Archive for the ‘Rants’ Category

Those Murky Personal Brand Waters

Posted on: August 5th, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 5 Comments

PastedGraphic-1.png

As some of you know, I’ve been polling my online community to gage their feelings on personal brands.  Given my very outspoken nature against personal branding, it’s safe to assume that those who participate in active conversation with me likely skew unfavorably towards the self marketing theory.  Still, given the concept’s popularity I expected a much more polarized result than the above data.

What this chart shows are two small groups within this particular social network that feel strongly for personal branding (15%) or against it (21%).  However, if you consolidate the two middle of the road answers — depends and both — a vast majority feel ambivalent about personal branding (58%).  That’s a pretty powerful number.

PastedGraphic-2.png

What this tells me is that while people see the merits of personal branding, they also see the detriments.  Thus the uncommitted response of my fellow community members. We all want to look good and want to present ourselves in a becoming manner, but not to the point that we seem like over contrived, fake people. By its very nomenclature, the term “personal brand” creates a connotation towards the latter.

Take Aways

In the end, it’s about being smart.  Present a good face, but know that your reputation will ultimately be decided by the actions you bring to bear, not the consistency of your presentation. At best, the presentation will only get you a shot to be on the stage. Your performance is the ultimate barometer.

Also, if you’re a professional marketing yourself for either projects or career opportunities, be very wary of calling your public persona a personal brand. Whether or not you believe in the theory, many don’t and your choice of words could cost you the job, especially if it’s apples to apples. No one wants to add a team member that will put themselves ahead of the project, and that’s the worst case perception of a personal brand.

What do you think?

P.S.

I am calling the remaining six percent who said none of the above “original thinkers.”

Popularity: 4% [?]

The Top Twenty Silly Tweets

Posted on: July 16th, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 1 Comment

The proliferation of “personal brands” (a.k.a. internet famous) and celebrities offers a bounty of bizarre tweets and online statements. Here’s a compilation of my favorite gaffes!

1) Don’t they know who I am?

2) I have too many friends. Will you join my fan page?

3) “You need to nurture your rising star.”

4) it makes me sad, the more I have success the more people don’t like me….

5) I love how some dudes hate me for dating their fantasy girl, as if they were going to if I hadn’t.

6) I don’t get it either. Who pushes out more interesting links AND interacts more than me on Twitter?

7) That’s bad for my personal brand…

8) Enough about me, what do you think about me?

9) I find it hard to take Twitter advice from someone with < 500 followers.

10) I seem to get two kinds of Twitter followers: People who want me, and people who want to be me.

11) Google me!

12) I really don’t understand why I am not insanely famous.

13) New rule: If your email starts off with “I want to pick your brain,” my reply starts off with “at $400 per hour.”

14) I charge $22,000 a day.

15) I deserve all the respect and support I can get.

16) I’m going to take my talent to South Beach.

17) These companies beg me to come, I’m not going anymore to these drinking “PR” fests.

18) Why is that people always try to understand estimate my intelligents?!

19) Hey @Twitter, just so you understand the basis of our relationship. It’s all about me.

20) Passion is your personal branding fuel.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Reaffirming the Internet Breeds Incivility

Posted on: July 14th, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 26 Comments

2010-07-13_1734.png

Perhaps you saw the dust-up yesterday. Peter Shankman called out my business partner Kami Huyse for a post about one of his tweets (pictured above). Kami was using it as an example to create a conversation about Internet civility… The original tweet was a demonstration. Time consumption abuse by folks who don’t value Peter’s time was used to flaunt rates and be generally flippant on Twitter.

Just an observation that Kami never pointed at Peter directly by name or link, instead using the content of the Tweet as a discussion point. While her title was sensational — I Don’t Have Time to Google You: Microfame Breeds Arrogance — I think she was making a point about mindful conversation in not calling out Peter. Then this happens:

1) Peter Shankman gets angry when he sees the post, responds by titling a second post with her name in it — An Open Letter to Kami Watson Huyse, APR — then linked to her, thus turning a conversation about one of his tweets (anonymously discussed) into a would-be blog war.

2) He also knew that doing so would put the post in search, particularly with his blog’s weight. He is a PR master (the founder of HARO), thus creating a permanent SEO “record” for Kami.

