Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Are We There Yet?

Not quite, it would seem.

While we in business are seeing some advances from companies that are learning how to become more transparent, it's clear that the scientific community is stuck in the relative Dark Ages. Case in point: check out this guide on How To Publish a Scientific Comment in 1 2 3 Easy Steps (embedded below).

It would be funny if it weren't tragic.

I suppose it's a chance for those of us who understand and operate in the realm of online communications and social media to be thankful that we embrace instantaneous commenting and direct access to authors. That we co-create instead of hoard. That we can request assistance and get dozens of replies from people willing to collaborate for the sake of solving a problem or helping a colleague. That's precisely how open source software has allowed us to advance farther faster. iPhone app, anyone?

What if the scientific community were more collaborative (and I'm speaking about the publications here, not institutions themselves)? Or at the very least, collegial? What if journals and scientific publications held their authors to such high standards that they required more open disclosure of data, processes, and errors? Wouldn't that be something that we could all benefit from? The process below stands to illustrate the old thinking of self-promotion, fiefdoms, and jealously guarded secrets.

There must be a better way.

How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 1 2 3 Easy Steps

Posted via web from The Full Monty

Photo credit: Wolfgang Staudt

Labels: communities, ethics, iPhone, strategy

Posted by Scott Monty at 1:49 PM

Comments |

LINKS TO THIS POST |

Saturday, March 08, 2008

The Suxorz: Worst Social Media of 2007

I'm here at SXSWi - South by Southwest Interactive - in Austin, TX and I just sat in on a panel called "The Suxorz - the Worst of the Worst in Social Media Marketing for 2007."

The panelists included Charlotte Selles (brand perspective), Jeff Jarvis, Rebecca Lieb, Steve Hall, and the moderator was Henry Copeland. While this may not seem like a who's-who of the social media industry, they did come at it with a pretty broad perspective of advertisers & marketers using common sense. You'll see a number of selections that were based on poor opinions of creative execution, as well as those that don't follow good social media practice.

Here's how the session worked: each panelist nominated a campaign; after three rounds, the "winner" was selected.

Round 1

Selles: Molson asked individuals to use Facebook to share pictures of themselves using the product; the winner would get a trip for 5 to Cancun.
Lieb: Carlton Beer "big ad" video - it's just a bad ad. This is the type of ad where you remember the activity within the ad, but not the product. So much so that people didn't even get the name of the product right in some YouTube videos.
Jarvis: HP PayPerPost - mom accepts $1000 to have her kids destroy a Fuji camera in favor of HP. Got moms to use their kids as shills to make a splog. Just. Plain. Evil.
Hall: Wal-Marting Across America used a real journalist and real photographer, but set them up as simply Wal-Mart fans, traveling across America, parking their RV at Wal-Mart parking lots.

Round 1 voting: HP wins

Round 2

Selles: Rahodeb - Whole Foods CEO John Mackey uses an alias to ding detractors on forums
Jarvis: Cisco's Human Network - wrote all Cisco-related Wikipedia entries; had vloggers try to write about the Human Network. Got themselves to #2 in Google organic search.
Hall: Mentos/Diet Coke - the extension campaign that Coke undertook after the original video was not nearly as authentic and spontaneous as the first
Lieb: Vespa's corporate advertising "blog"

Round 2 voting: Cisco's Human Powered Network wins

Round 3

Lieb: Agency.com going to work for Subway - "when we roll, we roll big". Made a laughingstock of.
Hall: Target Rounders on Facebook - shhh! Don't tell anyone you're a Rounder, but be a Target fan.
Selles: Sony PSP - all I want for Christmas is a PSP. 550+ negative posts on this blog that was created by their marketing agency, but professed to be a real fan blog.
Jarvis: Giuliani campaign - he wasn't afraid of terrorists, but his MySpace page was closed to friend adds.

Round 3 voting: Subway/Agency.com wins

The winners of the three rounds were put against each other and the final winner was selected:
Hewlett Packard.

