Monday, March 26, 2007

Apology Notes: A Rating Sytem

My more than passing interest in public apologies was piqued by a recent posting on John Wagner’s site.  John talked about some comments made by incoming Home Depot CEO Frank Blake.  His public apology about his company’s performance is the latest in a growing list from politicians, sports stars, celebrities and business executives for their bad behavior, inappropriate comments or their company’s poor performance.    

 

Public figures may not have a choice -- especially now that every individual with a phone or video camera can capture every private moment and post them online for the world to see without permission. With new media’s more personal, informal tone, apologies are becoming an indispensable part of anyone’s message points.

 

For the record, there is nothing wrong with apologies.  We all make mistakes that warrant the words, “I am sorry.”   I am talking about public apologies made in a crisis – when the court of public opinion demands some kind of contrition.  In Puritan days, “sinners” would endure public scorn by sitting in the stocks.  Today we apologize and seek rehab. 

 

When actions or words merit a public apology, they have to have weight and meaning.  Actions must match the words.  The apologist must take full responsibility starting with the word “I.”  They must come from the heart, not a team of lawyers and PR folks like me.  "Mistakes were made" doesn't sound like much of an apology

 

So in the spirit of fostering heartfelt apologies, I am suggesting the following rating system to separate sincere apologies from the bogus ones.  So here goes:

  

   
   Red heart – heart felt apology accompanied by meaningful
   change in action beyond what was expected


  
   Clear heart – the apology is sincere, with no game changing
   action beyond what was expected

 

  
   Broken heart – meaningless apology mailed in by a PR
   department or publicist where bad actions continue

Here are a few examples to test out the rating system.

  Home Depot CEO Frank Blake -- He didn’t even make the mistakes. While
  prompted by an MSN article, he listed the steps he is making to correct
  Home Depot’s image and service. 


  JetBlue CEO Dan Neeleman on the travel debacle over Valentines Day -- He
  apologized personally and instituted extensive measures to correct the
  situation and do right by his customers.  Now do it. 


  Senator John Kerry -- A border line broken heart, but I am willing to give him
  the benefit of the doubt.  Slip ups happen, and this one probably cost him
  a Presidential bid in 2008.  

     
  Mel Gibson -- Perhaps an easy target, but he didn’t help his case as he has
  demonstrated a pattern of shameful behavior and insensitive remarks. 
  Substance abuse is a terrible demon to fight, but his actions don’t back 
                   up his apology.     


Thoughts?  Comments?  Do you have any good examples?

 

I realize we all live in glass houses.  Mistakes will be made. So as a preemptive move, I want to apologize in advance if I unintentionally offend someone.  I hope you know I didn’t mean it.

 

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags:

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 10:17:22 | Permanent Link | Comments (2) |

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Crowdsourcing

In Grayson Daughters' comments on my last posting about Podcamp Atlanta, she suggested I expound upon my questions I raised regarding new and old journalism.  I was noting the differences between traditional news coverage from that day and the postings of several bloggers who attended the unconference.  I asked which gave you a better sense of PodCamp Atlanta?  Which would you rather read? Is user generated content less newsworthy?

No surprises that the AP story carried more authority and more useful information for the general reader, but it certainly wasn’t personal.  The writer’s voice was not to be found, unlike the bloggers who shared many a personal feeling – some of which had nothing to do with podcasting.  In general, reporters generally stick to their assignment and are forbidden or strongly discouraged from expressing their own views as it undermines their “objectivity.”

Clearly, bloggers and reporters each have a role to play in recording the news.  Is one better, tough to say, but perhaps we need not be so binary.  The roles of reporters and citizen journalists are beginning to morph, despite the distrust and even disdain that some have for the other.  It’s also getting more common for reporters to blog.  But now, according to story by New York Times reporter Nicolas Carr a new experiment is afoot to broaden the traditional network of reporters and their sources to include readers and their sources.   It’s an example “crowdsourcing,” typically where the work of employees is outsourced to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call over the Internet for little or no money.

To learn more, I went to Assignment Zero.  This site as Nicolas Carr points out is a collaboration between Wired magazine and NewAssignment.Net, which was established by Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University.  As Jay Rosen writes:"The investigation takes place in the open, not behind newsroom walls. Participation is voluntary; contributors are welcomed from across the Web. The people getting, telling and vetting the story are a mix of professional journalists and members of the public -- also known as citizen journalists. This is a model I describe as 'pro-am.'"

