we are not all the same.

We no longer live in a world where it's okay to ignore the extremes and the outliers.  If you can't provide information in a suitable format, with a suitable level of detail, to the right people, you can't connect with anyone.

My mother is an educator, currently working with children who face difficulties learning.  Last night, we went out to dinner, and had a truly great conversation, dealing with one of the core problems with education; the impossibility of creating a learning situation that isn't too slow for some people, and too fast for others.

This hits close to home, as I was in an accelerated program in grade school and high school, and generally felt that education came in two speeds: so slow it was boring, or completely self directed, as many teachers seemed to assume that kids in an accelerated program didn't require any guidance.

As a result of this, and (I'm sure) an innate tendency, I was a lazy student until I reached the mid-point of high school.  I reflect on these issues regularly, especially when I'm dealing with information delivery, or preparing materials for public consumption.

We're at a point where not only do you need to produce content at every key level of complexity and detail, but also tailored and distributed to the audience and community that is going to interact with it.

This doesn't mean giving the good information to newspapers, and less detailed stuff to new media producers.  It means tailoring the kind of information, and the presentation, to the audience at hand.  You will find people of more or less equal intelligence in any network.  What you won't find is a blurb of text that is equally dynamic on a facebook fan page, as it is coming across in 140 character blasts on twitter.

Tailoring isn't just for direct outreach.  It's for your presence in distinct communities, and distinct modes of communication.  Speaking to people with an understanding their idiom, at their speed, is the only way you can truly connect with them.

Thanks, Mom.

question three: publishing online.

What services have you used to publish online?

Diaryland, Blogger, LiveJournal, Wallop, Flickr, Blogger (this time after Google acquired it), Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter.

I am nearly certain there are others, but these are the ones I can recall at the moment.  Any obvious things I've missed?

[This is the third in a series of posts wherein I answer the questions I suggested posing to potential employees working in media.]

question two: over-hyped social media service.

What social media / social networking service do you think is the most over-hyped?

For me, the only answer is LinkedIn.  I understand it's importance, I have a profile myself, and I do my best to keep it updated.  But for me, LinkedIn fails on the 'social' element, and that keeps me from making it part of my day to day usage.  I don't have relationships on LinkedIn, (and I fully admit this is my fault) I only have information there.

LinkedIn serves a particular niche, in my eyes - People who see the power of social media, and are still unnerved it.

Twitter has conversations, which lead to being exposed.  Facebook has history and context, which lead to being exposed.  Blogs have content, which paired with context, leads to being exposed.  LinkedIn seems designed to avoid exposure at all costs, and feels like it is based on the premise that your work life, and work social ecosystem, should be kept separate from your personal one.  To me, this feels like a service designed for people who like the idea of social media, but are terrified of incorporating it into their lives, and dealing with the exposure related to that.

Again, I understand the appeal of LinkedIn.  But for me, it feels as though it was designed for a subset of the current generation of employers, the people who think an embarrassing picture on Facebook, from five years in the past, is an accurate indicator of an individual's ability to contribute to an office environment.

So, I don't think LinkedIn in the future.  I think it serves a specific missing link between the people who have no interest in using social media, and the people who will soon be the only target market that matters: those who live in social media.

[This is the second in a series of posts where I answer the questions I suggested people ask potential media hires.]

journalism is the harbinger (or, say goodbye to sleep).

One of the attempted fixes the newsmedia has tried to bolster profits and smooth the transition online, is to basically to work journalists to death.  On top of the many, many facets of the actual job, the research, the interviews, the investigations and the writing, some journalists are expected to maintain a blog, create smaller pieces for websites, and generally add another separate job's workload to their day.

This is going to happen to all of us.

In a society where social media is well and truly mainstream, where transparency is a given, and where each individual within a company is seen as a potential representative, lots of people are going to find a social media element added to their duties.  Posting on a corporate blog, or updated a company focused next-generation equivalent of a twitter account, or flickr, or facebook page, is going to become a standard part of everyone's workday.  There will be a point where a lack of 'humanizing content' on behalf of a company or representative will seem as odd as meeting someone who refuses to use contractions.