According the the panelists, some of the criteria they used in judging what qualified as a "bad" social media campaign:

Advertisers acting like asses
Out and out lying to customers
Corrupting authentic voices

Steve Hall concluded with this statement, which I think more marketers should keep in mind: "It's not hard to tell the truth; if you don't, it's just a matter of time before the public finds out." Agencies typically take the fall for the client ("the client didn't know about this") because they don't want to lose the business.

The bottom line, according to the panelists is: treat people as people, not as a mass. You'll be forgiven if you're honest with people.

What do you think? Do these campaigns represent the worst of the worst? Are there others that you might nominate? Do you think there are other criteria to consider or other lessons to be learned? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Labels: Advertising, ethics, Marketing, rules, social media, SXSW

Posted by Scott Monty at 5:22 PM

Comments |

LINKS TO THIS POST |

Monday, March 03, 2008

Watch Your Frickin' Mouth

When you have kids, you naturally censor yourself when you're around them (or at least you try to - sometimes you just let an expletive slip out). But when you're in marketing, is there an obligation to keep it rated PG?

Racy ads, like some more mature prime time shows, have traditionally been reserved for after-bedtime hours. But with the advent of so many social media tools for sharing video content or photos, marketers can bet that their ads will pretty much been seen any time of the day.

The reason I bring this up is that there's a billboard campaign by the regional convenience store chain Sheetz that's created quite a stir. Evidently, a Harrisburg, PA family took a look at this billboard and balked, claiming it contained offensive language:

Having been raised in a household where the offending word was banned, I can understand how this might have ruffled a few feathers. They claim it's an approximation of another word that has an 'F' a 'C' and a 'K' in it. Whether you agree or not, you have to admit two things: (a) how pervasive foul (fowl?) language has become these days and (b) how easy it is to get more mature subjects into younger hands.

Every website that contains a signup process, whether it's a social network, newsletter, etc. typically has language asking to verify that you're 13 years of age or older. This is in cooperation with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. But when we create portable or distributable content (to say nothing of billboards), there has to be some acknowledgment that this content, however edgy it may be, could end up in the hands of an unintended minor.

While I snickered at Sarah Silverman's "I'm F*cking Matt Damon" on late-night TV, it was quickly and widely distributed over the Web within days (current count of this version: over 7.8 million views). Jimmy Kimmel came up with the rejoinder in his equally as funny/disturbing "I'm F*cking Ben Affleck" (currently at just over 4 million views). So, this content isn't remaining in the sole domain of late-night viewing.

There are always going to be sensitive eyes & ears about any variety of things. The politically-correct movement is always trying to change our phraseology so no one gets offended, but the reality is, someone is always going to be offended by something. My question is: with the ease of syndication, embedded videos, and widgetized content, is their anything we can do to minimize the exposure of tiny eyes and ears to this stuff? Or is doesn't it matter any more?

As to the above, I guess this family won't be eating chicken fricassee any time soon. At least they won't be putting with with any more Sheetz. Maybe they'll be frickin' Jimmy Kimmel...

Whoops! Can I say that here?

Labels: ethics, Marketing, news, social media

Posted by Scott Monty at 9:59 PM

Comments |

LINKS TO THIS POST |

Sunday, September 09, 2007

They Almost Had Me

I don't know what it is, but I find that I always begin to succumb to blogger outreach efforts. Maybe it's because I like the attention.

But when it goes wrong - and it doesn't take much - I get turned off pretty quickly. About a month or so ago, my colleague ~~Scott~~ Greg Verdino wrote about his experience with a less than buttoned-up blogger outreach effort.

