location in an unfamiliar neighborhood and alerting me of a promotion at a nearby store is fine.  Exposing the racist remarks of celebrities or candidates is laudable.  On the other hand, posting unauthorized photos of strangers in the health club locker room or selling personal information obtained by this technology to unauthorized third parties is not.  As marketing, advertising and PR experts, we have the responsibility to know the difference.

Let me get back to you.
Technorati Tags:

Save to del.icio.us

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 09:01:28 | Permanent Link | Comments (3) |

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Social Media Club: San Francisco

I attended a meeting of the Social Media Club on Tuesday evening in San Francisco while in town for work.  In addition to checking out the scene,  I was there to discuss how I can help set up a meeting space for the Atlanta chapter that Chris Heuer and Kristie Wells are starting.

Jimmy Wales, the founder of wikia and wikipedia, was on hand and shared choice words about wikipedia’s social media philosophy and the virtues of German and English humor.  I met some fellow bloggers including Tom Foremski,  Christopher Carfi and the peppery Jeremy Pepper.

Yes, I am a believer in social media’s transformative power.  It was gratifying to witness a community of bloggers in one place discussing how to spread the power of social media and transform virtual connections into real life encounters.  

For the uninitiated, the social media club  is about developing a vocabulary for social media and building human interaction.  In this particular session, attendees discussed what are the most powerful possibilities we can imagine for social media in the year ahead and what do we want to do together to make that happen?

I was impressed by the level of knowledge on display because as I talk with friends, colleagues and strangers it is surprising to discover how few people use or consider tapping into social media’s rich vein.  Even professionals 10 to 15 years my junior confess no more than a passing interest in applying it to their work experience.  They acknowledge its growing importance but fail to recognize its potential for them.  They can’t seem to reach escape velocity  and overcome inertia.

 For me, web 2.0 is not a lifestyle choice. Cognitively, I am an Internet immigrant, having embraced the Internet at the ripe old age of 30.  I don’t do social media for fun.  My social media forays are intended to enhance EarthLink’s communications efforts and foster my professional development.  But candidly, I do find mastering social media an intellectual challenge as I reorient toward its new way of communicating.

It is hard to make the switch. My generation doesn’t have the time or inclination to inhabit this space. Unlike teens and twenty-somethings, my peers and I are not flocking to mySpace.  Without a community of friends, it can get pretty lonely out there. 

 I applaud the efforts of the social media club as they try to build a network and achieve a public good and private profit from social media.

The challenge we all face is moving the discussion from like minded early adopters into the mainstream.  As Jeremy Pepper asked, how do you make it play in Middle America?  Or more pointedly, what role can we play to make that happen?

Maybe it is a matter of younger folks putting pressure on older folks as they enter the job market. Perhaps we need to make it easier to use the technology.  Or based on personal experience, perhaps we need to be “paying it forward -- ”  based on a movie of the same name.  Back in the spring of last year, Steve Astle, who was then at my agency of record, suggested I blog.  It had never occurred to me, but suddenly something kicked into place.  It was transformative.

And now I have taken on Steve’s role, becoming blogging’s cheerleader and encouraging others to do the same.  Whether it’s through employee orientations at work or discussions over lunch with friends looking to advance their career (but unsure how), I put forth blogging’s possibility.  I offer up examples and ways to differentiate themselves.   Sometimes, but not always, you see the same moment of recognition that I experienced with Steve.  Eyes widen, and mouths open – another blogger is born.  It’s possible to start the wave, but perhaps it has to be one individual at a time. 

 Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags:

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 01:33:10 | Permanent Link | Comments (2) |

Monday, January 15, 2007

Speed Blogging Profile

I received some positive feedback from some of you about speed blogging, and I would like to continue the conversation.  So here is an example of a speed blogging profile for your blog if you chose to participate. 

A posting would describe who you are, why you blog and what you blog about.  I would keep the posting short but longer than your "About" page.  The goal is to create an "elevator pitch."  Speed blogging is designed to help you network, facilitate business relationships, and advance your career and understanding of your business.  After reading your speed blogging profile, would someone want to meet you, collaborate with you, do business with you, subscribe to your RSS feed, or comment on your profile?

