Social media "expert" evaluations

Dave Fleet has an excellent post this morning on 8 Questions to Ask Your "Social Media Expert", building on Ike Pigott's on finding useful Twitter "experts". Dave is offering a guide to "weeding-out the pundits from the practitioners," so I figured I'd answer his questions for Amplify's Internet practice.

1. Can you give me an example of social media work you’ve completed for a client recently?

Sure. We're working with a religious organization to promote education about and understanding of other faiths, using Facebook and YouTube among other avenues.

2. How do you go about pitching bloggers?

We research an issue area, finding influential and interesting bloggers who would care about our topic (usually they've written about something related in the past). Often we already have relationships with some bloggers who fit those criteria. Whether we know a blogger or not, we write offering information and say we hope they'll consider blogging about it.

3. How do you monitor what people are saying about you?

Google Alerts, Twitter search, comments from clients and friends at other organizations (offline conversations count too). We're investigating several social media monitoring services but haven't made choices yet.

4. Where can I find you online?

Our website, our other blog Disruptive Women in Health Care, Facebook. Our staff is on LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and lots of other places as well.

5. Can you write my blog for me?

We do blog training and work with our clients so they can easily keep something fresh on their blogs - create publication calendars, set up Delicious so they have a recent news feed, etc. Writing a blog is a valuable process as well as a way to promote your work (listen to Tom Peters and Seth Godin), and having someone else write it makes no sense.

6. How do you measure results?

Usually number of actions taken - advocacy lends itself better to hard numbers than marketing generally does.

7. How would you define social media?

People interacting online. I'm waiting for a better way to say "and I include mobile services in that too," but no one's invented a good word yet.

8. Can you just pretend to be me online?

No. See (5) for some of the reasons. We actually don't have people ask us this, so either we're just lucky or most advocates want to convey messages themselves.

All right, now go look at Dave's post and see if I got the right answers!

A minute and a half with Shana Glickfield...

I was fortunate enough to be interviewed by new media guru Geoff Livingston at PodCamp last weekend.  The Now is Gone author caught me  off the cuff, green tea latte in hand, asking the eternal new media questions.  Check me out here...

Please welcome Amplify Public Affairs

As you might guess from the new blog wrapper, Issue Dynamics has become Amplify Public Affairs. The new firm was announced in the Washington Post this morning. We're excited Robin Strongin is joining Amplify as President & CEO, merging her health care expertise with IDI's history in strategic alliances and new media. Sam Simon, founder of IDI, will become Chairman of Amplify.

Nonprofits should avoid astroturf too

Thought it was just Whole Foods CEO John Mackey who made inappropriate message board posts about his organization? Turns out you don't have to be promoting your company's stock to cause problems.

Holden Karnofsky, a founder of charity-rating site GiveWell.org, posted a question on MetaFilter and then answered it himself from another account. He's left similar comments on other sites, again not identifying himself as part of the organization he's promoting. And now he's been demoted from executive director to program officer. The organization can recover; in time so can he (he's 26).

Why do people astroturf? Well, because it's easy. You don't have to spend the time to make a real contribution, and people won't know straight off that you're biased. Why avoid astroturfing? Because it's slimy, it's often pointless, and it tends to backfire.

Slimy: Lying about who you are so you'll become more successful? Not a good route to being/appearing trustworthy. Oh, and in the case of a public company where you have inside information, it could be illegal.

Pointless: Most astroturfers have one-track minds; for instance, Mackey became known as a booster of Whole Foods, probably rather quickly. If you spend time in a community, they learn your point of view and will discount your next statement accordingly. If you're new, they might notice that or the community itself might be set up to give you less visibility (i.e. Slashdot's karma system). What does being pseudonymous gain you? If you use your real affiliation, you might be listened to more as a representative of your organization.

Backfiring: On the internet no one knows who you are - until someone goes looking. Karnofsky posted his question and his answer from the same IP address and other MetaFilter posters noticed. BusinessWeek, checking that the bloggers were real, found out that Walmart was paying for the Wal-Marting Across America blog. (That story got even worse when it came out that one blogger worked for the Washington Post and his freelancing violated their ethics guidelines.) Reporter or not, anyone can check up on you, and their comments may live in Google forever.