Well, I recently received an invitation to check out Flektor, a site that allows you to host all of your photos, video, music and text and to essentially create multimedia scrapbooks to share with friends. An interesting site, one that I might be tempted to review. What made it even more attractive is that the pitch was actually one of the smoothest ones I've received. Here are some things they did well:

They were specific - they named the blog that linked to my site (and it happened to be one that I know and respect)
Did their homework - they noted that I write about social media and innovation
Clear goals & objectives - they were very upfront about being in the midst of a social media campaign and wanting to connect with influential bloggers
They were empathetic - they noted that unsolicited emails can be a turn-off, so this would be the only one I received
Offered a two-way dialog - more than just a one-way pitch, they wrote they'd be open to comments, feedback, interviews and specifically stated their methods were "purely one-on-one interaction with people who like" the service
A decidedly human approach - they requested that I let them know if I decide to write something about the service, noting "we monitor, but nobody's perfect"

Sounds like a lock, right? Well, I got to the end of the email and it said:

I look forward to hearing from you!
Many Thanks, David!

'Doh! Looks like I won't be participating. Maybe they'll have better luck with David.

In this day and age - especially with form letters (which it turns out this was), such an error is inexcusable. The technology should be able to merge databases with forms. And if it's a personalized approach, then it shouldn't be happening. With a little effort and attention to detail, these errors can be eradicated, saving clients a lot of money in wasted outreach efforts. And maybe it even makes sense to put together something like Ogilvy PR's Blogger Outreach Code of Ethics.

Bottom line, this is more than PR 101 - it's common courtesy in any social environment: pay attention to people you're talking to, make them feel like they're important to you, and for God's sake, get their names right.

Has this happened to you?

Labels: blogs, conversation, ethics, Greg Verdino, outreach, PR

Posted by Scott Monty at 12:06 AM

Comments |

LINKS TO THIS POST |

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

O Tempora, O Mores

I'm still trying to rub the cobwebs out of my labor-intensive Labor Day weekend, so in the hopes that you're more alert than I am today let me try a little riddle on you.

What's one thing that is ubiquitous, we all have in equal amounts every day - from the tiniest baby to the oldest person, from the dirt poor to the filthy rich - yet we never seem to have enough of it? And pondering the mystery of what it really is St. Augustine said of it: "If no one asks me, I know; but if any person should require me to tell him, I cannot."

Time.

We all have time. Oh you've heard the idioms: time's a-wasting, time is on your side, time's up, time out, time being, take your time, killing time. I could go on, but this isn't Grammar Girl. If you'd like the full list, check this out.

And we've all heard someone (most likely our mothers) say "So-and-so had the same hours in a day that you have" when trying to cajole us into being more productive. While it's easy to dismiss such "motherisms," I think that particular phrase gives us a lot to think about.

At the end of the day (24 hours, to be exact), we all had the same amount of time to create or do or think and change the world just a little bit more. We all had the opportunity to improve the experience of a customer, make someone feel special, measure and report something to a client, or encourage those around us.

Time may be the great equalizer, but it's our persistence, work ethic and imagination that set us apart from each other. It's how we utilize our time that makes all the difference in the world. Time spent with family, at work, solving problems, helping others and generally making the world a better place than we found - whatever we deem worthy and important in our lives - is what makes us productive.

How do you spend your day? Do you impart a unique value or imprint on every interaction you have? In short, do you use your time wisely?

If not, there's always time to improve.

And yes, this entry was a thinly-veiled mea culpa for not writing anything over the past week. Thanks for humoring me.

Labels: customer relations, ethics, Marketing

Posted by Scott Monty at 12:35 AM

Comments |

LINKS TO THIS POST |

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Social Media and Human Nature

You can't beat this for timing. Just yesterday I wrote about my Classical Studies education - that one of my main takeaways was that despite the changing times and differing technology, human nature remains constant. I tend to believe that people are generally good and honest, but I'm not so naive to think that character flaws such as vanity, greed, deceit, envy - and all those other vices - won't rear their ugly heads from time to time.

Case in point: what's going on in one realm of the blogosphere right now. I'll use two examples to make my point.