The issue is, maintaining a meaningful social media presence is a lot of work.  Many of us are busy enough that we don't really know how to fit everything into a work day already.  I'm lucky enough to have a job where my use of social media on the job is accepted (and quickly becoming industry standard).

We should all get ready for the double shift.  It's coming.  And for the people who wouldn't be doing it anyways, it's going to be uncomfortable.

personal twitter anecdote.

People complain regularly that social media is just another way of commodifying personal relationships, turning friendship into a score and social bonds into bragging rights.  I'm sure for some people this is true, but due to some circumstances of my life and friendships, I can't agree with it for a second.

My mother returned from a short trip to Washington, DC earlier this evening.  She'd been sick the night before, and was complaining of tingling in her extremities, a general feeling of weakness, and nausea.  Obviously, I took her to the emergency room.

In the waiting area (which is a cell-phone friendly zone, don't berate me in the comments) I posted my location and situation to Twitter.  In the next 20 minutes, the following things happened:

• @replies showed up from my girlfriend, as well as a good friend in town, and a friend who currently lives in Los Angeles.
• The aforementioned local good friend called to check in on me, and make sure that my mother was doing well.  He also offered to stop by, and get me anything I may need, despite repeated assurances that the situation wasn't serious.
• My girlfriend called, checking on me, and offering to come wait with me (about a 30 minute drive for her), again despite there not being anything major to worry about.

The main thing to take from this is yes; the people in my life are really, really wonderful.  But it's also important to note that part of my standard operating procedure - posting my events / mindset via Twitter - resulted in the support system I've established in my life, reaching out to help me.

The benevolence of social networks has been an issue recently, highlighted in David Armano's very successful attempt to help someone out by tapping into the Twitter community.

This isn't related to that, or a commentary on that.  But I think it's worth pointing out that my meatspace social network, and real life connections, reached out to me entirely based on a fairly mild Twitter update.

Right now, I'm fairly certain that my social life and social connections are optimized by services like Twitter, not undermined by them.

Oh, and it was a false alarm.  My mother is in good shape, but better safe than sorry.

mobile social media and missing links.

The INQ Social Mobile phone is not something that appeals to current, 24 year old me as a consumer.  But I look at it and immediately appreciate how attractive it could be to a massive number of people, with it's reasonably priced social mobile experience.  This isn't the future of the mobile future, but I'm fairly convinced that similar devices are going to be the link that brings that future to us.

Reasonably priced, simple phones with elements like Facebook, Skype, Google, Last.fm and IM integration are essential because they are the key to hitting a mobile internet critical mass.  20 and 30 something techie types don't create worldwide change by themselves, the key is creating a common usage of something, letting it become part of the standard social landscape.

When enough 14 year olds are on Facebook from their cellphones, it's just a matter of time until it's no longer an option, but a demanded basic element of cellular service.

The interesting thing, in my mind, is the potential impact such devices will have in the developing world.  As cost drops, places where the mobile phone is the major point of communication and connectivity will begin having readily available points of entry into social networks.  And frankly, the idea of self-generating, hyperconnected groups in the developing world is something that excites me to no end.

I'm dreaming of flashmobs coming together via Facebook events to expand crumbling infrastructure, or self-organizing small business and aid groups.  I don't see it yet,  not necessarily from this INQ product, but I see the potential.

Steps like this remind me of how the future is built.

[I discovered this via Rachel Bremer on Twitter.]

oversimplifying the internets.

The Internet isn't one place.

I was reading the Toronto Star this morning, and (despite my ability to find evidence of this to link to) they've decided to stop printing online comments in the editorial page.  The thing that frustrated me isn't deciding that print content will be held to a different standard than online comments (anything should be held to a higher standard than online comments), it's that apparently someone suggested to these people that you cannot expect anyone online to use a real name, or write with correct grammar.