I don’t think White House reporters and war correspondents have to worry about losing their jobs – at least not yet – but crowdsourcing can potentially change the news dynamic for the PR profession.

While technology and new media increasingly play an important role in what we do, I still rely on an old fashioned network of reporters to do my job, and I like to believe that they need us; you could say that relationship building is critical to our mutual success.  Nonetheless, reporters are still gate keepers to the public, and we don’t always like their results.  We have all experienced the negative story or no mention at all despite our best efforts. 

With new media, our circle of contacts and gatekeepers has now been expanded, and the results may be even less predictable.  With crowdsourcing, journalism is becoming much more collaborative, more egalitarian. PR professionals will face the challenge of participating more, but perhaps influencing less as a wider group writes the story. I only hope that the sponsoring news organizations will uphold the same standards for accuracy and fairness.

In time, readers may not recognize the newspapers of today.  They will appear quaint or even stilted as a more informal style becomes more accepted.  Most readers under 30 would rather quickly scan through a Wikipedia entry than thumb through a dusty volume of Encyclopedia Britannica. 

If this is successful, crowdsourcing may lessen the need for professional reporters.  But I am not going to throw stones from any glass houses.  For if journalism can embrace “amateurs” to write the news, there is no reason to believe that clients won't seek amateurs to pitch it. 

Let me get back to you. 

Technorati Tags:

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 10:18:40 | Permanent Link | Comments (3) |

Monday, March 19, 2007

PodCamp Atlanta

 
 

This past weekend I attended my first unconference/ blog camp hosted by Podcamp Atlanta and organized by Amber Rhea, Penny Haynes, Rusty Tanton along with several others.

With a great face for radio and a voice suitable for who knows what, I attended because I want to start podcasting.  For work, I usually go to high level (read pricey) conferences where attendees sit in the audience and listen to industry luminaries. This one was free and very interactive. There were numerous break out sessions.  And while I would have preferred to have slept in this weekend, I made my way along with 150 others to Emory University here in Atlanta for discussions on podcasting tools, vlogging, screencasating and audience engagement.  

I was impressed by the diversity, levels of experience and overall enthusiasm of the attendees that came together as part of a growing social media movement. 

It is also interesting to compare the experience from the eyes of an AP reporter and those of bloggers like Josh Hallett, Patrick Gaul, Grayson Daughters and Stephanie Roberts.  I ask you as outsiders, which gives you a better sense of PodCamp Atlanta? Which would you rather read? Is user generated content less newsworthy? Is it time to throw out distinctions?


During Josh’s opening remarks, I took the plunge and asked the audience about something that has been on my mind as of late – how do you keep up with all the latest, greatest technology out there? A year ago, it was enough for me to publish a text only blog. Then came the pictures. The stakes keep rising.  And now I am looking to begin podcasting and vlogging. Where will it end?  How much technology does one need?

During the podcamp, as I was learning about bit and sample rates, audio compression and removing “ahhs” and “uhms” from my answers, I thought of Mike Manuel who raised the same issue on his blog last week. Forget the pitching and message development; we need to be techies or, in my case, know one.

The message from the audience: relax, stop apologizing, and pick your techie battles.

 

While the expectations are getting higher, the tools are getting easier.  One audience member likened online tools to those at a construction site.  You don’t need all the tools; only the tools you need.  Experienced carpenters can always tell the rookies; they are the ones that come to work with the most tools.  The veterans only bring the ones they need. 

 

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags:

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 07:29:48 | Permanent Link | Comments (5) |

Thursday, March 15, 2007

The Youthful Advantage

Wikipedia, the everyman’s and woman’s encyclopedia, apparently fell victim to a 24 year old who claimed to be a tenured professor in Catholic law.

Commenting on the public reaction to the imposter, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales was quoted in the New York Times that it was best for people not to think that the site was “written by a bunch of 12-year-olds.”

For a site that prides itself on its egalitarian approach to knowledge, I was surprised by the comment.  Lying about your credentials is wrong; but given our culture's obsession with youth, he may be dissing the wrong age group.

From entertainment to advertising, it’s a young person’s game – literally.   At 18, LeBron James, the Cleveland Cavalier basketball phenom created quite a stir bypassing college for the NBA.  Quite impressive, until you consider Freddy Adu who was just 14 when he joined Major League Soccer’s DC United or Michelle Wie who made her first appearance in an LPGA major -- at the age of 13.

More proof.  Fox Television recently debuted  Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader? -- where adults attempt to answer questions that any 10 year old should know.  Care to bet on whom the producers are routing for? 