Speed Blogging Profile: Dan Greenfield

WHO:  I have been blogging since May of last year.  My day job is vice president of corporate communications at EarthLink.  When I am not meeting my company's mainstream media needs, I am working to introduce blogging to employees, helping develop our online marketing strategy and working to promote greater transparency when communicating with customers.  Before I was bitten by the digial bug, I was involved in documentaries, political campaigns, and public policy in my early career.   

WHAT:  I am interested in the intersection of PR and social media.  Sometimes my postings reflect what is happening at EarthLink, though my blog is personal and does not reflect the views of the company. [And yes, I did help write my company's disclaimer policy.]  Other times I examine the changing nature of the PR profession or provide thoughts on how we can all benefit from social media.  I try to write two pieces a week.  Blogging much more at this time would be overwhelming.

WHY:  You only understand blogging by doing it.  It is critical to what I do and my professional development.  While I would be lying if I said that I didn't take an occasional interest in my Technorati ranking, my real passion is to understand this platform and how I can impact its future development.  At work and with anyone that will listen, my conversations will invariably lead to a discussion on how we can incorporate social media in our lives and jobs.  I also plan to experiment with audio, video and interesting new applets that will invariably come along to keep current with the changing social media landscape. 

 That was a long elevator ride, but you get the point.  Please feel free to give me your feedback on how we can refine the process.

Remember to include the speedblogging tag.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags:

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 00:49:53 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Speed Blogging: A Networking Tool

First there was speed dating where a group of singles got together to play a kind of kind of round robin.  The idea is to chat one-on-one for a set number of minutes with as many other individuals as you can.  Hopefully a love connection can result from the sheer volume of individuals you encounter in an evening’s time.  

And now, as the New York Times reported on Monday, business groups are getting in the act with speed networking.  The goal is not marriage, but an opportunity for professionals to meet, exchange cards, and identify jobs or business prospects.  

In the same spirit, perhaps it is time to engage in “speed blogging.”   I am not talking about how quickly or how often you can post an entry.  Rather, it goes back to the “5 things you don’t know about me” meme that was circulating on the Internet last month.  Speed blogging attracts me because it brings together bloggers in a somewhat structured, but free flowing way to share ideas and network.  

To me, speed blogging is viral communications.  It broadens the conversation by making connections, facilitating introductions and possibly directing you to lesser known and newer blogs that were completely off your radar screen.  And let’s not forget exposure for your blog.

Like speed dating and speed networking, speed blogging is perfect for an economy where attention is currency and impressions are formed in a Malcolm Gladwell Blink of an eye.    

So yesterday for perspective, I reached out to Social Media Club co-founder Chris Heuer to talk to him about what he was doing with BrainJams  and get a sense of what others have done and how we might start a speed blogging event.  He mentioned that we could learn a little bit from looking at Dave Winer’s idea for HyperCamp in addition to learning from the work he did with BrainJams  and the in person “speed networking” he has done with “12 Five Minute Meetings." Chris likes calling this ‘swarming’ ala Howard Rheingold’s Smart Mobs.

How would speed blogging work? 

 One possible way to start is by picking 10 bloggers who then each select one other blogger to participate.  So you have 20 bloggers in total. 

Each blogger should post a speed blog entry on his or her blog site within a specified period of time (say 3 days). These postings would describe who they are, why they blog and what they blog about. This posting should be tagged with “SpeedBlogging”

Then everyone has one hour of their choosing per session to visit at least 6 participating blogs. To network, each participant can comment directly on the posting, create a posting on his or her blog linking to original post, or create a posting tracking back to the original post. You can use this opportunity to share your impressions of the blog, offer links to other blogs or individuals that may be of interest or anything you want.

If you create a posting, make sure it is also tagged with “SpeedBlogging.”

For subsequent rounds, these 20 blogs would still be available for review by any new participants.

Finding participating bloggers can be done through delicious bookmarks and/or technorati tags. 

What do you think?  How might we best socially engineer an experiment like this to try it out?  Are you willing to participate?  