The Internet isn't one place.  Each location can, and does, establish it's own rules of engagement, expectations, and limitations on what is deemed acceptable.  One of the major problems print media has faced is finding the middle ground between refusing to change to incorporate the online readership, and flat out pandering to them.  If you want to print online comments in the Letters column, go ahead.  But let people know that comments won't be printed unless they are written fairly reasonably, and the writer is identified by a believable name.  Or, heavily moderate the comments, sending the message that people are welcome to enter the discussion, providing they want to maintain a suitable level of discourse.

Stop pretending the entire Internet is the same.  Because, nearly always, that assumption comes along with an inherent infantilization or criminalization of all 'digital natives'.  People who interact with others online are neither uniformly stupid, nor uniformly rebellious.  If you want to incorporate yourself into the online community, and incorporate the online community into your product, you need to figure out who you actually want to be spending that time interacting with.

If the future is social networking, being able to attract the suitable kind of people to your enterprise is more important than you think.

dear facebook, beacon is evil.

I know I've just recently berated anyone who whines about Facebook's new setup, but I've been seeing rumours here and there that the Beacon system might be coming back.  I hate Beacon, and I think my rage directed at it is more justified than those raging against the live feed option, or the new layout, or what have you, for one reason.

Facebook catalogues and organizes your social information.  It does this based on what you decide to tell the site about yourself, filtered through your privacy settings.  You might not like everyone you are friends with seeing what you do or say on Facebook, but you have decided to do and say those things, on the Facebook platform.

Beacon is problematic because it follows you around after you leave Facebook, and then tells everyone you have identified as a friend what you are up to outside of the Facebook platform.  To me, this breaks the implicit contract that Facebook users have - that Facebook stays confined to Facebook.  Telling people I'm said 'Happy Birthday' on a friend's wall is very different then telling them I googled the release dates of 35 mens fashion magazines, or watched several videos centred on the history of the bow tie.

What makes me odd, is that I don't have a problem with Facebook tracking this information, and using it to better target ads to me, assuming it is stored in a double-blind system, and kept for a limited amount of time.  What bothers me is that information, which I did not tell Facebook to collect, being distributed among individuals. 

Social networks are about projected identity, not actual identity.  If you remove the user control over the identity presented online, then yes, you are invading their privacy to an extent.  That, I have a problem with.

on the new facebook.

I have a lot of trouble taking any complaints about changes to Facebook seriously, because they are almost always freak-outs based on a fear of change.

When the News Feed first emerged, everyone freaked out except me.  It was called 'Stalker Feed', a bunch of groups were started and joined, and people generally decided that presenting the same information that was available before in a more logical way was terrifying.

People actually freaked out, because people knew what they were doing, on a system composed entirely of profile information and lists of people who can view it.  This is the greatest example of cognitive dissonance I can think of in the last 5 years.

Now, the same people are freaking out about the new Facebook, calling it 'Stalkerbook', and complaining, paradoxically, that it makes it too easy to see what people are doing, and too hard to find information on them, due to different tabs for different things.

This is a service, that is based entirely on organizing and sharing personal information with a select few approved people.  If you want to freak out about Google listings of personal info, and it's impossible to opt out, then fine.  Otherwise, you're getting what you expected, and freaking out because the package is more clearly organized.

This probably means you're irrational, at best.  A more usable version of the same information is BETTER, not scarier.

fake follow = fail feed.

Reading PSFK today I saw a post about Fake Follow, a feature on FriendFeed that makes me supremely uneasy.

What amuses me, is that this is getting positive feedback so soon after the 'PR is evil' meme showed up.

Social media is supposed to run on a principle of honesty, I'm so often told. We're supposed to connect on a personal level, even if it's mediated. Sharing, caring, etc. Fake Follow is more or less designed to create the impression of a connection, without the upkeep that a true connection would require.

This is sad, because the amount of effort necessary to maintain a single connection online is comparably negligible, when you take a look at relationships that exist in meatspace.