3) Peter turned the conversation about civility into a victim story about how he should get paid (“Still think it’s about me being a douche?,” asks Peter). Poor Peter. Frankly, I get the same BS where people are asking me for free work/blogs all the time. It doesn’t mean that I am entitled to drop a tweet like that and flaunt “my greatness” to my community.

4) Finally, Peter unleashed his fans on Kami, many of which seem to be unable to distinguish between the original story about civility and Peter’s spin about not getting paid. Instead they pile on hate and angst without thinking about the context of the story. Kami’s an experienced online communicator and can take the heat, but a less experienced person would be devastated.

Sorry, but this entire affair — and in particular Peter Shankman’s arrogant remarks as well as the many nastygrams from his fans — only reaffirmed Kami’s original point that the Internet breeds incivility. It also reaffirmed many, many negative feelings I have about personal branders. All in all, it was not a pretty day on the Internet.

Overall, I question the mindfulness of the affair. From Kami’s provocative stance to spark a conversation to pointed personality attacks from a supposed industry leader and finally, the pile-on commenting from fans, it wasn’t the most loving conversation I’ve seen.

In all activities online, I find it useful to ask myself is this about me, or about being of service to the larger community? When it is the prior it usually leads me awry. It’s ego-driven, and frankly creates personal investment that can lead to situations like the above. When I am trying to help others, it often becomes a much more mindful thing.

A good reminder as we go into the rest of the week that our tongues can be powerful weapons… Or forces for good. It’s a choice.

Popularity: 5% [?]

The Gulf Needs More Than BP/Obama Oil Spill Recovery Efforts

Posted on: July 1st, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 6 Comments

Our Citizens Effect Gulf Mission (full team reports here) meetings with nonprofits over the past few days wrapped up. Beyond the incredible environmental damage dealt to the Gulf of Mexico, it’s apparent that an equally damaging blow has been dealt to the fishing communities of the Gulf. As we have learned from the Louisiana Seafood Marketing and Promotion Board, the Catholic Charities of New Orleans and others, the vast impact on the Louisiana economy and its cultural way of life have been drastically underestimated by the Obama Administration and BP as reported by the media.

Ewell Smith, executive director of the Louisiana Seafood Marketing and Promotion Board estimates the problem to be a $100-$200 billion economic calamity (see above video). But because of the ongoing PR and legal culpability that’s being fought between the Obama Administration and BP, Gulf states are floundering.

A national disaster has taken place, but we see no FEMA, no disaster relief, no long-term aid. Ships that can remove 85% of the oil are turned away by the EPA, and foreign help is turned away, too, again thanks to federal regulation.

Instead, a $20 billion pledge from BP is supposed to cover it. Culpable, yes. Capable of addressing the widespread calamity resulting from the oil spill? No. The Gulf may be irreparably harmed by not only the oil spill, but by our reaction to it; namely, the Obama Administration’s failure to declare the oil spill a national disaster, and the general U.S. societal turning our backs on this issue and expecting BP to pay for it.

My fellow Citizen Effect Gulf Mission goer and leader Dan Morrison painted an interesting view of it: “The more I learn on the trip, the more it becomes clear that BP can’t and won’t solve this economic disaster. The economic and social problems facing fishing communities due to the oil disaster are local problems that need local solutions. Put it another way: there is no one large top down solution and program that can address this problem). While it is hard for the country to see the impact of the oil spill on fishing families (they are not covered in oil like birds), the stories about how a families livelihood and way of life are endangered are real and tangible.”



The Unfathomable Depth of the Issue

Tony Martinez, owner, Breton Sound Marina

BP’s Vessels of Opportunity program has 2100 vessels signed up, but only 500 working. These guys are not working, and their deckhands are not working. Tony Martinez, owner of the Breton Sound Marina (above) corroborated this. On our trip east yesterday, we heard similar reports from the son of a Vietnamese Fisherman in Gulfport, Mississippi.

Those are the commercial fishermen. Consider the unlicensed ones who harvest fish on a cash basis, the deckhands for these people, as well as those commercial fishermen who may not report all of their income.

These folks cannot get money from BP or the Obama Administration because they don’t have IRS reports. In essence, because they haven’t played by the system, they will be crushed by it. They are out of luck, and at the mercy of nonprofits serving the region like Catholic Charities of New Orleans, Second Harvest and the Greater New Orleans Foundation.

