High-Tech PR Blog >> Beyond the Hype

You've got less mail

A new SEC rule taking effect January 1, 2008 will likely impact the amount of mail you receive. As we are moving into proxy season, you are no doubt starting to receive notifications about annual meetings, proxy materials and annual report information in the mail. If, like me, you'd rather get this information and respond to it electronically, you will increasingly have that option.

In a new rule called shareholder choice regarding proxy materials, the SEC is mandating that shareholders should be given the option as to how they'd like receive proxy materials -- as they've always been provided, in hardcopy, or now, electronically, via a posting on the Internet. Some companies are required to comply with this new rule as early as this current proxy season, others have until the 2009 season.

NIRI, a national association for IR professionals and corporate offices to which a couple of us at LP&P belong (and get a lot of value from!), just released results from a survey that took a look at who is complying in the near term and what benefits and challenges are expected. Of the 382 NIRI members that responded, a little more than 50% will be adopting the new notice and access rules in 2008. Potential cost savings from significantly reduced print runs and mailing charges was a driver for many. At the same time, there was some concern that adopting the new rules could have an impact on the customer service and satisfaction, increase errors due to inexperience with a new process or create challenges in maintaining vote return levels, among a few other things. NIRI provided a great summary of the results for its members and I would encourage you to contact NIRI if you'd like to see the results, as I'm not at liberty to share them here.

It will be a year of continued change for the IR and shareholder communities, driven by increased use of technology. Some will embrace the change while others will sit back and see how it goes, acting later. I personally will be thrilled to get proxy and other related materials via the Internet, and cease receiving those page-sized black plastic enclosures that "require immediate attention" in the mail. 

Is this decision of whether to implement the new notice and access rules something you are dealing with? If so, do the reasons noted resonate with you? 

Can you Digg it? Maybe not.

Nice move by Digg, in my humble opinion.  I was reading the report on Webware this morning that Digg launched a new algorithm during the past week to keep people from scamming the system.

This new algorithm enables Digg to effectively " punish" people who vote in groups to promote certain stories. The result is that stories that ultimately reach the homepage will need to be "dugg" by a diverse group of people.

"Digg's promotional algorithm ensures that the most popular content dugg by a diverse, unique group of diggers reaches the home page," Digg founder Kevin Rose said in a blog. "Our goal is to give each person a fair chance of getting their submission promoted to the home page."

He goes on to say that as a result of the new algorithm, it will not be uncommon to see stories with more than 100 diggs still in the "upcoming" section. As I am writing this, there are three stories in the upcoming section with more than 150 diggs, the most popular standing at 155. . .

This update will certainly give the little guys a better chance at getting a story on the front page, but it may anger some of the longtime users.

I have often wondered if someone could artificially influence the system by getting a large group of people to all "digg" an announcement from a particular company.  Self-policing is tough to manage in something as wild and wooly as the world wide web, so Digg's approach to this is admirable, in my view.  Here's hoping the hue and cry from the "power Diggers" does not nullify this attempt at creating some equity. 

Are you Faced or Linked?

Picture of boxers from Nantucket Inquirer & Mirror: photo by Jim Powers   

How often are you asked this question -- Do you use Facebook or LinkedIn? I get it a lot. Currently I use both. Right now I have more connections than friends, which is probably true of most people my age. But I have to say that I am now spending more time on Facebook and I think that this trend will continue. To me, Facebook is now setting the agenda for social networking. Sure they've had some recent missteps with their Beacon strategy, but their approach to make it a platform for applications is paying off. For example, this week InformationWeek introduced their first two Facebook apps which provide RSS based blog and news updates. As a PR person, this kind of development matters because it continues to signal the power that social networking now possess due to its ability to not only garner users, but to offer focused services that appeal to specific communities. LinkedIn is now playing catch up and adding functionality similar to Facebook. Certainly, LinkedIn's positioning as a social network for business professionals has differentiated it in the past, but how long will this hold? 

Today I attended a Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council event on social media. The featured speaker was Paul Gillin, former technology editor, current blogger and author of The New Influencers. Paul provided us with many insights and great examples of social media. One comment he made about social networks rang true for me. People will probably participate in several social networks. One of the major ones, like Facebook or MySpace, and then several others based on their personal or professional interests.  Where does this leave LinkedIn? Are they stuck in no mans land? Will their business contact network be specialized enough? What about the new generation entering the workforce? Facebook appears to have a lock on them, able to leverage that built in network affinity that people have for their college or university. Can Facebook leverage that advantage and parlay it into long-term stickiness as their member's careers progress? It will be interesting to see how this battle plays out. I'd be interested in hearing who you think the winners and losers will be.