Last night on Twitter, I learned that prominent blogger Kathy Sierra of Creating Passionate Users has received death threats on her blog. Vile and horrible things were written by members of a site called MeanKids.org - things that are totally inappropriate to write in blog comments, not to mention that they are in violation of federal law. Kathy has canceled all of her speaking engagements and is now afraid to even leave her house.

And Shel Israel over at Global Neighbourhoods has banned two readers from his site, going so far as to call one an insufferable a**hole. A war of blogs has ignited. You have to wonder how this affects the reputation of the individuals involved, not to mention that of their agencies / businesses.

I'm speechless. To think that this tightly-knit community is getting ripped apart - by itself, no less - is...well...I was going to say is unbelievable, but actually: it's human nature.

Second Life = Second Helping of Human Behavior

I witnessed similar happenings in Second Life:

A friend was roaming around and saw another avatar try to steal belongings from a house
At a group gathering, individuals were advised to leave their knives and guns outside

What are we coming to? We create this world of alternate reality and suddenly, it mirrors our most base and anti-societal instincts. Guns, knives, gambling and sex trade in Second Life? Because, what, we think we won't be caught? When it becomes necessary for an alternate reality site to form some sort of police force or security division, you know human nature is at work.

What to Do About Off-Color Comments

One of the tenets of social media is transparency, which manifests itself in bloggers turning on the comment function and comments being left by readers. But in some platforms, readers are given the opportunity to post anonymously; this is supposed to encourage participation. This leads me to ask: if transparency is required for bloggers, shouldn't it also be required for commenters? In seems only fair.

I seem to constantly have the debate with clients regarding the requirement of registration for things like white papers. They typically want to require registration - and a lengthy one at that - in order to know who's downloading their material. They sometimes miss the point that readership will rise if they lift the registration process. The same could be applied to blog comments.

So, what's the answer here? Robert Scoble has stopped blogging for a week and PSFK chides him for doing so. Brian Oberkirch is feisty about it. Aside from giving up and laying down the keyboard, what actions can be taken? Certainly the perpetrators can be tracked down by their ISP (although if they're really professional, they can probably find a way to mask it). But beyond that, are these bloggers supposed to shut down comments or require a more stringent monitoring and approval process? It takes some of the spontaneity out of the equation.

While it may create a little more bureaucracy than necessary, this is probably a good opportunity for a group (the Social Media Club? Blogger/WordPress/Typepad/VOX?) to join forces and create a comment policy that prohibits such lewd and disgusting behavior. Maybe one already exists, I don't know.

Is the price we pay for being so connected? We wanted to listen in on the conversation. We wanted to take part in it. While there's no excuse for some of the trash that's spewed out there, we probably shouldn't be all that surprised.

After all, it's human nature. Some people are just jerks.

Labels: blogs, ethics, social media, Twitter

Posted by Scott Monty at 11:53 AM

Comments |

LINKS TO THIS POST |

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Truth and Consequences in Social Media

As social media becomes ever more prevalent, it's clear that some thought should be applied in advance of actions. Wal-Mart and Sony flogs, client pitches and viral marketing gone horribly wrong are all examples of what happens when you don't think about unintended consequences of your well-planned strategy. And when it's so easy to bring a marketer's foibles to the attention of the world, it's more important than ever to question the tactics with some good old common sense.

We've gotten to a point in our World 2.0 where we do things because we can rather than because we should. We have oversized cars & houses, we're cloning embryos, we SuperSize everything - pick your issue and your political persuasion and there's something you can point to that we do or have, simply because it's available.

That's not exactly the way to run your marketing campaign. "We can strap battery-powered electronic devices to bridges to build buzz!" Uh, yes you can, but you probably shouldn't.

And all of this naturally affects brand and reputation, which is more fragile than ever for smaller businesses, with consumers taking control of the conversation in our MyTubeTechnol.icio.us world. It takes so long to build a trusted brand, and it can all be undone with a careless action, heated conversation, or a plan that sounded good one time in a meeting.