Willie, the Fisherman

The losses will be just staggering for the fishing community. But it extends beyond Gulf seafood. Restaurants and tourism are hurt in all affected states. There’s also Louisiana’s other big industry: Oil. Regardless of the politics behind the moratorium, you are talking 100,000 jobs dedicated to the Louisiana oil industry. Consider job losses of 150,000 people in a region already hit by Katrina and in a recession.

FriendsoftheFisherman.org was a fund started by the Lousiana Seafood Promotion & Marketing Board to help the commercially licensed fishing families affected. It has four corporate partners Entergy, Rouser’s, The New Orleans Hornets, Abita beer have started it. The Board’s goal is to raise $100 million in total money. Further the Board’s LouisianaSeafoodNews.com shows real stories of fisherman.

Empty Boats

But what about the non-commercial licensed fisherman and the deckhands? In addition to the on-the-ground fantastic work of the Catholic Charities and their partners HorizonRelief.org has been set up by Kevin Voissin, eighth generation oyster fisherman. He is taking oil and selling it in vials. Yet Voissin’s work will not be enough to resolve the long-term crisis facing the fishing culture in the Gulf.

A Way of Life Crushed?

Kerry, the Sixth Generation Fisherman II

As discussed in my Plight of the Fishing Family post earlier this week, this reaches far beyond money. We are talking about the possible destruction and ending of a culture.

Gulf fishing communities in the United States have gone back generation upon generation. It’s been the subject of movies (Forest Gump comes to mind) and has even inspired unique fashion and phrases like “down on the bayou.”

The cultural impact of taking away a profession for more than year — let’s be frank here, the overall devastation on the fishing industry will go well beyond 2010 — cannot be underestimated. While the environmental damage the wetlands has been sustaining over time may have accomplished the same result in 30 or 40 years, the sudden end via the Deep Horizon disaster breaks your heart.

Kerry (pictured above and see his story here), a sixth generation fisherman said it best to me: “My father always told me this business was a dying one. But no one imagined it would happen like this.”

What is the answer? Just as we know gulf fishing may have ended, most fishing families aren’t ready to give up yet. Getting them to suddenly become educated or get new vocations — in an ongoing long-term recession — will take more than recognition of the issue. It will take a nationally supported, yet locally driven, community wide solution.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Welcome to the Obama BP Spin War

Posted on: June 3rd, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 8 Comments




Rhode Island farmers pitch in to help the Gulf

It’s been three days since my last post on the Deep Horizon oil crisis, and what a 72 hours it has been. Let’s take a look at what’s happened in the now very apparent Obama Administration vs. BP spin war:

Wow! The spin war has begun in earnest. And who loses? The Gulf community and environment, and the American taxpayer. The Deep Horizon incident is quickly becoming the greatest eco-disaster in modern history. And instead of focusing on useful actions, Obama seems bent on spinning BP as the villain.

No Need to Kick. BP Is Already Down.

BP’s shoddy PR and poor actions has done enough to vilify the company, at this point. Obama and the Democrats are sacrificing the company for public opinion points. We need leadership, not PR.

As to claims that BP’s profits should be stripped, please. The company has lost 1/3 of its market cap. Isn’t that enough? We need BP employees feeling like they have a job to do (plug well, refine oil, etc.). We need this company still for fuel because we don’t have a clean energy economy yet.

Let’s be clear: BP has owned responsibility and has maintained that it will pay the necessary financial damages. There is a lawsuit being actively explored to hold criminal offenders accountable. What else do people want?

Yes, BP PR and execs need the watchdogs, and if you read me you know I am one of those watchdogs. In fact it seems everyone is one of them now. I hardly see how BP will be able to get away with anything.

How will destroying the entire company like this help? I don’t see how putting 90,000 more people out of work helps the 10,000 fisherman who will lose their jobs. I don’t understand how killing their clean energy programs — fueled by their profits and market cap — will help us become an oil free economy. That’s what you do when you stop shareholder payouts.

What Needs to Happen

Chest beating and mindless witch hunting will only hurt all of us. We need to channel our anger towards both the government and BP and hold them to the task at hand. Specifically, protect unpoisoned Gulf waters, clean poisoned Gulf beaches and waters as best we can, plug the leak, and finally, activate citizen volunteers.

