Flack's Revenge

So PR is Extinct, Eh?

On the Web 2.0 Journal, Fuat Kircaali blogs:

...roughly 70% of today's PR firms with their traditional public relations and communications business structures will not survive the fast-approaching social media avalanche.

He further states that

ninety per cent of today's PR firms are still in business

in essence, because SEC rules still compel publicly held companies to release material information via press release or telephone conference call; but this will in all likelihood be changing shortly.

I, too, have blogged about the SEC's consideration of corporate websites (and by extension blogs) as acceptable means for publicly disclosing material information.

Within the same forum - indeed almost in the same breath - Mr. Kircaali does some chest beating for Ulitzer, Sys-Con's content syndication platform, and promotes it as tool that can lead forward thinking agencies and their clients to salvation.

I am in the tech PR business and would never use my forum to deride Sys-Con, an esteemed technology publishing brand.  Certainly Mr. Kircaali doesn't need me to point out that many have talked about the extinction of the tech trades.  I am sure he does not appreciate that kind of sentiment, and hopefully does not take lightly blaring headlines that herald the demise of an entire industry.

If you can get past the melodramatic headline  I believe he does make some good points.  For example, he says:

Tomorrow's (and I mean tomorrow, not the next decade) marketing game will be played on professional corporate blogging platforms. The companies with the largest number of well-read and respected corporate bloggers will win the marketing and propaganda games. Larger companies will need larger armies of corporate bloggers. The new job description of "professional corporate blogger" will be a very popular one.

If you think the PR industry is just about regurgitating news for public disclosure purposes then perhaps you will agree with Mr. Kircaali; if you understand that PR can be so much more, then you will strenuously disagree.

Twitter as Tech PR Market Research Aid

Last week I wrote about the growing number of ways in which we are using Twitter to support PR programs.  I cited an example of Twitter as another channel to use and monitor during media interviews (see Fact Checking the Fact Checkers).

I thought I'd also share an example of how Twitter helped us in our efforts to get the info we need for market search and product positioning.

In this case, the client was struggling to find the appropriate "bucket" for their technology - software that offers interesting innovations within the broad category of Business Intelligence.

Of course, finding the right sub category is important for many reasons (I have blogged about the topic quite a bit).   You want to be accurate in how you describe your technology and align outreach efforts with the right publications, beats, bloggers and analyst practice areas.  Finding the right category - or defining a new one if necessary - is one of the first steps in formulating product positioning, which in turn sets the stage for how you tell your story.

You want to be strategic as well; all things being equal, it is much better to be in a category that is seen to be interesting and that has a pulse.

After lots of soul searching (and some investigation) the client suggested DSS, Decision Support Systems (Wikipedia definition).  They asked for our opinion, which we offered - both the good and the bad - in terms of our perceptions about this label and its relevance.

We then took it a step further and augmented the secondary research we had done with primary research conducted via Twitter.   In short, we put a query out over Twitter, to get a better understanding of how the industry and influencers view the term and state of the DSS space.

I should mention that we have been integrating Twitter into the PR efforts for this account and most others at Fusion PR.   We follow key influencers in the BI space, and a number in turn follow members of the account team.   Our hope was that at least one of the influencers would take us up on the request and provide some helpful feedback. 

One influencer did in fact reply, and a number of his followers chimed in too (he has thousands of followers, presumably, for the most part, people who follow or are in the BI space).   The replies confirmed the PR team's thoughts on the space and provided additional validation.

So, we got some quick feedback from a key influencer and others.  Equally important, we got key insight into how a pitch related to this area of technology might be received.

Could we have just called this influencer?  Sure, and maybe we would have eventually connected, and maybe he would have had the time to hear us out and answer our questions.  Ditto for email.

Twitter proved to be a fairly frictionless way for us to get quick feedback from an important influencer and also tap into a sounding board of BI industry participants.

