blogging

Lies, Damn’ Lies and Social Media Statistics

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, media relations, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Another day, another hefty dollop of horseshit about how the social media conversation is changing, irrevocably, life as we know it. (While I’m here, big up to Danny Rogers, the ‘editor’ of PR Week, for this phrase ‘Increasingly one hears that ‘PR is the new advertising’ or ‘conversational content is now king”. On so many different levels, blog trotters mine, on so many different levels. He goes on to say that we need some stats to confirm what we suspected – don’t tar me with your cavalier ‘we’, Danny – as if stats could actually prove that ‘conversational content’, whatever the living crap that is when it’s at home, is indeed ‘king’, another nebulous and completely immeasurable concept. Anyway, the whole stats thing is what’s driving this post, so let’s proceed, shall we?)

Today’s merde de cheval du jour is from the Not PR Week (some may say that this is a good thing),  Communicate Magazine – you may visit its hallowed portal here – swish and flick – crucio!

Anyhoo, it’s an article entitled Fit to Print (which is, indeed, in the print version of the magazine but not, strangely, available online) and it’s about how ‘social media has fundamentally changed online communications over the last few years.’ Backed up by a wodge of statistics – here’s a few examples:

  • 90% more journalists use social media than in 2010
  • Tumblr’s referrals to news sites increase 350% in past year
  • The Independent has seen referrals from Facebook grown (sic) 680% year on year, whilst Twitter referrals have increased 250%

The problem – obviously, I don’t have to point this out, I know, but let’s pretend that there’s one lone blog snorkeller out there who’s maybe just a soupcon less incandescently bright than the rest of us – is that the stats are meaningless. An increase of 350%? Enormous! Unless your starting point was one, or two. In which case it would be up to three and a half, or seven. (I think. Maths never was my forte.) You see, without hard numbers, it’s impossible to tell. And if people are making it difficult for me to see the full picture well – forgive me – I get a little suspicious.

Even when the stats are reasonably clear cut, there’s something not right about it. Read!

“Visits to news and media sites from social networks have increased by 80% in three years up to March 2011, and in that period social networks have gone from providing6.26% of total traffic to news and media sites to providing 11.33%.”

Great! My comment would be that news and media sites are on t’internet, and part of t’digital age. Thus, really, you got to expect that a proportion of their traffic would come from social media, which are also internet-based and part of the much-vaunted digital age. In fact, you’d be forgiven for expecting that the proportion of traffic provided by social networks – if they’re the phenomena everyone says they are – would be CONSIDERABLY FUCKING MORE THAN A MANGY 11.33%. Just sayin’.

Thank God, however, that Communicate magazine got digital content agency Zone to ‘dramatise the findings’.  Interesting choice of words. ‘Dramatise’. Implies making a story out of something. A fiction.

Which is exactly what I remain convinced the hype around social media actually is.

Blogger, blogger, blogger…..

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Corporate Religion, corporate reputation, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , .

‘Despite the fact blogs (sic) no longer have a lot of social media sex appeal’ – no, not my words, but the first line of this tremendously fine post about blogging in a corporate context.

Yes, you should be blogging, for all the reasons set out here. No, I am not going to paraphrase it for you, you lazy bunch of blog snorkelling butterflies, do the hot clickety and read it for yourself.

All I would add is that to be truly effective, you’ve got to get the tone of voice right and be consistent. This means that you cannot let anyone in your organisation blog on your behalf without due process, monitoring, control and boiling in oil of transgressors. Sorry, but that’s the way it is if you are to avoid the one-way street to the village of Serious Cock-Up on Thames.

I am sure, as promised in the post, the next blog (post) (which will ‘address some of the key ingredients for a successful company blog’ ) will cover all this obvious stuff.

Social Media – Examples – Good And….Not Good

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , .

Here’s a couple of examples of what you can do with social media, dependent on who and what you are. My loyal blog snorkellers will be fully HP with my point of view (that social media is not a valid business communications, marketing or sales tool) but you’ll also know that I’m nothing if not open to new ideas. Unless those new ideas are genuinely pants or threaten the way I think the world should be. Obviously.

So – here we are from BMW, a luvverly film (and it IS a luvverly film) around some motorbike product or other. Obviously aimed at wealthy young (or not so young) men with a need for speed and a bad taste in trousers, beanie hats and friends. You’d need to be careful – this to my male snorkellers – quite how old you were buying one of these. Don’t want to look like a midlfecrisesian, now do we?

On the other hand, here’s a Twit feed from the British Armed Force, which links to this blog, again from the British Armed Forces. I would like to say – although I have no particular feelings about the conflict in Afghanistan (no-one asked me, d’you see) – that I think this is genuinely excellent and I am – deeply – in awe of the men and women who are out there, doing what they do. If you read anything today, click on the links herewith, and absorb the content. Amazing.

Anyway, conclusions. Look at the commentary stream following the BMW video. Are they going to buy a bike? No. Has BMW built a relationship with them? No. These people are all too macho and self-absorbed and – let’s be honest – a bit fricking thick. So – sorry BMW – it’s a waste of money. You’d be better off with experiential. (Oh, and, fair cop – the video is a little bit too fake, sadly.)

Meanwhile, Major Paul Smyth over at t’Army in Afghanistan. It’s genius. It’s compelling. It’s very scary and it’s shocking to read of the deaths of soldiers in what is, effectively, real time. (For what its worth, my thoughts are with their families.) Someone needs to re-think this whole war thing. Someone without their head up America’s bottom.