Obama needs to do a better job getting a capable command and communications structure in place to clean up the Gulf. BP is not an environmental clean up company, nor do they defend shores from danger. Last I checked that was the Coast Guard, EPA and U.S. Navy’s job. BP is an energy company that drills and refines oil. Why are they being asked to handle clean-up? Let the military do it and hand BP the bill.

The Obama Administration needs to use its considerable PR skills to effectively communicate with the American public during the crisis, not schlack BP. What is the government doing Today to resolve these issues?

Obama needs to ensure not only communications, but that the DoJ investigation holds his own administration accountable, too. For surely, some EPA/MMS employees broke the law, too. Speaking of, has the Obama Administration been checking on the safety of all the other off-shore sites? What’s the status on other active oil platforms?

The president needs to activate citizens to help, because we are angry and feel powerless. Some folks, like the video featuring the farmers above, have stopped waiting for Obama and BP to get the public engaged, and started acting on their own (See my Mashable article on four ways to clean-up the Gulf using social media). What happened to “Yes, We Can?” Heck, how about taking some of the 10% of unemployed Americans and paying them to clean up, then giving the bill to BP?

And frankly, Obama needs to find viable employment for the Gulf fishing community, which will be out of work for much longer than this year. The Gulf marine environment and associated economies have likely sustained permanent wide-reaching damage.

BP needs to be quiet about whether or not oil plumes exist, whether or not 10-20k barrels a day are spilling, and simply focus on getting the leak filled. There’s no further advantage to be gained by trying to minimize public perception of how bad this is. Instead, let the facts tell the story, fix the well, and simply focus on being supportive to all clean-up, DoJ and scientific efforts. Ethical, factual communications are the only way out for BP.

No elected official should take pot shots at oil company profits without first disclosing how much oil money they have in their campaign war chest. In the words of Ben Franklin, “Clean your finger before you point at my spots.” Congress and the administration need to get big corporate dollars out of their pockets and reform themselves if they want anyone to take them seriously.

Enough BS and spin about who is to blame. Let the DoJ investigation figure that out. We all need to mindfully address the Herculean problems Deep Horizon presents with solution-oriented actions.

Popularity: 5% [?]

We Just Can’t Live Like This Anymore

Posted on: May 31st, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 5 Comments

The Flag Still Flies Over Pearl Harbor

As we assess the very real economic damage and fathom the full scope of the environmental catastrophe caused by the Deep Horizon crisis, it’s natural to feel great anger, despair and even depression. Yet this suffering can provide our society the motivation to resolve the larger issues that caused the oil spill.

We don’t have to sit in front of our screens and do nothing. Instead, we can act. For me there’s no other choice. We can’t keep living like this anymore. Once we are aware, we become mindful about our actions, and how we enable these great problems.

It begins with compassion for what we have been, where we are now, and what we could be again. To achieve a better sustainable society, in my mind, there are three systematic issues that need to be addressed: The environmental matter, the special interest/government problem, and frankly, ethics in public relations.

Environmental Impact

The time for scoffing at alarmed “tree-hugging” environmentalists must come to an end. If there’s anything that Deep Horizon demonstrates, it’s the real damage that unchecked industry can wreak upon our world.

While major catastrophes like this force our attention to finally consider fisheries, marine life, and general environmental malaise, it’s individual acts of mindful conservation that will change the tide. The reality is that the United States consumes more than 1/5 of the world’s resources. There is much we can change in our day-to-day lives.

On a national level, the recently introduced Climate Bill has provisions about our future energy development, including the enablement of further off shore drilling. It’s critical that we use Deep Horizon as a motivator to write our Congressmen and Senators. Please tell them 1) there is no room for additional off shore drilling in U.S. waters and 2) that we need a real long-term road-map for sustainable energy resources, not coal and oil.

We — you, me, all of us — have been subsidizing — paying — Big Oil in all kinds of ways, hidden and not so hidden, to do exactly what Exxon and BP have done and will continue to do if we don’t demand change. Consider the billions of dollars these companies receive in tax breaks, and then their incredible profits and executive salaries. This money must be redirected toward clean energy. Our children deserve no less.

Special Interests and Government

There’s been a great trail of corporate wreckage over the past decade, including BP; the health care industry; Halliburton, Blackwater/Xe and Iraq; the financial mortgage meltdown (AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc.); Toyota, Monsanto, Citizens United decision; general lobbying against measures to address climate change; and the net neutrality war to name a few. And there has been a lot of hub bub about a new generation of government under this Administration.