Twitter as Interview Aid: Fact Checking the Fact Checker

The more our teams use Twitter in support of PR programs, the more uses we find for it.

I thought I'd share two recent examples: one in which Twitter helped during an interview, and a second (for tomorrow's post) that demonstrates Twitter's value for market research.

At Fusion PR we have taken to following influencers (traditional media and analysts as well as key bloggers) on Twitter.  The account person for one of our clients scheduled one such influencer, a long time BI and data management reporter, for an interview with the client.

Since we were following the journalist, we could tune into her Tweets - which we did in real time, during the interview.

We were surprised to see the journalist issue questions via Twitter during the briefing.  In general, she was trying to get a better understanding of the client's technology.  Of course she could have (and did) ask the client questions directly.  But Twitter gave her another way to fill in gaps and research the client further, in real time, by querying industry folks (who, it can be assumed, comprise her followers) to get additional information - to fact check.

The cool thing was that Twitter gave the PR team a way to fact check the journalist's fact checking.  We could do this directly, by seeing the questions she issued on Twitter and her replies to those who answered.  We could click on the Twitter names of the responders to see what they said.  If we wanted to, we could have taken it a step further and used Twitter search to see all responders - not just those she replied to.

I should note that there was nothing sensitive being discussed.  It was a background interview, not about anything that was secretive.  There was nothing sneaky going on from either side; it was all very above board and very transparent.  The journalist knows we follow her and in fact follows the person on the account - the person who related the story to me.   The journalist was simply trying to get smarter - and we were trying to make sure she had accurate information.

By monitoring the interview on Twitter we were able to spot and correct some misinformation that someone had Tweeted, and the journalist and client were appreciative.

Charting Content and Buzz in Real Time, Visually

As if things weren't already fast-paced and noisy enough, the rise of Twitter and similar tools over  the past year or so has increased the pace of and the volume of online chatter.

I have blogged about the growth of search tools that index the social Web. 

Even though these may do a better job than Google of taking a deep dive into discussion threads, it is still easy to get lost in a sea of search engine results .

You may be interested to know there are tools that take a visual approach to help you make sense of the online content and buzz (or just entertain).   They range from utilities in fee-based platforms like Cision and Radian6 to free, Web-based services.   Some show rising buzz topics dancing across (or down) the screen through animation, and others generate tag and word clouds.

It is a fascinating topic, and it can be great fun to play around with some of these.

The following is a quick tour of the sites that I have run across.  I will be exploring this topic further in upcoming posts.

Digg Labs

Digg Labs offers a variety of graphical applications that show buzz happening in real time;   as people Digg stories and the stories rise in ranking, you can see the trajectories unfold.

Gleaning Insight from Clouds

Word clouds provide a great way to get a quick take of which words and phrases stand out amidst a sea of text.   They can help you understand the focus of a blog, or which words are used most often in association with a brand.

Wordle

Wordle creates word art for your blog, website or presentations.  It accepts text and generates a corresponding word cloud, which you can save as a graphics file.  I have found that is is a great tool for analyzing word usage - you can enter article text, for example, and see which words jump out in association with a topic or brand.

Many Eyes

I first read about this application (developed by IBM Watson research lab) last year in the NY Times.  It lets users upload tabular or textual data and generates different types of visualizations.  Many Eyes looks like it has great promise but can be a bit intimidating for the novice.  This tutorial from the eContent blog should help.

WP Cumulus

WP-Cumulus is a tag cloud generator plugin for WordPress blogs.  I first saw it on Steve Kayser's blog and was captivated.  The utility generates a shimmering, moving word cloud - as you hover your mouse cursor over it, the cloud rotates.

Twitter "Mood Ring"

Twistori  (see image, above) tracks and streams those tweets that indicate feelings and emotions such as love, hate, think, believe, feel and wish.  Highlight the feeling and you will see associated Tweets rise up your screen

Is this Jiminy Glick's Second Act?

I finally caught Fox commentator Glenn Beck on TV.

I had wanted to see him for a while now due to the buzz he has been getting.  The Left portrays Glenn Beck as some kind of bombastic, nutty Howard Beale type (of the 70's  movie Network - the one who raged: "We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!").

It all sounds very entertaining. 

There was really nothing that outrageous that he said or did in the short time I watched.  However, I could not help but think of the Martin Short talk show host alter ego Jiminy Glick as I watched (OK, Jiminy has a few more chins).

They both have the same look, and the voice that threatens to break as they become exercised.

So tell me, have you ever seen the two together at the same place and time?  Are they indeed not one and the same?  Is this Jiminy Glick's second act?

ZDNet Survey (part 2) on Social PR is Out

I just thought readers of this blog ( typically tech PR and social media types) should know  that part II of the ZDNet survey on the state of PR and social media is now out.

The second part in the series is based on a survey of PR agencies (part I surveyed the client side).

Here are some findings that caught my attention:

The blogger, Jennifer Leggio, found a disconnect between agencies' perceptions about how well they  address general business issues and the social media program needs of clients and what the surveyed clients reported.

The post referenced a link to a recent NY Times article on a slowdown in the "spin industry".

On the state of the tech PR business (it can be assumed that mostly tech focused shops participated in a ZDNet survey), the post reported:

...more than 42 percent say their client load has stayed the same and 38.9 percent say they have gained more clients during the downturn.

The following excerpt is interesting and mirrors what we have been seeing:

The last survey showed that clients are hungry for social programs that specifically map back to their business objectives. Many are relying on their agencies to come up with creative ideas and to educate them on how social media can impact their businesses. It’s not just about PR or media relations anymore, either. Traditional PR people are being forced to - as they should be - learn more about lead generation and SEO in order to fully support their clients. 

Ironically, some of the agencies that responded seemed to think that they were doing a good job with social media simply because they use Twitter.

Socially Media-Savvy CEO

I am going to be speaking at the Conference Board Corporate Communications and Web 2.0 event this Friday in NY.   I'll be co-presenting with Jay Krall of Cision.

One of the points I will make - and this should come as no surprise to readers of this blog - is that business leaders need to seriously consider how they and their organizations use social media to communicate.

It is not just a matter of technology but also of embracing a new style of  communications.  Using social media tools like blogging and Twitter to communicate with the world in an open and honest way puts more of a human face on the organization.  Of course social media presents risks as well, but you don't mitigate these by looking the other way. 

I am not saying "jump on board" because I am a social media zealot.  Improved communications that result will increasingly prove to be good business.

I was thinking about this while catching up with the Sunday NY Times on the train this morning.  The following article jumped out at me:  The CEO, Now Playing on YouTube.

It ran in the business section and featured an interview with James Schiro, C.E.O. of Zurich Financial Services.  Please see below for an excerpt.

[Schiro]: 

You have to be comfortable using new tools of communication even though you’re not comfortable with it.

Q. Like what?

A. Young people today look at Facebook. They look at YouTube. They are in a totally different communication realm. I still read newspapers. But they are getting their information off the Internet. I went to our communications people and I said, “I’m going to use YouTube, and we’re going to set up a blog.”

We usually have a midyear meeting where we bring 400 people in. I said: “Look, we’re going to cancel that for cost reasons, but we’re not going to cancel the communication with people. I’m going to go on the road every week to visit the locations. When I come out of these meetings or have a message, we’re going to put something on YouTube, and tell people, it’s on YouTube. You can go here.” So there was a lot of pushback in the organization on this.

Q. Proprietary reasons?

A. Proprietary — anybody can see it. But when I give an interview to the newspaper, anybody can read it. Or if I give a speech at an investor conference, anybody can usually get it. So if I’m not willing to tell our people something that I’m not ashamed of anybody seeing, why am I saying it? So I have no problem with it being on YouTube, articulating the strategy, telling them where we’re going, what I want them to do, and what I’m hearing, good and bad, in the organization. The response has been fantastic in a short period of time.

Q. How long are the videos?

A. About a minute to a minute and a half. I get good feedback from my children, who tell me: “Stand closer to the camera. Make sure you are smiling the whole time.”

Q. Are you on Facebook?

A. I don’t know if I’m ready for prime time Facebook yet.

Q. Where did you get the idea for doing YouTube videos?

A. I just said, “Look, in this environment, it’s a cheap way of communicating.” It’s free access. If I am just careful in what I say, maybe somebody will see it and want to join Zurich.

Read This before Shortening that next URL

With the growth of Twitter more PR people are using URL shorteners, but what does this mean for the future of your links and are there SEO implications?

To find our more please read my article The Skinny on URL Shorteners that is in Cision Navigator today.

Tales from the Forefront of Attention Science

Colored lights can hypnotize... sparkle someone else's eyes

Those words are from the lyrics of American Woman, a song by the 70's band Guess Who.   They came to  mind as I read the article: Ear Plugs to Lasers: The Science of Concentration, which was in yesterday's NY Times Science Times.

It talks about Rapt, a book by Winifred Gallagher that is about the science of attention.   The book relates cutting edge research in neuroscience at MIT involving macaque monkeys, gamma waves, flashing lights and something called optogenetics.

The experiments attempted to find out what happens inside the brains of monkeys that are watching TV.  The monkeys had been trained to pay close attention and look for flashing patterns.

The scientists noted that unexpected stimuli like bright lights can distract the monkeys - but that the attention could be won back if the animal's neurons are coaxed to fire in unison, sending so-called gamma waves to the visual circuitry and signaling the brain to refocus.

According to the article:

Now that neuroscientists have identified the brain’s synchronizing mechanism, they’ve started work on therapies to strengthen attention. In the current issue of Nature, researchers from M.I.T., Penn and Stanford report that they directly induced gamma waves in mice by shining pulses of laser light through tiny optical fibers onto genetically engineered neurons. In the current issue of Neuron, Dr. Desimone and colleagues report progress in using this “optogenetic” technique in monkeys.

Ultimately, Dr. Desimone said, it may be possible to improve your attention by using pulses of light to directly synchronize your neurons...

On a slightly more practical note, the article reports that people who meditate can more easily achieve this type of neural synchronization and hence focus attention without distraction.

The article also addressed the "myth" of multitasking:

“Multitasking is a myth,” Ms. Gallagher said. “You cannot do two things at once. The mechanism of attention is selection: it’s either this or it’s that.” She points to calculations that the typical person’s brain can process 173 billion bits of information over the course of a lifetime.

(Ironically, I was reading this while plugged into Slacker Radio, listening to Alternative Hard Rock on my Blackberry, typing this post on my laptop and at the same trying to think of ideas for a proposal).

Could strobe lights accompany your next pitch?

What's so Funny About Peace, Love and Global Warming?

Sure, we all do it.  We all spin.  Everyone chooses the words they feel will best help them in a given situation.  Yet, get caught in the act of doing this in a calculated way and alarm bells go off; it is big news.

That is exactly what happened to ecoAmerica, as reported in the NY Times over the weekend.

The group is attempting to help frame and shape the debate about global warming and environmental issues.  It has conducted polls and research that reveal some unfortunate associations with the existing words used in the debate.  According to the article:

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

ecoAmerica concludes that the language needs to change; this will in turn impact how people think and talk about global warming.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

All well and good, except the findings were accidentally leaked to the media.  Hence the article and this blog post.

You get the usual hand wringing in response.  Later on the article, an opposing view was presented (the reporter has miraculously produced a pedigreed "expert on environmental communications"):

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing... “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”

I am not sure I agree.  Words do have an impact on perceptions.

I do believe that in this case it is too late; the global warming train has left the station.  For better or worse people have formed their impressions and it would take more than just a campaign and clever  worsdsmithing to change them.