Tech Barons Learned from Robber Barons

When I first got out of college with my journalism degree and there was a dearth of jobs in journalism, I became a writer for the William Penn Foundation, the 13th largest foundation in the country at the time that had been started by the Haas family who had founded Rohm and Haas, the chemical company in Philadelphia.  I learned a lot about foundations in the five years I was part of William Penn, attending the Council on Foundations annual conference a number of times where decendents of the wealthy families, like the Pillsburys, who started the philanthropies in the U.S. now run many of the programs.  Some of the largest foundations were begun by the successful, ruthless businessmen described by some as "robber barons."

Some feel that the powerful industrialists of the gilded age should be referred to as 'robber barons.' This view accentuates the negative. It portrays men like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller and Ford as cruel and ruthless businessmen who would stop at nothing to achieve great wealth. These "robber barons" were accused of exploiting workers and forcing horrible working conditions and unfair labor practices upon the laborer.

Another view of the industrialist is that of "captain of industry." The term captain views these men as ingenious and industrious leaders who transformed the American economy with their business skills. They were praised for their skills as well as for their philanthropy (charity).

Interestingly, we're seeing a new wave of "robber barons" or tech captains of industry taking up the mantle of philanthropy in a big way.  I had seen Steve Case talk about his Revolution Health initiative at last year's D conference, but still was stunned to see him in the pages of Parade Magazine last weekend heading up a philanthropic initative:

Want to have a say in donating $500,000 to charity? You have just 11 days to join the America’s Giving Challenge, an online initiative sponsored by PARADE and The Case Foundation. The charities in the challenge that attract the greatest number of donors by Jan. 31 will each get $50,000. The big idea behind America’s Giving is 'using technology as a force for good,' says Steve Case, who co-founded AOL and teams with his wife Jean to lead The Case Foundation. Although their concept is big, your contribution doesn’t need to be. 'You can make a huge difference to a charity by giving $10 or $20,' says Jean. Adds Steve, 'And you don’t have to donate money to participate. You can champion a favorite cause by e-mailing your friends and family about it and asking them to support it. Go to Parade.com/givingchallenge for full details.

And of course there is the daddy of them all, Bill Gates, whose Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has pledged to distribute $70B within 50 years of the deaths of the founders -- including a generous allotment of Gates' friend Warren Buffett's fortune.  Gates is speaking at Davos today and he is going beyond his Gates Foundation role to advocate that all successful businesses start adopting a more philanthropic bent that he is calling "creative capitalism."   He believes companies should be putting their best and brightest into programs that focus on building products and services for the poor -- making profits, but also saving lives.

But Mr. Gates's argument for the potential profitability of serving the poor is certain to raise skepticism. 'There's a lot of people at the bottom of the pyramid but the size of the transactions is so small it is not worth it for private business most of the time,' says William Easterly, a New York University professor and former World Bank economist.

Others may point out that poverty became a priority for Mr. Gates only after he'd earned billions building Microsoft into a global giant.

After 10 years of battling Gates' Microsoft as Lotus' PR agency, it's hard for me to think of him as anything other than a voracious competitor.  But I certainly do applaud him turning that intense brilliance and focus to the needs of the poor around the world.  The same goes for Steve Case.  And I will point out that it's interesting, in a year that a woman is running for president, that in both cases the significant others in the relationship are having a strong hand in driving these philanthropic efforts.

It's nice to see that the tech generation is giving back.  Maybe they really are captains of industry rather than "robber barons."  What do you think? 

An Automattic ray of sunshine

Trying to look for evidence that the Chicken Littles dominating the business conversation this week are overracting, I grabbed onto the story yesterday about Automattic getting $29 million in funding.  Automattic is the company that offers the WordPress blogging platform and service.  It currently is arguably the most popular platform right now, and has achieved this with only $1 million in investment until now, so this much incredible infusion of capital suggests even greater potential for the company.

What I believe it suggests -- given the fact that one of the investors is The New York Times -- is how mainstream blogging is becoming in terms of relative influence.  This nugget from the Wall Street Journal article linked above is the reason:

The Times, which uses WordPress to publish the blogs on its Web site, hopes to share content with WordPress and possibly publish interesting blog posts that have been composed with its software.