IDI has a history of rejecting astroturfing, and it's smart to check what your potential bloggers think of these kinds of campaigns. Don't be the organization blaming your public relations disaster on an intern, a junior employee, or a consultant. Engaging openly will get you farther in the end.

Blogging Advice from Politico

Politico's recent article, Netiquette: How to befriend a blogger, has inspired a fairly robust response from Burt Edwards, one of the readers at epolitics.com.

"I found the seven listed 'tips to make sure you’re reaching bloggers most efficiently' was walking the line between obvious and odd — 'odd,” as in, 'disturbingly oblivious to what I think most of us would consider standard good public affairs practices'."

Be sure to read the reporter's response in the comment section.

"I appreciate your feedback on this. Yes, much of this is obvious to bloggers and should be obvious to PR professionals... My conclusion is that most of these people are either completely clueless or incredibly lazy. Or maybe both."

Sadly, he is probably right.  Regardless, Burt's comments are valid.  Read this exchange if only to understand what your colleagues/competition may be doing and act accordingly. :-)

- Kevin

 

Tap into community sites to drive traffic to your blog

There are a number of community-based sites on the Web that command the attention of a large daily audience. Understanding how these sites work can help you drive additional traffic to your blog.  Two important ones are Digg and Del.icio.us.

What is Digg?

Digg is a news website with an emphasis on technology and science articles. All news stories and websites are submitted by registered users (registration is free). Users vote on the stories they like.  Stories with enough votes end up on Digg’s home page. In effect, the users are the site editors.

According to Alexa, Digg is the 89th most popular site on the Internet. 

What is del.icio.us?

Del.icio.us (pronounced as "delicious") is an online “bookmarking” service owned by Yahoo that allows users to store and share their favorite web sites (web sites they have bookmarked) with the public. Del.icio.us also allows users to “tag” their submissions with specific keywords.  This allows other users to find stories on a specific topic.

According to Alexa, del.icio.us is the 154th most popular site on the Internet. 

Other sites

Care2: http://www.care2.com

Reddit: http://reddit.com/

Newsvine: http://www.newsvine.com/

Netscape: http://www.netscape.com/

FURL: http://www.furl.net/

Fark: http://www.fark.com

Bottom line

Being featured on sites like Digg and del.ico.us can drive a substantial amount of traffic back to your blog. Consider submitting your blog posts frequently to these sites.

- Kevin

To Blog or Not To Blog

That was the question at the recent 3rd annual Personal Democracy Forum conference earlier this May. I sat on a panel moderated by Jonah Seiger of Connections Media and which featured Mary Katherine Ham of TownHall.com and HughHewitt.com, Matt Stoller of MyDD.com and David All, Communications Director for Rep. Jack Kingston. It was, as you might imagine, a lively discussion. We all had very different perspectives but seemed to agree that blogging is not a casual undertaking for a candidate or organization. MKH has a report here on HughHewitt.com with her thoughts.

Given that I've been privileged to work with a number of varied organizations struggling with this very question, I'd like to offer my notes to you from my opening remarks on May 15, 2006. People appeared to find this info useful and perhaps it may help you focus your decision-making.

To Blog or Not To Blog

Here at IDI, I work with leading non-profits, corporations and trade associations and am asked this question frequently. We've all seen the word "blog" in the news and most astute observers of recent trends have figured out that blogs can be powerful mediums of communication.

My answer to the question of to blog or not to blog tends to depend on my clients' answers to my questions on Information and Infrastructure. Asking questions helps me to assess whether or not an organization is ready to launch and maintain a blog.

First, a few questions regarding Information:

• Do you have any idea what people are saying about you in the blogosphere?
• Do you know the landscape around your issue in general: who's influential, who's driving the dialogue?
• What are your goals in launching this blog? Do you want to change your image, build a new audience, raise money, quell a crisis?
• How would a blog fit into your overall communications strategy and support your other initiatives? A blog can't stand alone and successfully achieve your objectives.

Then, a few questions on Infrastructure:

• How many dedicated online and communications staff will be available to write, launch and support the proposed blog?
• Who will build the blog? What software platform will you use?
• What's the budget for this blog project?
• Who will post on the blog? How often? What will the content calendar look like?
• Will readers be able to comment? Who will moderate comments?
• Is a blogging policy needed for you or do you already have blogging guidelines covered in your Human Resources Employee Manual?