The incredible power that special interests hold over our government has absolutely stifled our ability to function as a society. This problem extends beyond partisanship to include both the Democrat and the Republican alike as demonstrated by the Deep Horizon incident. In fact as the Supreme Court demonstrated with its Citizens United decision (the court ruled that companies were people, overturning the ban on independent expenditures by corporations, paving the way for unlimited corporate and union spending in elections), the problem is systemic.

Until we stop treating companies like citizens and take big money out of politics, the frequency of major corporate abuses will only increase. The best way for any of us to act today is to write our state and federal officials and demand that they support Clean Elections bills. We need to get corporate dollars out of our elected politicians’ campaigns as well as end high dollar lobbying incidents. Remember, these guys won’t get rid of the cash cow without pressure from us.

There are also more than 50 nonprofit organizations working on reforming the government right now. Support one of them (full disclosure: Common Cause is a client of mine).

Ethics in PR

Facebook Semantic Ad Failure Featuring @bp_america and @johnbell

This has been a long standing issue. It’s been one that I now often avoid rather than continue to fight, but, again, we just cannot live like this anymore. PRSA and other organizations have been fighting for a long time to install best practices. Yet we still have this problem.

The outrage from Deep Horizon was made exponentially worse by the bad PR from BP executives and the Obama Administration. People feel manipulated and lied to… And rightly so. Factual integrity is essential in a crisis, and frankly in any form of communications. Whether it’s posturing for stock price, liability or public opinion points, the common good and ethics have been sacrificed repeatedly during the Deep Horizon crisis. But Deep Horizon is just an example of the larger communications industry’s issues with ethics.

I think the media and bloggers are already all over this particular incident, but how do we raise the professional bar in general so it doesn’t occur with this kind of frequency?

Next Steps and Taking Action

Tomorrow’s 9 a.m. EDT “The El Show” podcast with Richard Laermer, special guest Rich Becker and I will focus on the PR ethics question as well as the BP Deep Horizon issue, in general. Wednesday’s Live Earth post will be a list of ways you can help Gulf Coast residents online. And lastly, I am working on a Mashable post focusing on how people are using social media to create grassroots efforts to clean up the oil spill.

In the interim, check out this Huffington Post article providing details on several different efforts, or donate to the National Wildlife Federation’s campaign to Help Wildlife Impacted by the BP Oil Spill (also my birthday campaign).

P.S. The flag photo in the post was taken at the U.S.S. Arizona memorial in Pearl Harbor. It’s a stark scene, reminding us of the great battle that ensued there almost 70 years ago, and the great price our armed forces have paid for freedom. I do want to acknowledge our veterans today — including my grandfathers — and thank them for their service.

Barbara Newell contributed to this post.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Can a Villain Become an Antihero?

Posted on: February 26th, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 7 Comments

Denver Skyline

In a great ongoing conversation with Amy Sample Ward about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and whether companies can authentically engage, we discussed whether they can simply create marketing fanfare or tell a genuine story. Authenticity must be something that truly reflects a culture, not some mechanized program designed to bluff stakeholders. This is particularly true of companies who have been publicly decried for great wrongs. It’s not easy to turn a villain into an antihero.

Not all companies are villains. But the point can be seen the same way. Trust in corporations hit an all time low last year. No one believes that companies — particularly public ones — wants to do more than turn a higher profit for their quarterly earnings statements. The resulting tensions with corporations’ burned communities — employees and customers alike — has resulted in the recent cause marketing turn to revamp and boost tarnished images (See David Conner’s 2nd CSR Internet Revolution post).

Makes sense to me. But to do so branding oneself as an angel doesn’t seem like an authentic path. If one considers the archetypal antihero, they are flawed, and lacking some of the attributes that make a heroic figure, as nobility of mind and spirit… But we love them anyway. Perhaps the best post I’ve read on the archetype is Jocelyn Harmon’s Dirty Harry story.

Perhaps a great example of flawed fanfare can be seen with Pepsi’s Refresh efforts. Surely $20 million in a free-for-all contest would impress many, but contest flaws have marred the efforts. Without a rudder or stated Theory of Change, the campaign seems to be marred.

