High-Tech PR Blog >> Beyond the Hype

Social science and social media

I've been thinking about how to engineer a business trip to Washington DC since receiving an e-mail a couple days ago about an event at the Library of Congress on June 23rd.  On that day, there will be a talk by a cultural anthropologist and assistant professor at Kansas State University, Michael Wesch.  According to his bio, Wesch is a "media ecologist exploring the impacts of new media on human interaction."  He posted a video on YouTube on this topic last year that at last check has over 5 million views (embedded below in case you're interested and haven't seen it).

His lecture is titled "The Anthropology of YouTube."  Why I'm so intrigued is because of some of the facts presented in the description of the talk.  In particular, it states:

More video material has been uploaded to YouTube in the past six months than has ever been aired on all major networks combined, according to cultural anthropologist Michael Wesch.  About 88 percent is new and original content, most of which has been created by people formerly known as “the audience.”

According to Wesch, it took tens of thousands of years for writing to emerge after humans spoke their first words.  It took thousands more before the printing press appeared and a few hundred again before the telegraph did.  Today a new medium of communication emerges every time somebody creates a new web application.  'A Flickr here, a Twitter there, and a new way of relating to others emerges,' Wesch said.  'New types of conversation, argumentation and collaborations are realized.'

Maybe it's because I am a geek, but looking at social media through the lens of cultural anthropology and social science is fascinating and adds so much more depth to my understanding of the subject.  When I attended the Society for New Communications Research's Annual Symposium in Boston in December, I found the most interesting presentation to be by another cultural anthropologist, Joseph Carrabis. Carrabis talked about how it's perhaps most important to understand the dynamics of the connections between people that link to each other on blogs than it is on the content of blogs itself, especially when it comes to participating in the conversation. 

He stated that most bloggers focus on very specific areas of interest and expertise and discuss it in a very deep and technical way.  He also commented on how most of these blogs don't have massive audiences because they can only be understood by a small group of like-minded people.  For every one of these people, however, there likely is one member of their audience with a similar interest who can translate the deep knowledge in a way that is more easily understood by a larger audience.  If the idea and knowledge is interesting enough, this pattern will repeat itself through a series of connections that may culminate in an A-list blogger writing about the original idea.  It is at this point that the audience is massive.

Now to figure out how to get down to DC...

Wither static corporate web site

It was almost exactly a year ago that I wrote about how marketers needed to rethink corporate web sites.  In particular, I commented on the proposal put forth by one blogger on how the prevailing approach by vendors of publishing static, one-way information on their sites is "irrelevant."

Because most corporate sites only contain static content filled with hyperbole, customers and prospective customers don't use it to make purchasing decisions.  Rather, they trust the information they get from peers in blogs and discussion forums, in addition to off-line conversations.  It is not until after they make their decisions from this interaction that they go to the corporate web site to obtain factual information about the company and its products.

I stated then that the technology that drives the sites where this peer interaction takes place is available for vendors to use to make their sites more participatory and build more trust.  So, how ironic it is that a year later a colleague sent me a link to an article in Ars Technica about a study that measures the impact of interactive corporate web sites on company perception. 

Specifically, researchers recruited undergraduate students to view the career sections of corporate web sites in the energy industry.  The conclusion of the study presented at the Interational Communication Association was that companies that offered the most user interactions on their web sites were rated more positively.

Existing sites were ranked by the researchers according to their interactivity. Sites rated low had either a single email address for applicants or a static list of available jobs. At the other end of the scale, some companies offered searchable lists of jobs and information on the applications process, company benefits, and other facets of employment. Chevron even included links to videos from its (presumably satisfied) employees. Test subjects agreed with the researchers' ratings of these sites. 

When the responses were analyzed, the act of searching for a job did not appear to influence them. The degree of interactivity of the website showed a strong correlation with the subjects' perception of the organization behind it, as higher interactivity correlated with favorable views, with a user's sense of involvement being a significant mediator of this link.

Since my original post was written, there have been so many more technology options emerge for companies to consider using, including in particular "white label" social networks platforms like Ning and KickApps that make it very easy to create highly interactive and community-oriented experiences.  We have been talking to clients more and more about how to consider leveraging these services, so it's evident to me that a change in thinking has occurred during the past year.

What are you doing this summer?

That's the question we posed to our great group of people and then walked around with a video camera to find out.  We thought we would share it with you as we gear up for what promises to be an idyllic Memorial Day weekend in New England.