Summary – social media exists. It’s a great information-sharer. It’s brilliant for those without an axe to grind and with an interesting (perhaps shocking) story to tell. When it comes to branded stuff however – are you listening, blue propeller? – it’s a waste of money and it sucks.

Social Media – Not Just For The Nasty Things In Life….Oh…Hold On…

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, corporate reputation, External Communications, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , .

This piece from the new York Times. Jonathan Schwartz, the ‘last chief executive’ of Sun Microsystems – sounds like he ought to be the subject of a movie starring Tom ‘Frighteningly Insane’ Cruise – announces his resignation via Twitter. (Here’s the feed in all its Twittery glory.)

(Actually, I’m fairly sure that he didn’t announce his resignation via Twitter – technically speaking – I’m fairly sure that he did it like everyone else would have, in a letter, delivered by hand to Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle and a man ‘not especially fond of Mr Schwartz’.)

For the hard of clicking, who want everything fed to them on a plate, he did it in the form of a haiku.

That being as it may, the NYT has some interesting stuff to say about Mr Schwartz. Apparently, he ‘has been fond of using the internet as a soapbox’ and was ‘the first CEO of a major company to put up his own blog’ and, indeed, ‘pushed the Securities and Exchange Commission to put blogs on equal footing with press releases and filings when it comes to disclosing critical business matters to investors’. Doesn’t say whether he succeeded.

Which all sounds great. Then you dig a little and find that between April 30 2008 and Feb 3 2010, he managed 36 tweets. Hardly prolific, although he has amassed over 10,000 followers. (Sycophants.) Oh – and his Twitter tag is OpenJonathan, which I’m not wholly convinced by. Luckily, a lot of his Tweets link to his blog.

And his blog’s a belter. This is the way it should be done. The NYT under-egged the cake in my opinion. It was started in June 2004 – here’s the first post, read it before Mr Ellison takes it down – it’s been updated regularly and, as far as I can see, mixes core product messaging (at least I think that’s what it is, I’m not really qualified in the techie arena) with splendid, apparently homespun philosophy. I particularly like the post about having lunch with Tony Blair – genius.

Anyway, this isn’t a hagiography. What it is is a suggestion that more c-suite execs should be trying to approach this tone of voice and this balance of content and should be talking to their audiences through the medium of digital (and I do mean the medium of digital, not the medium of social – I know they’re easily confused. For the record Twitter is social – and we can see here that it’s nowhere near as effective or compelling as the blog, which is digital).

As we know, in this post-economic apocalypse age, our audiences – especially employees, suppliers, business partners and customers – want messages of comfort and reassurance, and want to see companies walking the walk, not just talking the talk. What better way to achieve this than by showing a bit of personality – something that people can relate to.

Why do I suspect that Mr Ellison of Oracle probably disagrees.

Social Media – Regulation, Mercan-style

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , .

And I know you’re going to think that I’ve come to this late, dear blog snorkellers, but it has come to my attention that the august body that is known as the Federal Trade Commission (Protecting America’s Consumers) has published some new (well, revised, actually) guidelines covering endorsements and testimonials (changes affect testimonial advertisements, bloggers, celebrity endorsements) – click-click away, click-click away, stateside!

Now it seems – to my pale and fevered mind – that the upshot of this is that bloggers are going to have to make it clear if they have been paid to review (or write about generally) products or services. It also appears that this covers not solely hard cash, but also the very products and services that are reviewed, if they have been supplied to the blogger free, gratis and for nowt. If not, they will be punished to the tune of $11k per violation.

(And, credit where credit’s due, I found out about this via a blog that I cited before – take a trip over here. I think you’ll find it quite edifying, in terms of the light it sheds on US PR practice. Unless you’re from the US, in which case, it’s still quite edifying in terms of the debate it foments.)

Anyway, as is my wont, a couple of questions thrown up by the FTC revised guidelines.

1) How, on earth, are they going to enforce these? I read a piece somewhere, written by a lawyer, who compared this to the legislation that brought down Napster, and how Napster users (down to teenagers in their basements, downloading one or two tracks) were sought out and punished. Well – again, to my mind, that’s very different – Napster was one site, and its users could be tracked by their IP addresses. In the case of the blogosphere – well – there’s simply too much of it, isn’t there? If this legislation is to apply – and it must, surely – to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, Bebo, private blogs, corporate blogs, comment posts on special interest sites – well, just how is the FTC going to monitor all of it, let alone impose punitive measures?

2) Isn’t this just a step too far? What happened to caveat emptor? If we are going to trust people to surf the net, engage with social media and comment on blogs, surely we should also trust them not to get suckered by advertising masquerading as editorial. Consumers are a fairly media-savvy bunch, aren’t they? They’re not going to buy a product or service just because some blogger, magazine, TV show or celebrity told them to. Are they? (Apart from those who went to Iceland because Kerry Katona told them to. But they deserve all the frozen horror that they get.) 

Bottom line. The FTC is, to all intents and purposes, trying to regulate the internet and, as we know, by the very nature of the internet, this is pretty  nearly impossible. Yes, the internet is in dire need of some regulation (and good spring clean) but it’s not going to get it.

What this regulation will do, however, is further hobble the relationship between brands and traditional media, to the detriment of traditional media. In a well-meaning attempt to protect the consumer from the iniquities of the blogosphere, the FTC has, in fact, created something that the blogosphere will largely ignore and will impact most heavily against an already (arguably) overregulated traditional media sector.

And what impact – if any – will this have on non US-based blogs?