As Zoetica CEO Beth Kanter said in a post last night, “This strategy is more appropriate for selling products, not social change. Let me say this. If brands want to be authentic in their social media for social good effort, they need a fusion approach that balances marketing with social change.”

Now authenticity isn’t showing flair or a rock song or even dropping $20 million. It’s about demonstrating a little heart and passion, even flaws. Be real, and that’s the problem with many corporate social responsibility programs. They lack a frank pragmatism about business and its internetworked ties to the community. To build trust, people need to believe you’re authentic. Thus over-glossed CSR programs without substantive cultural acknowledgment — even flaws — fail to compel people.

There’s no greater example of flawed CSR — of a villain bound to stay a villain — then WalMart’s current efforts (see Joe Waters: Ten Reasons Why CSR Programs Fail). As I discussed on Wednesday, the primary thrust of WalMart’s CSR effort is its green initiatives.

The big issue with WalMart isn’t the green contributions, which are substantive, albeit new. These are great and in the end are smart for the community… and the bottom line. The problem lies in its continued labor practices, it’s detrimental impact on local economies, and it’s terrible healthcare programs. When you read WalMart’s CSR page, you get no insight that the companyhas these flaws or is even trying to address them.

I wouldn’t like it if WalMart said we hire cheap to keep prices down, but I would respect it. Just like Dirty Harry may be abrasive, but does the right thing (sort of, in a very violent way). I would respect them even more if they invested in creating a more vibrant local economy and universal healthcare initiatives (WalMart does have healthcare initiatives, they just don’t directly address their own employees, just their customers).

Instead I get this, “We’re proud to be a “store of the community” for all of the communities we serve.” Still selling, still promoting. All of the local charity and foundation work does not really address WalMart or its problems. Thus for many, in spite of the fanfare, Walmart remains a villain.

Everyone understands business is business, but if you want CSR to work, a company needs to acknowledge its own place in the world, and its positive and negative impact in the ecosphere. An amends cannot be received if there’s no acknowledgment of wrong. Instead of selling and posturing all the time, simply try to be a part of and contribute, too. Show us who you (a.k.a. the employees and culture) really are.

Popularity: 23% [?]

Six Things To Change In Buzz

Posted on: February 15th, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 21 Comments
2930716970_644598079b.jpg

My professional opinion on Buzz aside, as a user I find it to be a frustrating experience (image by tifa). Perhaps I’ve become spoiled with other networks, but Buzz strikes me as the Hyundai of social networks. Rather than just complain, I’d like to offer some suggestions. Here are six things I’d like to see changed in Buzz, all of which have been submitted to the Buzz team.

1) The background is killing me. There’s so much white space in Buzz, that I find it hard to read. Google’s patented look yes, but it does not lend itself to a friendly web screen presence… And since there are no real Buzz clients yet, please allow me to inject some customization and color. My old man eyes need it.

2) Can’t say it any better than this: It’s new and clunky. Make Buzz fluid, please.

3) Don’t forward commented posts. A fellow who shall not be named posted eight photos of a young lady’s derriere yesterday. I commented on the post to this effect: “She’s beautiful, yes, but this photoset indicates stalking.” Next thing you know this fellow’s post is in all of my follower’s feeds, and the ladies were not happy about it. I unfollowed said person simply because I cannot afford to anger my user base with someone else’s online behavior.

4) Give users the option to decouple email: Buzz makes Gmail a bacon haven, and that’s not good. I get too much email, and more socnet email is not what I want. Nor do I want notifications in my email desktop. Making people figure out a GMail filter is not cool, either. Generally speaking on Gmail and Buzz together, Boo!

5) Hasten the apps process: I think not having desktop or mobile clients out the gate was a mistake. Did Google strike with an element of surprise? Yes, it did. Does its service suffer for it? Why, yes, it does.

6) Similarly, publish a FAQ. Why do I have to search for all of the ways to integrate Buzz into my social media. Google should be doing everything it can to make the experience easier on users.

What would like to see changed about Buzz?

Popularity: 26% [?]

Not Buying It! Sponsored Media = Advertising

Posted on: February 12th, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 19 Comments
2299627995_0aa18df0f9.jpg

Sometimes the 2.0 world tries to reinvent some things, like advertising, and give it a new name (image by nocas). And so it is with the term, “Sponsored Media,” perpetrated by the likes of such companies as Pay Per Post, oops, IZEA, and TwitAd. These companies have even solicited, and in some cases, paid for the support of some of PR 2.0′s most celebrated voices in support of sponsored media.

