My Dog Ate My Homework, My Machine Ate Your Message and other Extinct Excuses

Nexternal Dog

It must be tough being a kid these days.  Imagine trying to tell your teacher, “I’m sorry.  My dog at my zipdrive.” or “My kid brother stole my Yahoo account”.  They can’t even fake a fever today with all the high-tech gadgets on the market.  These youngsters are growing up in a new era.  The era of accountability.  

Let’s look at this from a different perspective.  How about the newly adolescents on the dating scene.  Gone are the days of the ‘the answering machine must have eaten your message’.  There are no more subtle games such as taking the phone off the hook just so incoming callers get the busy tone, and must assume you are in very high demand.  You can’t even really say you didn’t get someone’s phone call since everyone has their own cell phone equipped with bright shiny caller ID these days.  With BBM you can even tell exactly when the person on the other end received your message and how long they decided to wait before responding.  

The Era of Accountability transcends these cultural and social dilemmas and infiltrates an even more severe portion of our lives.  Most employers can determine whether your emails are coming from work or home.  In Howard County the  snow plows come complete with a GPS system, so the residents can determine what has been plowed, and the employer can determine what the plowers have been doing.  If someone sends you a request on Facebook or MySpace you can pretend to ignore, but as soon as you change your profile picture they will be on you like white on rice.  This can create awkwardness in the work place or in a school enviroment when trying to keep your personal and professional lives separate.   

This accountability even extends to purchases.  My Facebook, e-Bay, and New York Times accounts know me better than my own family.  In fact this year instead of a Christmas wish list I may just distribute my usernames and passwords to friends and family.  

internet-privacy

Internet privacy is a hot topic these days, but what about social accountability?  I’m definitely not saying it’s good to lie, but I also wouldn’t want my boyfriend to buy me a phone with a secret tracking device that reported every step I took.  While I’m not guilty of cheating I am guilty of one too many manicures, or one too many martinis with the girls now and again.   Lying is not the answer, but is disclosing absolutely everything the way to go?   

Sometimes I miss the days before my Mom knew how to text and had a Facebook page, but I guess what I miss even more is not being accounted for every waking second, and once in a while disappearing off the map.

The Perils of OCD (OverCommunicating Disorder)

Is it done yet?  I guess not because I’m still writing…. 

This week we were instructed to Blog on Blogging.  This topic is very ironic for me, because I feel that I have become communicatorily saturated over the past semester.  

Phones - Farm4 - FLICKR

 

It all started about two years ago when I decided it was a good idea to make the switch to a smart phone (after being nudged gently aggressively by my firm who said they would pay half my bill).  Before my smart phone experience I remember feeling happy and excited when that little red light would blink.  Someone that I (most likely) wanted to hear from was trying to get in touch with me.  Post Blackberry adoption?  Not so much.  That little red light blinks ALL THE TIME.  “Why is it blinking so much?” you may ask with wide-eyed wonder.  Well it could be my school email, or maybe personal email, or maybe spam, or maybe my internship.  It could be that someone retweeted something I said, or sent me a DM.  Maybe commented on my Facebook status, or sent me a friend request.  Maybe someone made a comment on one of my blog posts.  Maybe someone sent me a BBM, maybe someone sent me a text, and of course there is a very, VERY slim chance that someone actually picked up the phone and is giving me a call.  With all these contact methods, it’s no surprise that I see the little red blinking button even when I close my eyes.  I have begun sleeping with my phone under my bed to avoid confronting the blinking big red. 

But, I digress.  This post is meant to be about my experience blogging.  Personally, I haven’t really enjoyed it as much as some of my classmates have.  It is time-consuming.  It allows strangers to learn a lot about your personality without even knowing you.  It can be hard to think of a topic, and even harder to be consistent, but I think the part I liked the least about this experience has been the topics.  We must write out blog about communicating.  So while we are communicating about communicating with communicators in class, on Twitter, at work, in groups, we now also have to communicate about communicating every week in  blog form.  