Social media is about relationships. If you get angry when outsiders step in, and either attempt to game the system, or to interfere without an understanding of how those relationships work, you should be fairly disgusted with the idea of something like Fake Follow. If you want the connection, you should be willing to listen to what that person has to say. Transparency, in things like this, is only reasonable.

Otherwise, you're campaigning for the fake web. You're asking for the least desirable, most charicatured aspects of the media industry to take precedence over the concepts behind social networking.

This may be the reason FriendFeed, which I hear so much about, has such minimal penetration in comparison with the hype. The people this would appeal to most are the people who are the notable pundits who love FriendFeed so much - the people who aren't actually participating in social media anymore.

aggregation does not a destination make.

Interesting observation:

I set up Facebook to import my posts from BrokenGentleman.com as notes.  A post that appeared both on my blog, and tumblr, to no response, got 5 comments within 5 hours on Facebook.

This, oddly enough, got me thinking about FriendFeed.

If a service’s only value as a destination is the ability to import data from multiple places and aggregate the same grouping of data from multiple contacts, then why am I headed there instead of to Facebook, which can do many of the same things (and could do all of them, if Zuckerberg and company saw potential there), while providing an established wealth of value and content of it’s own.

Honestly, if Facebook would let me set it to import more than one blog feed, and expanded importing support to more outside services, I could easily see it becoming even more of a destination than it already is.  If people are already going there to see what is going on in the lives of their associates, why not take advantage of that and put the things you are doing in front of them, whether they are RL or online based.

This is likely one of the posts that is more for me than for anyone else.

the integrated content debate.

Over the last month, I've been trying to keep my online writing / outposts / profiles more up to date, and more connected.  This has gone fairly well, as it serves to keep me involved in more of my accounts online, commenting, communicating, writing and linking more.  But I also wonder if the feeling of RSS incest that I get when something particularly vapid travels my watched corner of the blogosphere, is going to start to kick in for the small group of people who follow me, and the even smaller group who follow me on several different networks.

Currently, My tumblr, twitter, and facebook accounts will post links to anything that goes up on broken gent.  Similarly, facebook and broken gent link to all other accounts online of note.  It won't be long until I try to integrate my tumblr feed into my facebook account as well.  I admit I worry that people will think the multiple locations are meaningless if they interconnect too much, but my rationale is this:

Brokengentleman.com is for my theory and experience related to communications.  I use tumblr as a less focused clearing house for what interests me, and brokengent is definitely part of that world, as well.  Facebook is about me in entirety, so I intend to unify my various accounts there as well as I can.  Twitter is really just a collection of status messages, and linking to blog posts there is the same (in my mind) as changing my MSN status to 'New post at brokengentleman.com'.

Is this level of interconnectedness, which will probably only increase, beneficial, or will it only serve to over-saturate my already limited market / audience with the same content.  I can't say yet, but I'll be watching, and probably changing my approach to fit my observations.

crowley's second rule.

I’m proposing the following social media uncertainty principle:

At the moment you are unable to respond personally to the volume of comments and emails generated by your commentary on social media, you are no longer participating in social media.

This came to mind when I read a recent post talking about how great twitter is as a research tool, that simply asking one’s list for recommendations is far more useful than checking a site dedicated to the topic. This is certainly true, for a comparatively small number of pundits. But if you can do that, you aren’t really using social media. You’re being famous on a platform designed for the ‘Famous for 15 People’ world of augmented social interaction. And really, this level of internet fame makes it impossible to really comment on how social media works.

You can’t tell me how twitter, or tumblr, or even blogger works when you’re using it in a way 99% of people will never use it. You aren’t talking about how social media works. You’re talking about being internet famous. And as wise and informed as your perspective may be, it’s not a perspective that benefits most users.

So, the short version is, fame breaks social media. It alters the experience to the point where it’s unrecognizable, and often, breaks it so completely that the internet famous individual gets sick of the vitriol thrown their way and gives up.

You can’t comment on social media without experiencing it. And often, I find the social media punditry crowd is really just talking about personal publishing. It would help me, I think, if I thought they realized it.

increasing complexity of identity management.

