Newsweek & New York Times Validate Another of Our Predictions

In Feb. 2010, we published our annual list of trends and predictions for the year. As part of our Prediction #5: The Top Dozen Business & Technology Stories in 2010 Will Include... we said one of the top stories would be "The freelancing of the US workforce -- or how we'll all be contractors or 'perma-temps' in the future (especially given the jobless nature of the recovery)."

In an article in June 2010, Newsweek ran an interesting article that validated the above prediction: "The Vanishing 9-to-5 Job: How the recession is accelerating a cultural shift in the corporate world toward more flexible workdays." And on Sept. 1, the New York Times ran an
article, "New Job Means Lower Wages for Many" that looked at the impact of a lack of steady jobs.

Keep in mind that the point of the trends is to identify story angles the media will be working on for the oncoming year, and then developing approaches to get clients into those stories.

Meanwhile, in the same list of top business and tech stories we expected to see, we predicted a lot of attention paid to "Google vs. Apple vs. Microsoft and EMC vs. HP vs. Oracle." We've been right about part of that: Google vs. Apple has been a big story, bigger than Google vs. Microsoft.
(Check out It's Apple vs. Google in the New Phone Fight, that appeared in Newsweek in June.) But there's a version of that we missed on: Dell vs HP (fighting Over 3Par). Can't get 'em all.

As always, we'll do a recap at the end of the year to determine how well we did overall with our list, breaking out the trends we got right and the ones that we did not.

The Reason Social Media Can be Difficult to Sell? It's the Indirect Nature of It, Part III

Guess this could be called Part II 1/2. Or the Need for Benchmarks.

One of the obstacles we're hearing from clients about engaging in social media programs is the lack of metrics.

Paul Gillin, a longtime journalist who has turned himself into a B2B social media guru and has a blog worth reading, was one of the first to point for the need to establish benchmarks -- and has written that several years later, we still lack benchmarks.

Traditional media has several established benchmarks, including circulation and the average time spent reading a magazine or newspaper. While time spent on a page is the basic equivalent to the second metric, it's doesn't provide the same snapshot overall.

In other words, the challenge remains: how can companies determine if they're getting any value from the social media initiatives.

In reading Charlene Li's new book, Open Leadership (disclosure: I received a review copy of the book), I came across another useful quote:

"In the absence of established metrics and benchmarks (for social media) you'll need to create them for yourself."

That's no silver bullet but the point is that companies have to experiment to determine what metrics make the most sense for them. If social media is about engaging with your stakeholders, it is also about the need to test -- and perhaps fail at first -- different approaches to reaching stakeholders.

I know that in the New Normal, getting budget or approval to experiment can be a challenge. Last night I talked with a very smart expert in small businesses, and she expressed concern about social media. But even as social media continues to evolve, it's not a fad that will fade away the way CB Radio did in the '70s.

And I know social media is not the answer for every client or organization. But at the same time, I think organizations should be asking the questions to see how they might benefit from reaching out over a new channel. Once you start doing so, you can start collecting metrics, and start figuring out which ones make sense for you.

Transparency & Crisis Prevention -- Advice from Eric Schmidt

After writing about crisis management lessons from recent events (PR Lessons from BP, Toyota & Goldman Sachs), I came across a column by Google CEO Eric Schmidt that ran in Forbes.

Schmidt's point: thanks to a 24- hours news cycle, secrecy isn't so easy to come by. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

According to Schmidt, the real question is:

"What are our choices when we, whether as individuals or businesses, get it wrong--sometimes badly wrong? We can try to conceal our blunders, as so many people have done for so many centuries. But in a world where everything is recorded and stored, that is not a realistic option.

"Nor should it be. For a company that aspires to true significance or an individual who wants to rise to prominence, the question is, "How should we behave?" The answer must be, "We did the best we could and did so transparently." In time this should move from a defense to an expected standard."

I think it's good that a business leader like Schmidt endorses transparency, and that it will help pursuade other companies of the need to embrace a new way to operate.

But I sometimes I wonder if the idea of business transparency is just another business fad. Perhaps social media's significant contribution will be to make transparency part of the standard operating proceedure for business.

You can read Schmidt's column here.

The Reason Social Media Can be Difficult to Sell? It's the Indirect Nature of It, Part II

In May, I wrote about the challenges of selling in social media to metric-demanding clients.