We'd love to hear about what you're doing in the comments here, or below the video on our Facebook fan page.

CMO Study Says Marketing Budgets Won't Be Cut

The Boston Business Journal summarized a study by the CMO Club that indicated that the overwhelming majority (71%) of their members surveyed won't be slashing marketing budgets this year despite concerns about an economic downturn. 

Other key findings:

• When asked which budget line items would be cut first, advertising and mass marketing strategies (32 percent) were cited most frequently.
• Online strategies, such as search engine optimization and online marketing campaigns, were cited as the least likely to be cut, followed by public relations campaigns.

As we have been saying for years, the study concurs that the last thing you want to cut when a market is getting tight is your marketing program. That is when you need to be as aggressive as possible to both maintain your share and take share away from others who may be making the mistake of being silent.

The survey tapped 100 of the more than 1,200 CMO members of the CMO Club who come from startups to Fortune 1000 firms in B-to-C and B-to-B markets.  The survey took place in April and May and full results  were presented this week at the CMO's Clubs Summit in New York.

Wall Street Journal watch continues

We've been following the slowly unfolding changes at the Wall Street Journal from when Rupert Murdoch fought to acquire Dow Jones to what kinds of changes he's been forcing since the acquisition took place last year.  The latest event on the timeline occurred yesterday, as the paper reported this morning the appointment of Robert Thomson as managing editor of the Journal and editor-in-chief of Dow Jones.

The most interesting aspect of the story was centered on the fact that Thomson was most recently publisher of the paper, but is now shifting to the editorial side.  I immediately thought about whether this meant a blurring of the lines between publishing and editorial, but the story was quick to point out that the "appointment was approved unanimously by a special committee formed to oversee the Journal's editorial integrity." 

The committee was formed as a condition of the acquisition last year because of concerns of similar moves made by Murdoch after previous acquisitions.  The story, however, suggests that this committee's authority was quickly usurped because of the fact that it was not informed about News Corp.'s intentions to let go the Journal's previous editor, Marcus Brauchli.  The committee complained and the story reports that News Corp. "apologized to the committee" and vowed to work in concert with the committee.

The fact that Thomson's background and training is as a business journalist and editor obviously makes him qualified to lead the Journal forward, but it is indeed rare for someone to boomerang back to the editorial side after becoming publisher.  Clearly, however, it's consistent with the fact that Murdoch is looking to remake the Journal.

I actually read the story in the print edition, as I'm at a conference center in New York, and it was nice to consume the news this way for a change.  As I live online now, I admit it's been a while since I've really read the paper in print, and was amazed at the change so far.  The shorter news stories were very evident, but the stories above the fold were about Ted Kennedy's brain tumor, the continued rescue effort from the China earthquake and the military's moves to use alternative fuels.  Nothing like the front page of the business paper I've know for 20 years.

No Job for a Woman

In the earlier days of our agency, after I bought out my male co-founder and before I became part of Omnicom, I often was approached by vendors and organizations because LP&P was a "woman-led organization." I always blanched at this notion and said, "no, LP&P is run by a person who happens to be a woman." I never wanted to play the "woman card." I told interviewers, clients and prospects that one reason I loved the high tech field is that it didn't matter whether you were male of female, from the U.S. or international. This young field cared about what was in your head, not about your external makeup.

Perhaps I was wrong. Two blog posts caught my attention this morning as I dig out from a long weekend with my professional women colleagues and friends (the 10th year for this women's weekend). The first was in the Huffington Post and it talked about the derisiveness faced by Hillary Clinton during the long campaign she has waged and continues to wage. The post points out the lack of outcry about the sexism used in the attacks on Clinton's floundering campaign. Instead of looking at the strategic mistakes and direction, they focus on what they view as "unattractive" personal traits as a woman who just won't say die and derides her for them. They also poke fun at her women followers. It reminds me of the dismissing of "pink hats" among some Red Sox fans who equate women and girls wearing Sox gear in pink as being dilettantes and not hard core fans. They couldn't possibly really be there because they love the game and follow the team intensely. They just like wearing pink and think Jacoby Ellsbury is cute.  Stereotypes are hard to counter.