I think it’s been established that people are now brands, especially if they decide to participate actively in social media. It’s not a binary ‘brand / not brand’ thing, it’s an issue of success and ubiquity, mom and pop vs. walmart. This, however, has complicated identity management beyond what any previous generation has to deal with.

I have two jobs, and as such am a representative of those brands. My publicly accessible actions, photos, profiles, etc., have been (to an extent) constructed to exclude content that would be harmful to the brand I represent. Basically, I’m censoring myself in several instances, because I have to make sure that my actions, even in online manifestations of my personal life, maintain the decorum that my work life demands. Lots of people I know deal with this issue by locking away their online profiles, forcibly (and incompletely) segregating their identity.

I’ve decided not to go that far, because my social / online identity is at time useful currency in work related situations, and I’d throw away the chance to get to know more about people who are initially work contacts.

I also write this blog, and therefore have to carefully watch what I do and say, as that is the sum total of control I have over the perception of the broken gentleman as a concept. I put the ideas out there, and people decide what they mean. You’ll notice I more or less keep my personal life off this blog, and I intend to continue to do so.

I’m the only person responsible for the Jon Crowley social brand online, and it has, more or less, been subjugated to the benefit of the work life / blogging brand values.

The reason I, and I assume many of you, use social media is the benefit in creating a trackable past, both for yourself and those you encounter, as well as connecting to others without having to worry about time or location.

As a transition generation, I think the ‘why’ of using social media is going to suffer in service to offline life, professional life, etc. This will probably continue until we decide that seeing evidence of something happening isn’t all that different from knowing it’s happening but ignoring it for propriety. Until values shift, social media is going to suffer as we try to put the genie of transparency back into the lamp.

moo cards and social objects.

After agonizing about it for several months, I decided I should get some ‘blog cards’ that I could give to non-professional contacts that I meet in my random social endeavours. I think it’s important to keep my personal life out of my work, as similarly I don’t think it makes sense to give non-work contacts my work card (with office number and work email address).

After talking with my friend Lindsay (the same friend who introduced me to the Tumblr platform) I decided to try Moo cards.

The process was quick, easy and simple. For the relatively low total cost of 28 dollars (including shipping) and less than 20 minutes of my time, I have 100 cards (in three varieties) that should arrive in the next few weeks. I’ll post up pictures, etc. The cards I purchased are very simple, a line of text on one side, and 5 lines of contact info for me on the other.

The interesting part of this is that the format Moo operates in allows you to design 100 different minicards for an order of 100, if you wish. It’s inspired me to start doing editions (for as long as I need the cards, or for as long as Moo still offers the service).

Each edition (after the first set that all have the same text) will feature 10 copies each of 10 phrases, usually snippets or quotes from the blog. I figure this will serve as a both a conversation piece (each card having a fairly cryptic or argumentative line on it) and as a timeline – each sentence will be for that edition only, so people will be able to track what edition they’ve met me during.

Really, I’m just impressed at how simple Moo has made it to create a social object that is designed to be shared with everyone you meet.

stop talking about second life.

This slideshow is a great introduction to social media, why there is no option but to care, and what the basic rules are.  I’m not posting it for this reason, however.  I’m posting it because it brings up what so, so many slideshows, articles, and blog posts reference.

Second Life.

There’s nothing wrong with Second Life.  It’s a playground, an interesting way for people to test out ideas, and a virtual world where people get to decide their own identity, own actions, and own morality.

My only problem with Second Life is that I think it’s become more important as something to be trotted out by specialists, journalists, and scared executives, when they want to demonstrate an understanding of the new world media order, than it is as a world or platform.

Social media is normally about projected selves.  There are varying degrees of anonymity and realism, but the general outcome is a projected identity that reflects how the creator wants to be perceived.  When you read a blog, you are reading a blog written both by John Smith, and the guy John Smith wants you to think he is.