In the past 6-9 months, The New York Times has experimented with showing reader comments alongside its headlines and leads on its home page, and has rolled out blogrunner to give readers a view of blog conversations resulting from specific news stories.  Now, the Times sees content generated by any person using WordPress to create a blog and publish opinions, insight and commentary as being valuable to present to its readers.  To me, it is responding to the growing evidence that peer-generated content is relatively more influential to consumers (of any product or service) than traditional media or even company Web site content.

While there may be signs of a slowdown elsewhere in the economy and tech, it doesn't seem to be in social media.  What is your take? 

Eyes on the Prize, Randy

He's had an amazing season with the New England Patriots and as an NFL receiver overall, but Randy Moss clearly hasn't learned the Patriots' communications style yet -- less is more.  Clearly someone did not get to him in time to give him the playbook for interviews about behavior off of the field.  When asked about the accusations of battery brought upon him by a long-time woman friend, Moss actually answered questions. His coach and quarterback quickly and succinctly gave him their support and now it's back to business for the winningest team in football.

Boston sports radio and sports writers around the country are grabbing any updates to the story they can to keep it alive.  Will it distract Moss?  Will it affect the outcome of the game?  Will the Patriots jettison Moss if this escalates? 

I think the more likely outcome, as many media have said, is that coach Bill Bellichick will use yet another potential distraction to motivate his team to show everyone they are the best no matter what anyone throws at them, on the field or off.  And then I firmly believe Randy Moss will be given some heavy duty media training after the season ends.  Next time he's interviewed, I bet he'll know how to bridge away from tough questions.

Good Job Announcing Bad News

Kudos to John Thain, CEO of Merrill Lynch.  After joining the firm in December, he had the fun task of announcing his first public quarter with Merrill, which Reuters characterized as the worst in the company's history, in which he "reported about $16 billion in mortgage-related write-downs and adjustments." 

Not what you would call a red letter day for any CEO.  But from a communications standpoint, Thain probably could not have handled it better.  He was very straightforward in describing the reasons for the huge write-down and the steps the company is taking to reduce this risk in the future. 

A good example is the rapid-fire on-the-trading-floor interview he subjected himself to with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo right after his conference call.  He used this opportunity to allude to an announcement, made later in the day, of a second risk management officer.  He also made it clear that both risk management execs will report directly to him.  He stayed very cool even in the face of Bartiromo's scrutiny.  She opened her interview with: "will this be enough [of a write-down.]?" After Thain gave her his brief opening comments, she interrupted, "but John, the big question is, is this enough?"  He didn't duck the question and gave her the facts and figures and candor that forced her to move on.

Clearly Thain is benefiting from his reputation as former CEO of NYSE Euronext.  But I believe he's also scoring points by going right at this crisis and being as disclosive and accessible as possible. The messages regarding the excellent results of other segments of the business, as well as Thain's belief in growth in overseas markets, came through loud and clear in the coverage.

He couldn't control the risks taken by the former executives at Merrill, but Thain certainly is controlling not only how he is handling the cleanup, but also how he is reporting it externally as he works to get the company back on track.  It was not the kind of news I enjoy reading about -- we all want a healthy economy -- but the way Merrill and Thain handled it was certainly impressive.

Why do 60 Minutes?

It's deja vu all over again.  The young hotshot entrepreneur who currently has more money than most countries is asked to appear on 60 Minutes.  Absolutely!  Why not?!  Why even think about whether I'm ready for the big stage or what I'm going to actually accomplish with this interview.  We're the Nike generation, for heaven's sake.  Just do it!

Am I talking about the Mark Zuckerberg appearance on 60 Minutes this past Sunday (chronicled here by Kara Swisher, who appeared in the piece)?  Nope.  I'll get to that.  I'm referring to the 60 Minutes II segment that the two founders of Razorfish did in 2001.  That one goes down in my communications pro memory as one of the worst PR missteps ever made by company execs.  I've used it as a "morality tale" for legions of executives I've media trained over the years, as it screams out why you need to think carefully about why you take a big stage opportunity before you say "yes" and then you have to prepare the right way -- that is, if you are the right execs to carry your company's story.  The Razorfish execs did neither and were made to look very arrogant and foolish in a piece that was part of a story 60 Minutes II called "The Dot Com Kids."  Just the title alone was their first clue that this probably wasn't a good placement for them.  The fact that the two founders could not answer the question from the interviewer -- "what do you do?" with anything better than "we help companies recontextualize their businesses" was just a classic example of lack of preparation.