Suffice it to say, often an organization is not ready to launch a blog right away after considering the questions above. There are many ways to incorporate blog engagment to boost your communications strategy without launching a blog first. In fact, this is often the last step that we advise in a cohesive, aggressive blogger relations strategy.

If your organization is not yet ready to launch a blog (or is preparing to launch a blog), we recommend that you consider:

• start with blog monitoring. Find out what people are saying about you and your issue online.
• begin reaching out and building relationships with bloggers who are writing about you and your issues.
• leave comments on blogs with useful information. Tell your side of the story and don't let mis-perceptions or half-truths go unchallenged. Post clearly on behalf of your organization with your name, title and email address.
• explore other Web 2.0 strategies such as RSS, podcasts and MySpace. We helped BCBSA double traffic to their news and policy site BCBSHealthIssues.com through launching close to 75 outbound news feeds using RSS.

If you are ready after the Information and Infrastructure challenge to launch a corporate or organizational blog, we believe that you'll find it can offer an opportunity for a dramatic image change and dialogue shift. Instead of being just a target of the bloggers, you become part of the conversation. Organizations that are using blogs successfully including Microsoft, Sun, IBM, GM, Boeing, the National Association of Manufacturers, the United Church of Christ and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Not your usual round-up of suspects! The blogs represent the new evolution of grassroots communications. If you don't keep up, you may get left behind by those who are savvy enough to talk to your audience now before you do.

The Blogs On Cheney's Shooting

Left-leaning blogs have been fairly unanimous in condemning DIck Cheney, Scott McClellan and other Bush administration officials for their handling of the Harry Whittington shooting. Right-leaning blogs have revealed a split in the conservative forces between those who support the assertion that this is Whittington's fault that he got shot and Cheney has nothing to apologize for versus those who, at a minimum, express concern with the Bush administration's handling of the matter with others speculating on the potential impact on the GOP and gun rights.

I recommend to you Alphecca's blog (first linked from Instapundit) for a Red State-flavored argument among experienced hunters on the topic. It mirrors much of the discourse here in DC with many conservative hunters questioning the facts with others supporting the Vice President. Generally speaking, one hunter shooting at another hunter is seen among many outdoor sportsmen as often at best, incompetent and/or drunken shooting and at worst, a malevolent action -- a firearm Freudian slip. Thus, some blogs are speculating on whether or not alcohol use had any role to play in the accident.

The blogs are also buzzing about the paper at the center of the accident, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Today, an avid hunter used a paper target to simulate the impact of taking a load of birdshot at 30 yards. Check out the results. Bloggers are questioning the true severity, particularly post-cardiac event, of the victim's injuries. Look for this line of speculation to continue in the blogs.

Excerpt: "We can pretty much see that at least over 200 BBs have touched this area right here," [George] Gongora said, motioning to the face and torso area of the target.

Yesterday, the Smoking Gun's publication of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept report in which blame is placed squarely on the shooter with only light cover noted was a popular topic of analysis among bloggers on the long tail.

Bob Cesca at the Huffington Post has an even more spicy rumor that part of the delay in reporting the shooting centered on the potential nature of the hunting party entitled "Was Cheney hiding his Lewinsky"? 2 single women (1 linked to Cheney), 1 single man -- plus Dick Cheney. It may be one explanation why Lynne Cheney, who is often brought out into the public eye to soften her husband's image, has not been visible to date on this issue. For example, one scenario might involve Mrs. Cheney visiting Whittington's family in person and hold press conferences from Corpus Christi. Yet that's not how the story has unfolded thus far.

The rumors are flying quick and thick in the air here in Washington D.C. Essentially Dick Cheney is rumored not to care what other people, particularly journalists, think and refused Karl Rove's proposed master strategy for damage control, choosing to handle the issue out of his office. Cheney hasn't given a press conference in years. Comparisons in the blogs to Sen. Ted Kennedy and a certain car accident some years abound. Like Kennedy, it seems likely this incident may shadow Cheney the rest of his life.