Case in point: Maggie Fox over at the Social Media Group notes Why you need to pay attention to the blogosphere - now that the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell is getting smacked around in the blogosphere. According the Globe and Mail, the firm is trying to maintain its reputation amidst

[M]ostly unverified accounts from anonymous posters, suggest[ing] workplace morale is awful. One anonymous blogger who claimed to be a former Sullivan & Cromwell employee said on The Wall Street Journal’s law blog that he had “never worked with a bigger bunch of sycophants and cowards.”

And on yesterday's Small Agency Diary, Marc Brownstein penned an entry called Retaining Talent: What Works? in which he created a check-list of how an employer can ensure that employees are interested in sticking around. In his comments section (glad to see he has one!) Brownstein was greeted with a scolding from a former employee who advised him to walk the talk.

This is part of the risk in taking a strong point of view in a blog. You're bound to find detractors. But the point is, you've provoked a conversation. In this case, Brownstein can not only monitor the conversation, but can engage in it as well. He'll need to make a decision about how to respond: refute the assertions, let them die out, or keep building his reputation by cross-posting on other blogs and encouraging peers and clients to speak what's on their mind. With any luck, it'll be positive.

Blogging is not for the faint of heart. It takes dedication and courage - courage to know that you will be judged on what you write, how well you communicate, and whether your ideas are equivalent to your reputation.

Are you up for the challenge?

Labels: 2.0, blogs, ethics, Marketing, New Media, Risk, social media, Viral

Posted by Scott Monty at 5:23 PM

Comments |

LINKS TO THIS POST |

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Move Over, Sony - Microsoft Is Here

So, it looks like Sony has some company. Although I wouldn't necessarily categorize this misstep as blatantly egregious as the PSP flog.

Microsoft has given away Acer Ferrari laptops loaded with Windows Vista to a number of influential bloggers. Now, I see no inherent problem in giving samples to bloggers to review. It's done all the time, and when blogger clearly discloses that he or she has received goods or services in exchange for a review - good or bad - there's nothing to complain about.

The problem with the Microsoft situation is they didn't require complete transparency.

Complicit in the scheme are their advisors in this space - none other than (drum roll, please) Edelman. Yes, that's right. The same Edelman that was embroiled with the Wal-Mart flog. The same Edelman that reportedly helped craft WOMMA's ethical guidelines has a WOMMA page dedicated to Edelman Blog Disclosure - albeit from the Wal-Mart flap.

I think my friend Todd Defren had it right when he stated it simply: Don't lie.

Labels: ethics, PR

Posted by Scott Monty at 10:00 AM

Comments |

LINKS TO THIS POST |

Friday, November 03, 2006

Ethics in Blogging

With all of the recent flaps about flogs (McDonald's and Wal-Mart to name two), it seems to be the perfect time to take a look at WOMMA's ethical principles for marketer-blogger interaction:

10 Principles for Ethical Contact by Marketers

I will always be truthful and will never knowingly relay false information. I will never ask someone else to deceive bloggers for me.
I will fully disclose who I am and who I work for (my identity and affiliations) from the very first encounter when communicating with bloggers or commenting on blogs.
I will never take action contrary to the boundaries set by bloggers. I will respect all community guidelines regarding posting messages and comments.
I will never ask bloggers to lie for me.
I will use extreme care when communicating with minors or blogs intended to be read by minors.
I will not manipulate advertising or affiliate programs to impact blogger income.
I will not use automated systems for posting comments or distributing information.
I understand that compensating bloggers may give the appearance of a conflict of interest, and I will therefore fully disclose any and all compensation or incentives.
I understand that if I send bloggers products for review, they are not obligated to comment on them. Bloggers can return products at their own discretion.
If bloggers write about products I send them, I will proactively ask them to disclose the products’ source.

So there you have it. It's pretty much common sense. The problem is, common sense isn't all that common any longer.

Labels: blogs, ethics, Marketing

Posted by Scott Monty at 10:19 AM

Comments |

LINKS TO THIS POST |