The sponsored spin reminds me of the energy industry’s clean coal positioning. No matter how you greenwash it, it’s still dirty.

Ironically, the end result is less trust in peer to peer media. Why? Because some of the most trusted voices are now blogging for money, and can’t even do so in a clear-cut transparent manner by declaring these posts as paid advertorials (remember that term, media buyers?). Instead they hide behind the “new term” sponsored, which is in fact a retroactive term dating back to the 50s and 60s when broadcast advertisers were called, gasp, “sponsors.”

I’m not so disappointed in IZEA and the like. With the rise of new media power, it was inevitable that money would come along and seek various ways (good and bad) of becoming associated with the voice of the authentic amateur.

faust.jpg

It’s understandable that some people see this as a legitimate means of monetizing their blog or Twitter stream. Selling placement on your blog/media property is. It’s also a Faustian dance where depending on how far below the surface you sink, you sacrifice trust and relationships for contractual riches.

My disappointment lies in those that go so far as to claim that they are ushering in a new era of media transparency; that they are leading the PR 2.0 revolution, and yet support — even promote — this sponsored media spin. As someone who has been along for a great portion of the ride, I am saddened by these developments. Some people who I hold in high regard look tarnished now.

Frankly, the term sponsored media fools no one. Except the people trying to rationalize their IZEA pay check.

Recommendations

Organizations: Don’t believe the hype. It’s advertising, and as such has value, but sponsored media is nothing more than the electronic advertorial. And no matter what someone tells you, the post will be met with less trust than a traditional one.

Bloggers/Media Owners: I think everyone understands that monetization needs to happen for some. If at all possible, try to monetize in different ways though, for this method sacrifices your integrity and trust factor, especially with frequency.

Also, call it what it is. The sponsored media bit makes you look slimy, and actually increases your distrust factor exponentially. Why? You look like you are trying to trick people. Readers will be much more accepting of the occasional paid placement if it is simply called an advertisment.

Popularity: 24% [?]

Messaging Still Fails

Posted on: January 28th, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 19 Comments
3728122696_e74a9c94a2.jpg

One of the greatest triumphs of the social web remains the open citizen revolt against marketing messages (bored image by Samael Trip). Note how well the Apple iPad name flew yesterday online (ahem, let’s not go there). Nonprofits experience the same disinterest from their stakeholders as companies due.

In fact, a recent report by marketer Nancy Schwartz (hat tip to Beth Kanter for forwarding me these stats), 84 percent of 915 nonprofit leaders who completed the survey last month said their messages connect with their target audiences only somewhat or not at all. Nancy’s post includes comments from survey participants explaining why their messages fail to connect:

  • “Our messages need to be more succinct to communicate how effective we really are.”
  • “We don’t move our base to action.”
  • “We have individual elements that are ok solo, but no unified path.”
  • “Our messages aren’t hard-hitting or targeted enough. So they fall flat.”
  • “We need to shape messages that are simple enough for staff to remember and feel comfortable in repeating it to others.”
  • “Too much jargon. I can’t even understand what we’re saying.”

Maybe, but… Let’s be frank as I’ve written about this over and over again in the past on the Buzz Bin: The Cluetrain Manifesto was right! “There’s no market for messages.”

It doesn’t matter if you have a compelling cause or a public interest, or if your company contributes to society. If you drill people with messages, they will absolutely turn their back on you.

And you know what? You deserve it. It’s like entering a party and spamming people with solicitations, stale lines, and hucksterisms. Thanks for talking about yourself and what you want from me all night. Cause or not.

The 20th century approach of communications is over, regardless of medium. Mass communicating at people no longer works. Even Super Bowl ads are starting to fail now, thus Pepsi’s $20 million (troubled) social refresh program.

Whether its social or not, cause and corporate communicators alike need to stop and retool their strategic approach towards messaging. What we learned in business or communications school has changed. The old dynamics of media, specifically the concept that there are limited channels of media that people get information from, no longer applies.

Look at messages as conversation starters (see this post I wrote on the starter message premise). You won’t control the dialogue, but the fact of the matter is you already lost control and some argue, you never had it. Instead let’s have real interesting conversations that matter to us (organization and person), and society, in general.

Popularity: 20% [?]