This is important, because the guy John Smith wants you to think he is is the guy who buys non-essential products.  Possessions are often social signifiers, and social media puts on display what kind of projected persona, and therefore what signifiers would interest the person making the content.

Second Life is, by and large, different.

Second Life is a fantastical wish fulfillment and exploration tool.  This is probably demonstrated best by the fact that off the bat, everyone can fly.  Wish fulfillment is useful, except when you consider that only realistic wishes get fulfilled.  And while someone might be able to find a servable niche in a virtual society where a hail of digital genitalia greets uninvited corporate presences, no one who operates mostly out of meatspace has yet.

And they keep trying.

People resist the comparison between World of Warcraft and Second Life, saying that SL isn’t about fantasy, or quests, or winning, it’s to explore.  But, other than a massively larger subscriber base, I’d argue from a business standpoint that there are a total of two differences that matter between WoW and SL.

WoW doesn’t let a corporation try to invade a realm that has no use for it, and WoW subscribers all demonstrably have disposable income that they use for entertainment.

Second Life just manages to keep the buzz going by being less easy to categorize.  

Vanity Fair stumbles into Social Media relevance.

Every once in a while, an dead-tree outlet does something that's either a beautiful accident, or a rare moment of brilliance. Vanity Fair seems to have one going on at this exact moment.

"Five weeks ago, when I started working as as editorial assistant here at VF.com, my boss casually mentioned that he was giving me until August 5 to attract 10,000 fans to the Vanity Fair Facebook page. It was an onerous and epic assignment, and I responded to it the way any sensible person would: I brightly answered “Yes, sir,” and then did nothing, hoping he would forget about it."

The actual idea is absurd, legislating a quota for something that is 1) opt in, and 2) offers no reward, is more or less a recipe for failure. The difference is that the larger picture, giving a new employee an impossible assignment, and having it incorporate social media in an integral manner, taps into the point of something like Facebook.

This isn't about Vanity Fair anymore. It's about Bill Bradley, it's about overbearing bosses who don't get it, it's about the way new media is being glued to anything with a faint pulse in hopes that it will be revitalized. Vanity Fair now has a story on Facebook, or more accurately, Bill Bradley has a story on Facebook that draws attention to Vanity Fair.

I'm assuming this is a well planned and low budget attempt to go viral, but given my job and my interests, I see campaigns where there are none all the time.

Still, it's a good lesson for anyone trying to figure this Facebook thing out; the point isn't to put your brand into a social network. The point is to attach your brand to a person, via a story, that creates associations. Social networks are about people. People are about things. But this order needs to be maintained to generate interest without coming across as a colonist.

social media relations (practice)

Social Media Relations is, first and foremost, not about you, or your brand, or what you have decided is cool, or what you offer. It’s about learning from, and fostering relationships with, communities that already have an interest in your product. It’s about connecting with communities that already have an interest in what you do, and using that interest to build a kind of partnership.

SMR reps in online communities would exist as a resource. They would offer ‘insider’ information to the interested, clear up misconceptions, and generally only speak when spoken to. They offer support when acceptable, but do not attempt to take control.

Most important, they observe, learn, and explain. Observe how each community works. Learn what they think. Explain to brands and corporations what the people they should be focusing on think, want, and how they interact with the product in question. This is mutually beneficial, and gives a utility to a role that would otherwise be too easily subverted into an attempt at control.

This isn’t about sponsorship. It’s an idea based around the idea that adding value to a community is worth more than owning the community. It’s about allowing the people who are most engaged, who matter most, to interact with an offshoot of a brand they care for. This means providing information, and content, that they can interact with and remix. I’m not talking about crowd sourcing – this isn’t an attempt to farm out content creation to generate authenticity. The only benefit that the brand should want out of this is a happy, engaged community, and the opportunity to understand the core consumer base.

Not owning or sponsoring these communities is key, because the second money enters the equation, brands start to silence criticism and dissent. That only has two outcomes; either the community is destroyed, or the brand throws away opportunities to learn and innovate. Dealing positively with criticism is proof that you ACTUALLY value your consumers, instead of just valuing the free PR, and the brand evangelism. It’s essential that it isn’t your garden, or the temptation to wall it off will be overwhelming.