One challenge is that some of the metrics are less objective than one might think. Click-through rates are calculated differently so that, depending on which service you use -- bit.ly or Tweetburner -- are vastly different. However they capture data about click-throughs, their results are like apples to oranges. Meanwhile, there are plenty of tools to track how many visitors go to your blog or site, and no two provide the same number. In fact, I've seen data from one site tool that provides different results for the same site.

That, of course, makes selling in social media programs a bit of a challenge.

But in reading Charlene Li's new book, Open Leadership, I came across a useful quote. Li is the founder of the Altimeter Group and a former Yankee Group analyst. According to Li,

"Inevitably they (management) want to know what the return on investment (ROI) is. But this emphasis on ROI is like asking what the value of a deeper, closer relationship is. Although I agree that leadership should rigorously examine the benefits of openess, an undue emphasis on hard ROI does no one any good...

For example, what's the ROI of a handshake? Or think of a lunch you recently had with a colleague or direct report, where you invested time and money to develop a deeper relationship with them. How do you calculate the ROI of an internal business lunch? ...In most cases, more than half of a company's operating expenses are likely to be spent on activities that have an indirect impact on the bottom line. We may not be able to link the ROI of these expenses to direct sales, but we know there's some incremental benefit that makes them worthwhile."

The challenge is getting the right people within the organization to understand that social media is another means by which they can connect to key audiences. Even B2B companies need to consider connecting with their customers because so many of them are using social media anyway.

(Disclosure: I received a review copy of "Open Leadership.")

PR Lessons from BP, Toyota & Goldman Sachs

The cover of Sunday's New York Times Business Section was: what not to do in case of emergency, drawn from the recent examples of BP, Toyota and Goldman Sachs. I would also add H-P to that list, though obviously to a lessor degree.

It's well worth reading the article, but here are some lessons, drawn from Peter S. Goodman's article. Please note: what follows is general advice, not directed at or in response to any particular company or specific situation.

1. When faced with a potential crisis, don't delay in responding. At the same time, don't give off-the-cuff responses. If you need to research the situation, say so, then provide regular updates because of course you'll need to evaluate the issues involved.
   
2. Don't blame other people or factors. You can't spin your way out of a catastrophe. "There's not a lot of news when the company takes responsibility and moves on," according to James Donnelly at Ketchum.
3. Don't take an adversarial position with the public, government officials or the media. After all, when the crisis is over, you'll need to maintain good relations with customers, regulators and the media.
4. You don't always have to get out in front of the story, according to Eric Dezenhall, who believes there may be some situations were the issues are just against you, and it's best to "absorb the pounding," in the words of the Times article. Tiger Woods' scandal may be an example of when it might be best to make an apology and drop out of view.
5. Don't start post-crisis communications efforts (usually done via TV spots and the phrase, "working together, we're solving this issue") while the crisis has not yet been solved. It will look insincere. However, it's okay to start communicating your apology and taking responsibility for the crisis.
   
6. Don't forget your communications goals: As Dezenhall says, "It's the height of arrogance to assume that in the middle of a crisis the public yearns for chestnuts of wisdom from people they want to kill. The goal is not to get people not to hate them. It's to get people to hate them less."
7. Don't provide the updates you want to hear. Provide accurate updates. Credibility will be important after the crisis has been forgotten. But people will remember if they felt you were not truthful.
8. Don't get caught between your attorneys and your PR team. Your attorneys will advise against taking responsibility because that may open you to law suits or make it easier for plaintiffs to win their claims against you. On the other hand, your PR team will advise you to be as open as possible. You've got to draw a line in the sand, and stick with it, and not get caught in ongoing arguments from either side.
9. You should prepare a crisis plan to keep focused on how to research, resolve and communicate about a crisis. That means you should update the plan, too. If you pull your crisis plan out of your desk, does it include how to monitor and address social media? If the plan was created six years ago, it's way too old because that was before Twitter, YouTube and other tools that can communicate the other side of the story -- i.e., not yours -- fast.
10. Don't go off message. Recent off-the-cuff messages by CEOs sparked more controversy, and became the main story element for the next 48 hours or longer. If the message is off, it can have a stronger impact than much of what you're doing right. Who can forget Pres. George W. Bush's "You're doing a heckuva good job, Brownie" to Michael D. Brown, the then-head of FEMA in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina -- when the opposite was clear to everyone watching TV.