It seems the race doesn’t go to the swiftest.  It goes to the youngest – especially when it comes to technology.  College students form companies in their dorm rooms, and our teenagers are our IT experts.  We turn to them for help with our computers and cell phones. And it's teens and twenty-somethings that seem to have the most time and the inclination to embrace social media.  Given how quickly we replace the latest gadgets and software packages, it is no wonder that longevity is not prized.

Where does that leave adults?  I struggle for an answer.  I ask my friends; they are stumped.  In a society that values information and novelty, adults may be on the short end of the stick. Now if wisdom should ever make a comeback, we may have a chance.

At least in the short run, I can provide encouragement, offer direction and remain mildly amused at the younger generation’s desire to rush headlong into adulthood. 

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags:

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 06:59:23 | Permanent Link | Comments (3) |

Monday, March 12, 2007

Editorial Product Placement

What if I didn’t tell you that I was being paid for what I wrote?  (I am not being paid for what I write.)  Would you feel differently about my posting? What if I disclosed that I was being paid for my opinions?  Would you feel angry? Annoyed? Betrayed? At the very least I am sure you would discount what I had to say. 

Dan Gilmor writes about a LA Times article (you may need to register) reporting on companies like PayPerPost, ReviewMe, Loud Launch and SponsoredReviews.com who pay people to blog (I assume favorably) about products. 

 It is not totally secretive.  On its website, PayPerPost includes:  You must be prepared to disclose your relationship with PayPerPost advertisers and advise your readers of any sponsored content via a disclosure policy or on a per post basis.

So what about this editorial product placement?  Not a new topic, but it still generates heat.  What really bothers us?

We watch movies and don’t feel their integrity is violated by the appearance of actors using Macs or drinking Cokes.  We have no problem with celebrities or professionals endorsing products – even though we know they aren’t using the products they endorse.  [ADDED:  While there is a wall of separation between editorial and advertising,] we read reviews about products in newspapers and magazines knowing that companies who make said products advertise in these publications.

On the record, I don’t support undisclosed shilling.  Also on the record, as a PR professional, I do support flacking.  But the blogging for pay really shouldn’t surprise us.  Traditional boundaries are collapsing.  Advertising, editorial and entertainment are mixed in a giant cauldron called online content. 

Products are a lifestyle.  Ads are entertainment.  We post commercials on YouTube for others to enjoy.   Companies are making movies and starting online channels. Bud.TV, created by Budweiser, for example, offers up original programs (with a focus on sports, humor, etc) created by their marketers to reach their targeted demographic.  We create and participate in company sponsored online communities to share experiences about products and companies.  We let companies sponsor our weddings.  We are invited to share our product experiences with friends, families and colleagues as part of buzz marketing campaigns.   And in the ultimate crossover, we are making our own commercials for advertisers to sell to us. 

All this by the way is widely discussed and even embraced.  Most of us gave up that battle over encroaching commercialization sometime ago and have learned to filter out what we need to.  And the issue is not about the objectivity of blogging.  Blogging is not objective.  Blogging is about opinion and emotion.  Journalists have labeled bloggers “parasitic.” Bloggers bristle at the journalistic tag.  No love lost there.

So where does that leave us?  Do we need rules or code of ethics like Word-of-Mouth-Association has proposed?

 

I believe we are willing to suspend our disbelief and accept this new marketing reality, but we want the option of a disclaimer -- even if we gloss over it or never even read it.  The Federal Trade Commission, by the way, has very strict policies for advertisers about disclosure. 

In the end, I believe the power of blogging and new media marketing comes down to being genuine.  It’s about being honest to yourself and your audience.  You know when you are.  Being genuine.  That is your most powerful currency – spend it unwisely and you lose your most valuable asset – credibility.  Being genuine – what a concept.  I wonder if companies can market that one.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags:

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 10:57:33 | Permanent Link | Comments (4) |

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Playing Hookey Today

I took the day off today -- preparing for my birthday tomorrow.  Paraphrasing the immortal words of General MacArthur, "Let me get back you."

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 16:02:30 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Monday, March 05, 2007

Blogging the Days of Our Lives

USA Today’s columnist Kevin Maney’s entry on blogging sparked some thinking this weekend.  He was riffing on a recent Wall Street Journal article about the growing number of bloggers who are posting very private moments in real time.