Mark Zuckerberg's interview was not arrogant.  The story itself did explain to a certain extent what Facebook is and how it works.  But what did the average watcher actually learn about Facebook?  That its CEO is 23 and wears hooded sweatshirts and no socks.  That he sits among his employees in a nonconventional office.  That he made a mistake with his Beacon feature, although on camera he seemed to deny it was a mistake.  That they likely aren't going public this year. 

The coverage of the piece has ranged from yawns to criticisms of Zuckerberg's lack of charisma.  He was described as both too scripted and not prepared enough in comments I've seen in the blogosphere.

The fact that the interview focused on his age reminded me so much of the 60 Minutes II interview with the Razorfish founders that I found myself wanting to yell "run" to Zuckerberg.  What benefit is there for him to be portrayed as too young to manage a growing business?  Why accept the interview if that is what they wanted to focus so much airtime on?

It reminded me of another CEO we worked with many years ago whose company went public and then struggled with its first few public quarters.  He told me that he had a recurring nightmare that Mike Wallace and 60 Minutes were coming up the driveway of the vacation home he bought with the proceeds of the public offering to demand to know what he was actually delivering to his shareholders.  That's the kind of honest paranoia I can respect. 

But maybe it's just me.  Do you think Zuckerberg and Facebook benefitted from his 60 Minutes appearance?

Where is IT Help When You Need It?

Within the past week, I have spent more than six (yes, six!) hours at my local Sprint repair shop because my Treo wouldn't charge. They gave me a new one after several hours of confusion around why the device wouldn't charge, but this one didn't turn on for several days. After receiving another incorrect replacement over the weekend, today I finally received my fourth phone. It's been a few hours since I received it, but so far, it's stayed on and accepted a few calls. Technology...It's wonderful when it works, but sometimes, it just doesn't. And when it doesn't, I'm ready to jump out the window. (And keep in mind my job is to articulate the beauty of technology and how it makes our lives better.)

I'm not alone. 60 Minutes did a piece earlier this month called "Get Me The Geeks" which investigated the rising complexity of technology and people's dependency on it. The segment zero'd in on IT tech support, or "geeks" as the segment referrred them, which I will admit is a little harsh. Afterall, my husband is an engineer, but still, I found it humorous. The founder of Best Buy's Geek Squad was interviewed and provided some interesting insights into his employees and the massive demand for their services. One of my favorite lines was, "The only power geeks are interested in is low-power consumption. Geeks may inherit the earth, but they have no desire to rule it."

Two years ago, we started working with a company called NetworkStreaming (now Bomgar) that sells remote support technology to company tech support departments. Industry analysts and media were skeptical about the company and its market growth potential, and called the technology a commodity. Two year later, the company is more than five times the size it was when we first started working with them, and one of their competitors just filed an IPO today. It's hard to believe industry experts didn't see the stars aligning. As David Pogue from The New York Times and a few others explained in the 60 Minutes episode, people are dealing with products that are comprised of hardware that's made in Korea for example, and the software was designed California. Meanwhile, its connecting with a hardware product made in China, and the instruction manuel was written by an engineer in Texas that spent two hours on it b/c the product was supposed to go to marketyesterday. Who isn't going to need help making all of that work together?

Based on my experience this week at Sprint, technology is only getting more complex, and I pray there are enough college kids out there studying IT, or we're all going to be in trouble. And I'd have to bet our client Bomgar has sunny days ahead.

Beyond blogging; Socal Media Club highlights

On Thursday night at Bentley College, the Social Media Club of Boston and the Boston PRSA held a joint "Beyond Blogging" seminar. It was one one of the better social media events in recent memory in the Boston area (not taking anything away from the recent TechCrunch or SNCR events of course).  The packed hall at Bentley showed just how important social media has become to us in the area. LP&P had a number of folks in attendance, of course.

The event featured some heavy hitters in the social media space: CC Chapman of Crayon The Advance Guard (Thanks, C.C. for the correction) and other ventures fame, Laura Fitton of Pistachio, Lois Kelly of Foghound, Ian Lamont of Computerworld and SAP's social media guru Mike Prosceno. It was a very impressive group that broke into separate panels looking at topics such as microblogging, social communities and business, podcasting and video use.

Some of the most interesting thoughts of the night came from inspiration around Twittering given by Laura from Pistachio. I think the jury on Twitter's business use is still out there, but Laura definitely got the crowd rallied around its potential. What really jumped out was the fact that people who couldn't make the meeting from around the country were following the meeting and asking the panelists questions over Twitter.   

We're looking forward to the next one.