The trouble with Dick is that any open press conference featuring him carries the threat of difficult questions for Cheney, such as his insistence (despite mounting evidence to the contrary) that Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam Hussein was directly linked to Al Qaeda, Katrina and Homeland Security's failures, domestic wiretapping, Scooter Libby's leak and who authorized it, his stance on torture and so on. The Washington Post led the online version of the paper today with a revealing article that implies that only direct orders from George W. Bush would result in a press appearance starring his Number 2.

Stay tuned for the blogs' reaction to Cheney's Fox News appearance today...Here's an MSNBC article that expands on the theme of bloggers and Dick Cheney.

Bloggers as Ombudsman

The recent fight between bloggers and the Washington Post provides the best example of the emerging role of bloggers in the public debate. Bloggers have become the Ombudsman of the traditional media.

As virtually every major traditional media outlet has cut back on their reporting and editing staff over the last several years investigative reporting has suffered. While great investigative pieces continue to come out of traditional media they are reported alongside of repurposed press releases with one sided spin.

The incident de jour between Bloggers and the Washington Post grew out of several comments from the Deborah Howell, the Post's own Ombudsman. In defending the Post's reporting, Howell wrote:

"

Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

Since no Democrat received any direct contributions from Abramoff,  Media Matters and other Democratic leaning bloggers quickly went after Howell. (Note – while clients of Abramoff gave to Democrats, their contributions to Democrats did not increase after they hired Abramoff).

As the issue got heated yesterday, the Post turned off comments on their blog:

"But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech."

Unfortunately for the Post, The Democratic Underground blog saved the comments that were on the Post's site. While they make a good read, the "profanity and hate speech" hardly describe the entire contents.

The ability of partisan bloggers to hold the traditional media accountable was best described by a "Buckhead," a conservative bloggers who was instrumental in taking apart the 60 Minutes story on President Bush’s National Guard record .  In speaking about the role of the bloggers on the Free Repbulic he stated,  "Freepers collectively possess more analytical horsepower than the entire news division at CBS."

Without editors and having clear political viewpoints, bloggers are not objective researchers of the truth.  For example in Today's Post, Al Kamen goes after liberal bloggers that took quotes from a Bush speech on Social Security and claimed it was about the Medicare Prescription plan.

While no one in Washington is pure (including the author of this post),  bloggers on the left and the right keeping the traditional press accountable while the traditional press pushes bloggers to live up to the same standards all helps to move the debate towards the truth.

Publications can turn off their comments and stop reading letters, but in the end they can not stop the public debate.

The recent fight between bloggers and the Washington Post provides the best example of the emerging role of bloggers in the public debate. Bloggers have become the Ombudsman of the traditional media.

As virtually every major traditional media outlet has cut back on their reporting and editing staff over the last several years investigative reporting has suffered. While great investigative pieces continue to come out of traditional media they are reported alongside of repurposed press releases with one sided spin.

The incident de jour between Bloggers and the Washington Post grew out of several comments from the Deborah Howell, the Post's own Ombudsman. In defending the Post's reporting, Howell wrote:

"

Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

Since no Democrat received any direct contributions from Abramoff,  Media Matters and other Democratic leaning bloggers quickly went after Howell. (Note – while clients of Abramoff gave to Democrats, their contributions to Democrats did not increase after they hired Abramoff).

As the issue got heated yesterday, the Post turned off comments on their blog:

"But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech."

Unfortunately for the Post, The Democratic Underground blog saved the comments that were on the Post's site. While they make a good read, the "profanity and hate speech" hardly describe the entire contents.

The ability of partisan bloggers to hold the traditional media accountable was best described by a "Buckhead," a conservative bloggers who was instrumental in taking apart the 60 Minutes story on President Bush’s National Guard record .  In speaking about the role of the bloggers on the Free Repbulic he stated,  "Freepers collectively possess more analytical horsepower than the entire news division at CBS."

Without editors and having clear political viewpoints, bloggers are not objective researchers of the truth.  For example in Today's Post, Al Kamen goes after liberal bloggers that took quotes from a Bush speech on Social Security and claimed it was about the Medicare Prescription plan.

While no one in Washington is pure (including the author of this post),  bloggers on the left and the right keeping the traditional press accountable while the traditional press pushes bloggers to live up to the same standards all helps to move the debate towards the truth.

Publications can turn off their comments and stop reading letters, but in the end they can not stop the public debate.