The mySpace Effect

Maybe we should call it the mySpace effect – after teenagers who are posting most everything about themselves online with little regard to the adult consequences.  Now it seems adults are getting into the act.  With all this sharing going on, it makes me wonder how this social interaction will impact both our personal and professional lives.

From my perspective, it is amazing to discover how many bloggers feel comfortable throwing discretion and caution to the wind.  Nothing – births, marriages, medical procedures, divorces, cancer, and death – seems to be out of bounds.  I suppose that’s the power and the addiction of new media.  And the more we reveal, the more the outside world is drawn in. 

Of course, the urge to record and share is not new.  Cave paintings of communal hunts were all the rage some 40,000 years ago.  And find me a proud parent reluctant to “share” baby photos with anyone within eyeshot. 

 Life the Movie

What is new is the ability to so easily share intimate details in real time with complete strangers on a global scale.  Apparently, a close network of friends and family is not enough.  Increasingly, more of us want the world to know -- and the world seems to make the time to read -- about our most intimate details.  In a celebrity obsessed culture, where everyone can be famous on YouTube, we are our celebrities in our lives – call it, as author Neal Gabler did -- Life the Movie.

Perhaps sharing the intensely personal is just a capitulation to a world where safeguards on privacy continue to erode – where online commerce sites require personal information, where identity theft is a real threat, where security cameras are everywhere and where private moments can be captured on cell phones and posted on YouTube without your knowledge or permission. 

Or maybe it just feels safer sitting in front of a keyboard removed from the gaze of one’s audience.  In any event, it is changing how we communicate and how we want the outside world to view us. 

 Impact on Business Communications

But what does this mean for business communications?   Are employers ready to embrace this move toward greater openness, informality and community?  It is already happening.

From business casual dress codes to Instant Messaging, what we wear and how we speak reflects this new way of thinking.  Companies are permitting employees to blog and are even (as is the case of my company) showcasing employees’ personal blogs in an effort to share their collective voice with the outside world.

Beyond employees, companies are creating their own social networks where customers can share their personal experiences with each other and the company.  I believe the most successful ones will encourage open, honest discussions that may be critical of the company hosting the site.

The rules of engagement are far from clear, but formality and marketing speak are not the end game.  As personal blogs are demonstrating, the public wants candor.  Increasingly, companies will comply. 

To be truthful, I welcome the changes that new media brings even though discretion continues to be the highest form of valor for me. 

I just hope that we don’t substitute personal blogging for direct human interaction.    I also hope we base our editorial decisions on what is best for us, not our audience.   Sure the attention is nice, but the pursuit of page views and links on Technorati seems a little empty.  And as most celebrities can attest, fame can be fleeting – even in the blogosphere.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags:

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 10:22:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (5) |

Thursday, March 01, 2007

The Media Snacking Generation



Continuing a theme begun on Monday, I wanted to opine about a YouTube link that a friend sent me.  The narrator’s accent alone is enough to make you listen.  For this American, it certainly added a touch of sophistication or at least some gravitas. 

The video is an introduction to MediaSnackers a “website/we blog/project for people interested in how young people consume and create media across the globe.”

Like Professor Wesch’s video, this one explores and embraces the way new media is changing the world.  This homage however touches on the role of technology and how kids are appropriating content and using gadgets and devices.

So is snacking an apt metaphor for the digital age?   Check out Greg Verdino’s Media Snacking: The Poll or Wired’s March cover story – Snack Attack - Manifesto for a New Age.   Certainly when it comes to food, we are a fast food nation.  But is information, news, or entertainment served up in quick, bite size pieces nutritious or even sustainable?  

No question, the combination of fatty foods, television and video games is creating an obesity epidemic in the Western World at the same time we are starving for connections with family and friends. Friends are in fact the new currency as any MySpace devotee will attest.  There is even FamilyTableTime.com, a website devoted to valuing the family table again and reconnecting as a family. 

So much for long meals and great conversation.  This media hungry generation wants its information now and on the go.  And by the way, this generation is not the exclusive domain of young people.  I know plenty of adults who snack on YouTube, Tivo and iPods.

But non-snackers don’t despair.  Snacking on media and technology has its place.  This new way of communicating and accessing information is creating a veritable explosion of content and bringing people around the world together in new and exciting ways.  And besides how many five course meals can one person really eat?   Shorter and quicker are sometimes better. Remember, as Wired Magazine points out, one of the greatest speeches ever was only 272 words and two minutes long – Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. 

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: 

Add to NewPR  Save to del.icio.us

Posted by Dan Greenfield at 10:37:46 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |