Real time, social search options are growing in number and features, leaving people with fewer excuses for not keeping their “ears to the ground” when it comes to staying attuned to buzz that relates to companies, products and services.
My post on Social Fluency today covers this trend, and ways to listen in on a budget.
One of my recent posts focused on the proliferation of data center jargon.
I discussed causes for this, and listed guilty parties such as analysts, corp. marketing departments and ad and PR agencies (yes, I work for a PR agency and freely admit that the profession can be part of the problem).
I thought I would try to rid myself of the habit, and hopefully encourage others to do so too, by listing some of the top buzzwords, and ways in which they irritate.
(For all of the smart alecks who will now go out and try to find places where I and/or my clients have used these words, let me spare you the trouble. I admit that this has happened, and just ask that your bear with me because jargon purging is a process and we will not get there overnight. Like other 12 step programs, the first step is to admit to the problem – which I feel that I have done – and the second is to describe the impact of the problem on others – as I am kind of doing below.
Also, please note that below I am taking issue with the words used, and not the actual technologies).
With these disclaimers out of the way, let me get started:
OK, now that we have skewered some of the simpler phrases, let’s try to string a few together:
So, do you think that this particular phrase is funny? How is it funny? Funny like a clown? Does it amuse you? Well don’t laugh, these words are the same ones that a recent news report used to describe 3PAR, the data storage company that just got bought for $2.3B.
Some people wonder how I find time to contribute to a number of blogs and still get my “day job” done. The answer is, I love to write and I also find it therapeutic. Plus, blogging is pretty much part of my job these days.
There is a feeling of great freedom that comes with being able to write about anything I want. And I find inspiration in some pretty odd places. For example, not long ago I wrote about the juxtaposition of comedy and tech PR, after hearing a great routine on the comedy channel of Slacker Radio.
While running just the other day, and listening to Slacker on my BlackBerry, I heard another great routine from the now deceased George Carlin that reminded me of my work.
Carlin was about as left as you can get, and was radical and anti-business in his views. I found much of his stuff over bearing and preachy, and not laugh out loud funny – amusing at best. But I did love his love of words, and he famously chronicled hypocrisy, and how we torture language.
The bit I heard was about euphemisms, and how an ad-driven culture waters down language and makes it needlessly complex. He starts:
I don’t like words that hide the truth. I don’t like words that conceal
reality. I don’t like euphemisms, or euphemistic language.
And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a
lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the
truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves
from it, and it gets worse with every generation.
He cites as an example how the phrase “shell shock” morphed to battle fatigue, operational exhaustion, and finally post-traumatic stress disorder. In the process, he said, the pain is completely buried under jargon. He advocates simple, honest and direct language.
These words can just as easily apply to tech PR and marketing. Examples of confusing terminology abound in enterprise tech. Why say “enterprise data center” when you can say “computer department?” Why “seamless, end-to-end connectivity” when you can say “works together?” Or “cheap parts” instead of “commercial, off-the-shelf components.”
And who it to blame for the evolution of jargon? Some might say analysts craft jargon this to justify their existence; corporate marketing departments use it, because they are caught up in the culture and want to sound like others; and of course, some might point their fingers at marketing and PR agencies – they coin words to differentiate and use jargon to make clients sound like they are in with the in crowd (or sometimes out of sheer cluelessnes and lack of understanding about what they are pitching).
I blogged on this topic previously, at Fusion PR Forum. I’ll be coming back to it again soon, so please stay tuned and feel free to share your thoughts on it.
By the way, if you too are interested in comedy and PR, you should stop by Newsvetter and check out Andrew Fowler’s toons and observations.
Sometimes crisis management by the books crashes too.
Let's take a moment to review the "facts" of the HP case.
A shrewd move, taken directly from the crisis management and damage control play books, right? So how did something so apparently neat and tidy veer into the highly public mess that it now has become?
The simple answer is that the facts as presented did not pass the sniff test. There were holes in the story – the holes let doubt and speculation creep in and kept the story alive (see Joe Nocera's excellent NY Times column: Real Reason for ousting H.P.'s Chief)
Also, things are never quite so simple when highly visible public companies and their similarly highly visible leaders are involved. Add the drama and politics of board conflict, the Shakespearean dimensions of a turnaround and leader who made it happen, and consider the company's history and you have all the elements of a story that continues to unfold and keep the attention of the media and public at large.
What should they have done differently? That is an excellent question – it seems some of the decisions were made purely for PR reasons.
Hurd (apparently) wanted to quickly settle to keep the story out of the headlines and keep his job, no doubt. The board (in one version of events) wanted to get in front of the harassment story, which would inevitably get out, and set an example.
Yet despite their efforts it has been a PR debacle.
If the board just wanted Hurd out irrespective of any scandal, as the NY Times column said, then the company should have been clear and cut ties and let the chips fall where they might; then, the story might be about second guessing a board and reviewing a track that has been reported for the most part as stellar.
In this case, the stories have been about much more unseemly things like smoke screens and lurid events, and recollections of previous palace intrigue.
Some in the media have called out NY Mayor Bloomberg's support of the idea of having a mosque near Ground Zero – a topic that is the subject of fierce debate as a developer tries to get permission for this. One article I read (or TV news story I heard, I can't recall the specifics of the report) lauded his tolerant attitude and said it was typical of the mayor.
Mayor Bloomberg was clearly pleased that President Obama seemed to agree after Obama finally addressed the issue in a speech at a White House Ramadan dinner several days ago. The President seemed to unambiguously support the idea at the time.
Of course, the very next day Obama back pedaled. And now the GOP seems intent on making the topic a key issue for the campaign season (see the related New York Times story).
The question seems relatively simple, at least on the surface: should not a society that places the highest premiums on free expression and freedom of religion be tolerant in this regard? Isn't advocating against having a mosque near ground zero the same thing as saying that we hold all Muslims accountable for 911 – the religion at large – and not just its most extreme members?
Isn't targeting an entire religion the most extreme and objectionable form of profiling?
And wouldn't acceptance of a mosque at Ground Zero be a shrewd PR move, and a good way to help bridge the span that separates the West and the Islamic religion, and a way to counter the propaganda that we have it in for the entire people?
When described like this, it sounds like it would be a beautiful thing, right?
Embracing the idea allows Bloomberg and Obama play to their archetype roles that embody diversity, acceptance, and offer examples of the faces of a more world-friendly America.
That is why Obama's back pedaling struck a dissonant chord for so many, including myself (at least, first – see the Washington Examiner story).
But wait a second… let's play this out and get real about it.
Say this friendly, happy middle of the road mosque (I am sure it would not be advertised as anything but while the developers lobby for it) does get established near Ground Zero.
Let us further imagine (it does not seem like too much of a stretch) that the mosque starts attracting radical elements, and that its leaders espouse radical, anti-American views. Take the scenario one step further and speculate that some in the congregation openly call for a second 911 (not necessarily the leaders – after all that would be clear sedition, tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater – and would have legal repercussions).
Would it be possible to go backwards at that point and say "freedom of religious expression is fine but this is really too much?" Would there be any legal remedy to what would clearly be such an unacceptable situation? Who would make that call? And at what point does anti-American rhetoric veer from religious expression that is protected under our constitution into something that can't be accepted and must be stopped at any cost?
Some have railed against the press embargo (Michael Arrington, most loudly and notably; see TechCrunch stories Death to the Embargo and The Last Has Fallen; The Embargo is Dead).
The embargo is an agreement between news sources and the media to hold off on publishing a story until a specified date. It is generally tendered to multiple news organizations at once (otherwise, if the agreement is made with just one outlet, the correct term would be "exclusive").
Embargoes help those looking to get attention for news via a coordinated effort that ensures that the news appears on the desired date to maximal effect.
Detractors say that embargoes can compromise editorial integrity because they are essentially serving the interests of the source and hold the outlet captive to certain conditions (journalism purists argue that reporters should report news when they learn about it period, and not go through some negotiation that forges an all too cozy relationship between the outlet and source).
Others, like Arrington, rail against the unfairness of embargoes as sometimes they are broken, say when one news source decides to ignore the embargo and goes out first with the news. In most cases, there are no repercussions to the offender, and the media that followed the rules suffer because they lag with the story.
Practices vary from industry to industry, however in general I think it is safe to say that embargoes remain a fact of life in PR and journalism.
You don't have to look too far to see where they are used. Just consider the movie industry; reviewers generally hold off on their reviews until they see the advance screening just before the movie is released, so that the articles appear when the movie comes out.
They are still done in tech, the area that we work in and Arrington reports on.
The primary challenge from a PR practitioners standpoint – and the other side of the Arrington complaint – is that it is getting harder and harder to keep information under wraps so that the embargo does not get prematurely broken. The increased transparency driven by social media makes it likely that someone in the trusted information chain will publicly blab before the agreed upon date.
One illustration of the power of the embargo (and a beautiful if controversial example of upstart new media cooperating with big guns media) is the deal that Wikileaks cut with major news organizations like the NY Times regarding Afghanistan war intelligence reports. The story somehow managed to stay under wraps until three large publications simultaneously went live, and Wikileaks got much more attention for it (and for Wikileaks in general) as a result.
I had a nice conversation with Lisa Larranaga at Cision earlier this week. It was for an article she was writing for the Cision Navigator blog about the future of social media and implications for the PR profession.
The article is out today. Lisa writes:
Online talk isn’t cheap. More and more people are building an online
presence to share opinions on brands, events and life. The rapid
explosion of online tools and platforms and the constantly evolving
scene make for a fast-paced lifestyle. What can users do to find an
online identity, and is it just a passing trend?
Please visit the link to read the rest – and thanks, Lisa, for taking the time to speak with me for your story.
Brace yourselves for the coming boon in reality reality.
That’s right reality reality (no, you are not seeing double): reality that is unrefined and unmodified by anything virtual, 3D or other fake real stuff.
We will quickly tire of faux social and immersive experiences, as these continue to surround us and invade every aspect of our lives.
This is not to say that we will chuck our computers and social networks and go live off the grid somewhere. Although there may well be a backlash at some point that compels us to spend more quality time and experience real things with actual people in person, what I refer to in this post is higher fidelity on-line experiences that stand out from the current selection of technologies and applications.
Although 3D quickly comes to mind in this context, I am not necessarily talking about 3D technologies.
First off, 3D may be in the movies and coming to our living room TV sets, but it does not yet live on our computer screens, nor is that likely to happen any time soon.
Second, I am reminded of this year’s MTV Movie Awards. The host
Aziz Ansari opened by taking a potshot at 3D, deriding the promise of the technology to make things look “real”. He said:
You know what else looks real? Movies! You know what doesn’t look real Clash of the Titans, Alice in Wonderland and Avatar and – those movies look like video games!
The differences will be high quality experiences – think high definition Web browsers – think platforms like iPad and applications like Flyp, a program that gives online magazines texture and make them come alive – think (perish the thought) actual real life experiences.
Forget YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
Think Reality Reality.
I finally got around to watching the first episode of the new Mad Men season, which aired on Sunday. I
was even more eager than usual to welcome the return of one of my favorite TV shows, as this episode was entitled: “Public Relations.” The title served it justice, as the theme of PR was pretty dominant throughout.
The episode opens in a restaurant, and it quickly becomes clear that Don is being interviewed by a reporter from Ad Age. Draper is true to his character and prefers to remain tight lipped and enigmatic rather than pour on the charm and carefully crafted messages (a little media training, Don?).
Of course, this gets reflected in the piece. When they see the article, Sterling, Cooper, etc. are all chagrined that it is more about the cipher called Don Draper than the stellar work of the agency. Who in PR has not had the experience of a much anticipated article disappointing when it finally appears?
Maybe the team at the new ad shop (those who watch the show will recall that pretty much everyone had jumped ship from Sterling Cooper at the end of last season to start a new agency) is tiring of advertising as it is clear they want to freelance it with PR (with nary a real PR person or agency in sight to support their efforts).
In a sub-plot, the team pulls a PR stunt by staging a fight over hams at a supermarket (part of a campaign for their client, to show a shopping craze there). The stunt gets coverage in the Daily News, although there are consequences of course.
Spoiler alert: Don gets his chance to rectify the Ad Age blunder at the end. Bert Cooper has worked his contacts to get Don interviewed with the Wall Street Journal (one might reasonably wonder why not put someone who actually has a personality, like Roger Sterling, for example, in front of the Journal). Anyway, Don goes on the offensive for this interview, although it is hard to see how this will result in a better story.
The Mad Blog, from MediaPost, does an awesome wrap of the show every week, and I am almost as eager to read these posts and the ensuing comments as watch the actual show. Of the closing scene, it says that a newly slick Don:
came out with guns blazing for his interview with The Wall Street Journal guy. The metamorphosis, signaled by a dynamic combination of sound interspersed with each line of his new verbal self-promotion, was kick-ass, and a delight to watch.
OK, but does effective media relations need to be “slick?”
Fade in
The camera pans across a dark room; an unmade bed comes into view. The scene shifts downward and shows a crumpled figure, a woman, lying on the floor. Dead or sleeping? The dark puddle beside her offers a clue. The camera reveals a smaller figure (a child?) lying nearby, also apparently lifeless. In the corner, sitting in a chair, a bright light from behind illuminates a man… his head is propped up by one hand, the other holds a gun.
This man has just killed his family because his Internet start up has failed and ruined them financially. The company failed because it could not get enough precious bandwidth – because of (dramatic music wells) NET NEUTRALITY.
OK I won't quit my day job, I am not angling for a screenwriting gig. I just thought this vignette could introduce a topic I read about in the NY Times. As the article reports:
The Harmony Institute wants to change your mind — at the movies.
In the last few weeks, a little-noticed nonprofit with big ideas about
the persuasive power of movies and television shows quietly began an
initiative aimed at getting filmmakers and others to use the insights
and techniques of behavioral psychology in delivering social and
political messages through their work.
It cites movies like "China Syndrome" and (much more recently) "The Day After Tomorrow" as examples of movies that helped influence public opinion on important issues (nuclear meltdown and global warming perils, respectively). The article continues:
So far, the group has not done much, except to organize its own thinking
and to issue a recent report, with backing from the Pacific Foundation
and the advocacy group Free Press, called “FTW! Net Neutrality for the
Win: How to Use Entertainment and the Science of Influence to Save Your
Internet.”
The report suggests, mundanely enough, that people can be persuaded to
support net
neutrality if they see story lines about children who fall behind
in school because they lack access to the Web, or about small-business
owners who “risk financial ruin” when they cannot reach customers
because a site is blocked or slowed down.
Mr. Johnson said the institute focused first on net neutrality mostly
because it had interested backers in Free Press and the Pacific
Foundation, though he also finds the issue to be both important and
little understood. But the report also promises a sophisticated attempt
to change attitudes on a range of issues … by using applied behavioral science.