Bounce ideas of your community. Run concept sketches by them. Don’t give them decision-making power (that feels, and is, gimmicky), but use the resource they provide to make better decisions yourself. Link them from the official site, but only if they want that.

This isn’t about preaching to the converted. It’s about welcoming them into the fold without trying to change them. It’s about elevating the status of the converted in terms of the brand / consumer relationship.

And it should be happening on every platform that has an engaged community that cares about what you offer. Because you shouldn’t care about anything more than understanding who you are dealing with, and who you are creating for.

This post is a continuation of Social Media Relations (Rationale)

social media relations (rationale)

I’ve mentioned recently that public relations is an industry in flux. PR is in large part based on the dominance of the current media paradigm, and the core strategies are nearly completely top-down in focus. We (the royal we) don’t have a standard for approaching social media, and online communities. It shows.

While systems like the Facebook beacon are interesting, they are also inherently invasive, and create notable discomfort within a community. This is because, at core, we don’t have a model for participation in these communities. Instead, we have systems for exploitation, and colonization.

The average participant in an online community, whether it be a message board, virtual world, chat room or social network, is able to spot the difference between a participant and an interloper. The problem is, media still have it in their head that influence is created by brute force. This is one of the first mistakes I discussed on this blog – signal as noise – the way everyone with a message thinks getting louder is the key to being heard.

Social media is built on participation by equals, and the promise of meritocracy. The standard plan thus far has been to use real-world money and influence to buy a position that a user would have to earn, or could not attain, in a virtual world. Our problem is that we either take too much of a role in these communities, and attempt to shape them, or take too little of a role, for fear of causing a revolt. There has to be a middle ground, building on the tradition of information facilitation, and building relationships.

I’ve described public relations as getting someone you trust to tell you something we’d like you to hear. This is traditionally done by building media interest, and piggybacking on that inherent trust – a newspaper has built in credibility, and built in trust – to ensure that the information you receive has been vetted by professionals. The issue is that people are increasingly aware that professionals are not all that difficult to influence.

The difference between what I see, and what I’m suggesting is the separation between colonization and diplomacy. Take second life for an example – IBM, American Apparel, etc. talked to Linden, built custom store fronts that offered little to no utility, and basically received the online version of anti-gentrification response. This was inarguably an invasion – regardless of brand messages or reputation, this was the real world saying ‘You’ve created a new market, we don’t understand it, but we want it.’

The opposite approach, in my mind, is the Second Life Sketches that Warren Ellis writes for Reuters. This was something that isn’t about Ellis, or Reuters. It was about SL, and examining what made it special, and what made it worthwhile. It creates, I’d argue, a positive relationship between SL and Reuters. It’s not a one sided attempt to capitalize on what people do in world, everyone benefits.

Diplomacy is about envoys, understanding, and (despite modern real world happenings) shouldn’t involve strong-arming anyone. Brand or Personality envoys should be clearly identified, at be at a level that doesn’t give them special benefit over regular participants in an online community. This is the one thing Facebook has done beautifully with Fan Pages – an opt in system that offers brands a place to connect that is separate, and less full featured, than a personal profile. Brands are not part of the Community. The Community is paramount.

If brands want inroads into a community, I’d suggest they approach from this angle. Have people tasked to work in online communities, clearly labeled as representatives of the brand, and clearly identified as real people. No special treatment, no arguing, no misinformation. Just offer facts, links to useful information, and when suitable, special offers, benefits, etc.

Sponsorship is all well and good, and creates positive associations. But I’d imagine better ones come together when influencers are left to their own devices, and representatives come in when they can offer something useful. (Swag, information, access to that which is normally not available)

The most important advice I can offer is that, in an online community, it’s never about the brands involved, never about the sponsor, never about the platform. It’s about the community. If you can’t provide value to that community, you are an interloper. Your actions will be deemed disruptive, and the community will associate that action with the people and things you represent.