The second post, from Stacey Higginbotham on the GigaOM site, is even more disturbing, as it points out the placement of a New York Times article that covers the downward trend of women in the science and technology fields. The article is very good information and references a Harvard study coming out in June that definitely needs to be read by diversity specialists and HR people in major science and technology employers. But will they find it where the Times has placed it, in the LifeWorks column of its Style section rather than the business section. Stacey comments that the article does acknowledge the macho nature of these fields as being one of the culprits. I guess the Times' editors didn't see the irony in admitting that when they were deciding where to place the article -- near swimsuits or before the stock pages? I guess they assume that if it's about women, the former is more appropriate. This is where the power of social media comes in, with Stacey's blog post getting this article more play in the tech industry. 

Even this weekend, I talked with some of my friends who run companies and are struggling with the pressures on young women who start families and need to figure out how to balance the second full-time job of motherhood they are taking on. Very often their first full-time job becomes impossible to maintain. And part-time work is hard in a field in which the demands and expectations -- due to technology and the ability to communicate, blog, text and twitter constantly -- are higher than ever. 

So maybe I was wrong not to emphasize that as a woman head of an agency, I do try to look at things differently. I have done the juggling act my entire tenure here, as the mother of three great children who now are all teens (two off to college). I know how hard it is and I try to create an environment to help young parents (it's not just the women who struggle with this) figure out how to balance career and family. The onus really is on employers to help women continue to succeed during all stages of their lives and careers, even though it isn't an easy task. 

But given the reception the historic first female presidential candidate has received, which may be due to past Clinton administration baggage, but also may be due to a continuing bias against women bucking traditional roles, I may just be dismissed as having a "pink hat" agency.

CBS Buys CNET

If I had 50 cents for every time I hear someone say "trade media is dying," I'd have a nice big chunk of change on my hands. Today's news that CBS is buying CNET is quite the proof point for this trend.

I've always viewed CNET as the predominant wire for fast-breaking and quirky technology stories, and my hope is that the former media outlet's agenda does not change with the acquisition.  But that is probably naive of me to say.  New ownership translates to new ideas, people, processes and goals. How will this impact the PR industry? It already has. We will need to communicate to even larger audiences that often lack the depth of knowledge our vertical industries are dealing with, which obviously poses some challenges.

I'm often reminded by my engineer-minded husband that details and specifics are critical, but the details don't always help companies appeal to the media, especially with a change such as CBS today. As the trade and niche publications decrease in size and influence and are acquired by larger entities, companies will be forced to explain their story at an even higher level than they already are doing, meaning elevator pitches are going to be considered too lengthy!

As I watch more and more people embrace Twitter, I'm realizing that in-depth specifics and content are temporarily a thing of the past. Now I know I might sound like I'm inching up to 90, sitting on a rocking chair, crowing about how the world has changed too much. There are plenty of perks to big media eating small media and new communcations tools. For instance, keeping the struggling media outlets in business as we ride out this publishing fiasco. Plus, it encourages people to go outside of their comfort zone and actively participate in organic, user-generated communities which provide an entirely different - and often - genuine viewpoint and set of resources for our industries.

Our media world is changing rapidly, but it's a big circle and in a few years, people will end up demanding more content again because there aren't enough third-party niche authorities in the world. But in the meantime, be ready to tell your story, and tell it fast.

Boston Herald to Patriots: Oops, my Bad

One of our New England Patriots fanatics sent me an email this morning that said, "I never thought I would see the day when a major local newspaper would put an apology for irresponsible journalism on its front and back page."

As I am sure most everyone is aware, the Boston Herald has apologized for the story it ran two days before this year's Super Bowl that the Patriots allegedly taped the St. Louis Rams walk through practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI.  Matt Walsh, the Patriots video assistant who supposedly taped the walk through, came forward yesterday and told the commissioner of the NFL that not only did he not tape the walk through, he was never instructed to tape the walk through or was even aware that such a tape exists. Today’s Herald has a public apology from the editor for the damage the story caused to the Patriots and its fans.

Okay we're a Boston-based agency with lots of Boston sports fans. But the reason this fits into Beyond the Hype blog is that it begs the question of responsible journalism.  Just this week a good friend of mine was let go at the New York Times.  I know the newspapers are hurting and being forced to make cuts, but I also view some of the changes happening in the Fourth Estate as the dumbing down of newspapers.  The Herald's gaffe -- writing an article about something that was just not true and using it to flog the Patriots for eight months until this apology (which is too little, too late) is a perfect example.