Now I would hardly suggest these sessions are the web 2.0 equivalent of My Dinner with Andre, a movie completely devoted to two friends musing, opining and reminiscing over one dinner, but it does suggest a yearning for connections that is often lacking as we sit hunched over our key board sharing our thoughts with the world.  

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags:
Posted by Dan Greenfield at 08:16:09 | Permanent Link | Comments (4) |

Monday, January 08, 2007

Morse Code and Earthquakes

I had intended to publish this entry last week, but I delayed posting it until today as we at EarthLink were absorbed in the passing of our CEO Garry Betty.  And while it is not the happiest of times for me, I would like to wish everyone a Happy New Year.

 

Last month, two items caught my eye that I think deserve a comment.  It is customary in the new year to put aside the old and embrace the new.  In the world of technology, this mindset is particularly prevalent with our inexorable drive toward new devices, new applications and new media.

 

Item One: In what may be the final blow to 19th century technology advocates, the FCC will no longer require that amateurs master Morse code as a condition for a radio license.   Item Two:  And on the other side of the world, an earthquake on December 26 off the coast of Taiwan caused massive outages and disrupted telecommunications across Asia.  Millions of customers were stranded without their usual Internet fix.

 

Now I am not planning to use dashes and dots anytime soon.  But like black and white televisions, VHS and dial-up, the tech savvy of us have very little use for "antiquated" technologies even when they are still perfectly viable.  There is always something better.

In the Internet age, Morse code is no longer relevant even with its long record of success.  Famously in 1912, 1,500 passengers may not have perished in the Atlantic’s icy waters had radio operators been on duty on a nearby ship to receive a distress signal from the Titanic.  Morse code transmissions worked perfectly well but operators aboard the California – a mere 20 miles away – did not get the SOS until the following morning when they returned to duty.  The problem was not the technology; it was human failure.

So while Morse code withstood the immoveable object – an iceberg – today’s new and improved Internet was vulnerable to the unstoppable force of an earthquake that would not have stopped Morse code.  Living in today’s digital world we sometimes forget how dependent we are on technology and how fragile that world really is; last month's earthquake demonstrates just how vulnerable we really are. 

As we enter the new year, it is worth reflecting on how willingly we embrace technological change and how inextricably we tie our lives to a twisted pair and a coaxial cable.

 

Let me get back to you.


.-.. . -  -- .  --. . -  -... .- -.-. -.-  - ---  -.-- --- -

Technorati Tags:

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 07:35:34 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Garry Betty: A Remembrance


     Dan Greenfield, Garry Betty and Mike Gallentine

We lost a leader on Tuesday.  EarthLink CEO Garry Betty succumbed to cancer before his time.  Given his aptitude for figures, let’s hope the angels around the table can back up their numbers.

I knew Garry for more than six years.  When it came to politics, religion and geography we couldn’t have been more different.  We disagreed on candidates and baseball, but only this year did my Mets take the division from his vaunted Braves. One thing about Garry -- he hated to lose.

I will miss those debates as I learned a lot from Garry – especially sitting across the desk doing interviews with the media.  Whether it was a seasoned journalist or new reporter who knew nothing about our business, Garry displayed consistent charm and patience.  He was the consummate Southern gentleman.  On occasions that the headline didn't match our expectations, I felt bad. I felt I had let him down.  

Over the years, my respect for Garry the Internet business leader and Garry the man only grew.  He was generous with his time and his good fortune.  Working on corporate profiles, I learned about his unadorned beginnings, his work ethic and his ambition.  He was around to witness the birth of the PC and the dawn of the ISP.  Garry did not showboat. Yet he made his mark; you felt his presence. 

Today was a particularly poignant day for me.  Reporters calling…fact checking...pulling together dates and figures from Garry’s record of accomplishments to summarize one man's life in a few hundred words and several inches of column space.  They needed confirmation of key milestones and metrics from his past.  In days gone by, I would zip Garry an email asking for help. Shortly thereafter, an answer would come back.   But not this time.  He was not there to tell his story.  It will now be up to us to do that for him. 

 Let me get back to you.

Technorati tags:

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 07:26:08 | Permanent Link | Comments (2) |