This post is continued in Social Media Relations (Practice)

public relations and the future.

A month and a half ago, someone asked me what I do on this website. I gave him an answer that was accurate, but felt insufficient. Something to the tune of 'I blog about media and strategy, focusing on the stuff that interests me - trends, change, etc', but less articulate.

At this point in my life, PR is what I do. I love parts of it - the writing, discovering a good angle, building relationships and creating strategy. There are parts of it I don't love - the reputation the industry has in some circles, and the grind aspect to some of it. But the only thing that worries me about Public Relations is that it doesn't seem to have much of a plan for the future, and I don't want to end up in another music industry.

PR is heavily reliant on old media. TV, Newspapers, Magazines, Radio. Each and every one of these is in the midst of some kind of decline, weather in earnings, in relevance, or in audience. And most of them have less than no plan for what comes next. TV is still scrambling to understand that it doesn't matter how or where people watch you shows, just that they get watched (advertising strategy should be shaped by viewing patterns, not the other way around). Newspapers are ignoring the one advantage they have (respect for their status) and are hacking away at journalists and fact checkers, and trying to emulate blogging in an attempt to stay relevant. Magazines still have validity, but haven't really defined a new space for themselves - they've just avoided the need to panic quite as totally thus far. Radio is more important as a means of connecting an iPod to a car stereo than it is as a medium. Internet radio is well on it's way to being killed, and that's coming from someone who's hopeful.

All of this means, more or less, that PR needs a redefined role. It isn't just about industry attention or media coverage, but those have been the major doorways to public attention and ubiquity for a long time.

The short version of my point? Most PR firms don't have a solid strategy for social media. This isn't shocking, it's been shown time and again that most advertising firms, and most marketing firms don't either. The difference is, PR is ABOUT social media, in a very inherent way. An advertiser wants you to see things, and develop an interest in them. PR wants your friend to want you to care about the thing they care about at the moment. It's different routes to the same place - PR has the benefit of trust (whether warranted or not) in media outlets.

Old media outlets are losing ground to individuals and new media very quickly.

The core of what I do on brokengent is look at this approaching problem, although I definitely didn't think of it that way when I started. I had no aspirations of being in PR at the time, but I happily stumbled into it. If PR has a future, it's in learning how to deal with social media, as a facilitator, but not as an irritant.

Bloggers hate PR intrusion, usually. I can see why, as much as I dislike the fact. Part of it comes to the same reason people hate Marketers and Ad People. Sometimes we have to represent something that isn't (at least on the surface) what people want. It's easy to generate interest and buzz for something that is desired. At those points, PR is one of the best businesses in the world, because all you do is explain, discuss, and nurture. If someone cares, you give them more information to care about, more context. I love this, PR as a form of cultural curation. It only works with trust.

It's more complicated than I'm making it seem. Sometimes the wrong person is spoken to about the wrong product, and efforts come across as selfish and lazy. Sometimes efforts are selfish and lazy, based more on a desire to get to as many as fast as possible, rather than helping to build relationships. But personal experience tells me that individuals, especially online, don't really trust the PR person, for any longer than it takes to get the new toy or experience before the regular public.

The problem comes when the pressure from up top, as found in old media orgs, no longer keeps an uneasy truce between both sides. The problem is that not being trusted as a starting point is instant fail in social media in online communities.

I recently updated my little 'about' blurb with the following: 'everyone has a voice, so you need strategy that can anticipate any number of contradictory stakeholders, while maintaining a consistent message and meaning across media.'

PR, as an industry, needs to learn how to be a valuable member in online communities, consistently. We need to serve both clients, and the population. We need to do it in a way consistent with the meaning and values of each community. Anyone who can't or won't do both is going to have a hard time in the coming years, and this applies to Advertising and Marketing as well. PR, more than related industries, is reliant on the current media iteration. And we need to start planning for when it shifts.

So, this is what we do here. Hope that clears things up.