My Patriots fan colleague believes this type of bad journalism is one of the reasons the blogosphere has emerged with such force.  People are looking for credibility in the stories they read -- what is the real truth and where do they find it?  If the traditional publications people have formerly trusted become suspect, then the blogs which prove they are accurate and independent in their views will become the trusted source of news.  It is more about who is writing something than where it is published these days.  People trust the individuals they believe to be honest and straightforward. And more and more people are getting fed up with what they see as agendas and biases with print and broadcast vehicles that seem to have made decisions about stories or individuals.  The Pats are an easy target because they are tough to beat; they have a coach who hates dealing with the media and doesn't hide it; and, they have a quarterback who other than having a child out of wedlock (whom he is providing for), is pretty tough to attack and hard not to like. 

I think the MetroWest Daily News put it best in their story about Spygate finally being over:

So, can we actually get back to talking about football now?

UPDATE: Apparently not, as the senior senator from Pennsylvania is pushing for a "Mitchell-like" congressional investigation on the Patriots.  Unbelievable.

How I decide on friend requests

As we've mentioned here recently, Twitter use has exploded at the agency.  Facebook preceded it, and I hear the same questions now that I heard when people were building their Facebook networks.  How do you find people to follow?  And the more important question, how do I determine if I should follow someone, especially someone that follows me?

These questions, a post by Mark Glaser this week, and the in-process BusinessWeek story on Twitter, inspired me to type up my rules for determining who to follow and whether to follow those who starting following me.  Follow?

[For those not familiar with Twitter, I've embedded a nice video at the end of this post to explain.]

1. Is someone going to offer me value?  I can tell by looking at the first screenful of tweets.  Are the majority about business issues relevant to me or serious things that interest me?  If not, I'll pass on following.

2. Is someone going to help me do my job better?  If there is a reporter or blogger I can follow and get to know better because they're on Twitter, I'll follow them.  If there is a smart social media practitioner who can help me keep up with the lightning fast developments changing this world every day, I'll follow them.  If there is someone who gives me more insight into strategic, global trends, I'll follow them.

3. Is someone entertaining and related to a particular interest of mine?  I recently discovered a great video blog about wine, which is an emerging hobby, done by a very entertaining sommelier named Gary Vaynerchuk.  I later discovered he is on Twitter, so started following him (@garyvee).  I haven't regretted it.

4. Is someone already part of my business network?  This is a no-brainer.

5. For those that follow me, and I want to determine whether to follow them back, what is their "following" to "follower" ratio?  If it's a high number, I'm immediately suspicious because they are either a spammer or random person of no particular relevance to me.  No thanks.

I'm adopting another rule as well -- a great one I saw from Max Kalehoff, VP of marketing at Clickable, on Twitter yesterday.  "If I follow you and you become actively misaligned with me, I'll probably stop following you very quickly."

Anyway, fwiw.  I think those rules could be adapted for any other social network (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) as well.

If only we all had columns for "Do-Overs"

Whenever I media train someone, I always tell them to pause and think before responding to a reporter's question so they can formulate a concise, accurate response.  The outcome should be a well-phrased sound-bite that will be deemed newsworthy and printable.  This approach also helps protect them from shooting from the hip with a glib response they will regret later.  "Your most controversial statement will be placed right over your picture," I warn them.

Well, Jack Welch had one of those moments a couple weeks ago around GE's disappointing earnings announcement.  But since he's Jack Welch and, with his wife Suzy, has a back-page column in BusinessWeek, he got to plaster a box in the middle of the May 5 column that essentially amounted to "what I meant to say about Jeff Immelt."

The press all reported on this, of course, as evidenced by the AP story that noted:

On Wednesday, Welch, who retired in 2001, said he would be "shocked beyond belief" if Chief Executive Jeff Immelt again missed an earnings target. He said he'd "get out a gun and shoot" Immelt if GE missed an earnings target.

Welch, 72, also said Immelt had "credibility issues," but vigorously defended GE's business model.

On Thursday, he renounced his earlier comments.

"I want to get back and just make the one point I tried to make yesterday," Welch said. "GE's a great company with a great model with a hell of a CEO who's reshuffled the business portfolio to make it stronger for the next decade and all this nonsense that's been buzzing around for the last week is just silly talk and I am 100 percent supportive of everything going on there."

Even with the glare of the television lights and the pressure of the live broadcast, it's always better to pause and think before responding.  This is especially important if you don't happen to have a national magazine column you can use for your make-good comments.