For more, check out the Times article. The hardcopy also included a sidebar, "Three P.R. Nightmares" (not available online) that listed the cost of the impact the scandals had on the stock prices of Toyota, BP and Goldman. Interesting proof points to why crisis planning is important and valuable.

Why Forbes Publishes Its Annual Forbes Celebrity 100 List & The Lessons It Teaches PR

I don't think I need to explain why Sports Illustrated runs its annual swimsuit issue in Feb., when much of the country is buried in snow, when the Super Bowl is over, when basketball and hockey seasons seem endless, and when it's too soon (and too cold) to think about spring training.

But the reason for the annual Forbes Celebrity 100 may not be so obvious.

The annual Forbes Celebrity 100 is designed to be "a power ranking based on earnings and fame but also on social media rank such as Facebook friends and fans, Twitter followers, overall print and broadcast coverage, number of blog hits, and appearances on covers of 25 consumer magazines.

Sounds like a good set of metrics. But those metrics, other than earning power, make the list subjective rather than objective.

They're trying to quantify fame, much the way Q Score have done for celebrities for years.

Adding the element of "power ranking" makes it okay for Forbes to cover celebrities because Forbes gets to treat them as business people, not just as eye candy.

How else could Forbes justifying placing Sandra Bullock, Kobe Bryant, Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Swift on its cover?

Forbes can always put Oprah on its cover (as the current hit, "I Want to be a Billionaire," points out), but it would take a stretch to imagine Miley Cyrus, Beyonce, Anglina (do I have to provide her last name?) and others.

The value of its annual Forbes Celebrity 100 is to act like the always popular People Magazine for one issue during mid-summer -- the equivalent slow period for business as Feb. is for sports fans.

It's fun beach reading. It gives you the opportunity to debate whether Beyonce, who claimed the Number 2 spot and earned $87 million, should out rank James Cameron, Number 3 who earned $210. Or to try to figure out how boxer Floyd Mayweather (number 31 with $65 million) out-ranked producer Jerry Bruckheimer (number 47 with $100 million)?

The answer, of course, is besides the point.

For Forbes, the point is to generate interest and boost readership at a time when its readers may be on vacation, trying to unwind a bit. (They never truly unplug.)

The lesson for PR functions: look at your industry for any slow period, and think of developing a fun stunt that's accessible but relevant to generate attention when your competitors may have checked out. Swimsuits in Feb. have a tangential connection at best with sports just as teen celebrities have a tangential connection with business. And SI and Forbes have been doing a good job filling their respective magazines during slow periods.

Is Social Media Only About Popularity? Or is Bloomberg BusinessWeek Wrong About the Need to Be Popular

The current issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek has a cover story on popularity.

The thesis of the article is:

Popularity is not a state of grace. In business, it is treasure hard-won on the battlefields of product development and marketing, then leveraged or squandered or stolen back. Most of the products and ideas showcased here—the stuff we buy, sell, and otherwise consume the most—owe their status in part to aggressive sales tactics, from knocking on doors to strong-arming grocers to gain the best shelf space. In its most potent and permanent form, however, popularity transcends sales pitches, advertising, fads, and maybe even conscious choice.

Yet I found I didn't like the article. True, it was filled with interested factoids about which brands or more popular -- Jif or Skippy, vanilla ice cream vs. chocolate, bananas vs. apples -- but there's not much in the way of useful, actionable lessons from the extended article.

We know that Jif outsells Skippy, than vanilla ice cream is more popular in-home and that Americans buy more white-colored cars than other color (black is the second most popular). But in my reading of the article, there was limited value in knowing which brands, products. etc. are more popular.

We learn that "With nearly a billion dollars in annual sales, Lay's market share dwarfs that of its rivals," but not why so many of us buy so many of Lay's potato chips.

The article seems to suggest in an age of social media, being popular is the end goal. That would be llike living in a perpetual high school environment.

Yet Bloomberg BusinessWeek acknowledges in passing that it's not all about being popular. In a separate, online only article, "Popularly Unpopular," Arik Hesseldahl reports makes an important point about popularity: "Why does the most popular social network rank next to last in a customer satisfaction survey?"

In other words, you don't need to be popular or well liked to be necessary.

I know we're all trying to get as many followers as possible on Twitter, the largest number of fans of Facebook, and links to our blogs. But I think if your goal is merely to sit at the cool table in the high school lunch room in the social media cafeteria, you're focusing on the wrong variable.

Let me know what you think. Is my take a popular or unpopular perspective?