I am the first to admit my own ADD.  I know I get bored easily, and need diversity to be happy.  That is one of the reasons I live in New York.  I know that it is in my own best interest to follow Chris Brogan and Amber Naslund, but what I really miss is the interaction with people completely outside of my own skill set and focus.  Many students in our program work full-time in communications.  Maybe they take two classes and do homework for 10 hours a week.  Once you add in working out, eating, and sleep it can be challenging to find the time to engage in conversations that cover topics outside your job/educational program.  

In conclusion, I guess maybe if I had to write a blog about anything I might consider, but then again it’s a big commitment, and takes a lot of focus, and…sorry the little red light is blinking again.  My master.

Issue of the Week: Big Papi’s Big Mouth

David Ortiz argues with home plate umpire Mike Estabrook

Less than a week into the baseball season Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz aka Big Papi already has two public image strikes. His first strike occurred following only the second game of the season, when he  spun into a fit of rage towards reporters following the Yankees game at Fenway Park.  When questioned about his poor performance in the first two games of the season he lashed out, swearing at the group of reporters and telling them to back off and leave him alone. 

His second strike came just a few days later on April 9 when he argued a pitch that home plate umpire

Mike Estabrook had called strike three.   Players and managers both know that they can’t argue balls and strikes, and that if they do it’s grounds for being thrown out of the game.  In certain occasion players will argue to make a point, and managers will side with the player to demonstrate their support ad get their team riled up.  Ortiz had been arguing pitch calls Estabrook all game long, and not surprisingly so due to his alarming slow start to the season.

 Ortiz has always had a good reputation among fans, media, and even opponents.  His reputation has been easy to maintain because of his force at the plate, and the offensive numbers he puts up.  Beginning last year Ortiz began to experience struggles as many aging players do.  The advice in this situation would be to keep up his good image.  As his performance deteriorates with age it is really important to age gracefully.  Because of Ortiz’s celebrity status his lash out caught the ears of many sportswriters and bloggers.  He should apologize to his fans and the reporters for his outburst, and try to refrain from swearing when reporters and children are around him. 

Aging gracefully is a huge challenge for many athletes, but it is very important from a public relations perspective as the last years of your career may be the last time you are in the public eye, and therefore how fans will remember you in your retirement.  Many aging players use this time in their career to mentor younger players, and assist with general team strategy and cooperation.  Ortiz should focus his energy on team efforts and try to keep the tantrums in the locker room.

Social Media “Crimes” of the Non-profit world

  

 

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/img/2009/05/etiquette-facebook-twitter.jpg

DONE AND DONE.

Are you confused?  Of course you are.  I am too when I see those symbols on every single business, celebrity, and non-profit website .  Notice how the above symbols don’t link to anything.  They are stand-alone symbols.  The icons prompt the web surfer:  “Click on me”,   “You know you recognize me”,  and even “I’m about to take you some place more exciting and interactive than this drab website”.  This may or may not be true depending on the strategy of the organization.  In many cases the surfer arrives at Twitter page only to find an abrupt and confusing end to his ride. 

 

In a recent blog post social media extraordinaire Jeremiah Owyang says, “Brands that arbitrarily adopt social tools may be unknowingly undermining their own efforts.”  Ever since the creation of the internet the goal for companies has been to drive traffic TO their websites, only recently have we started to observe the practice of driving traffic away from the website and redirecting to the social media outlets.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9720192/2/istockphoto_9720192-cartoon-prisoner-jailbird.jpg

 

Let’s take a look at a few crimes of  Non-profit organizations who do not seem to have a strategy behind their traffic direction:

 

 

 

organization:  http://servenet.org/ 

Crime: Driving traffic to Twitter page, but not updating Twitter. 

Sentence:  Update Twitter at least once a day to engage followers.

 

Organization: http://www.wycliffe.org/

Crime: Private Facebook page:  The website offers a link to Facebook, but when a users follows the link they are left with a log-in page.  If you log-in to Facebook you would have to go back to the website and search again for the page.

Sentence:  This back and forth might be too time-consuming for fast-moving web surfers.  If possible the Facebook page should be public and appear upon following the link.

 

Organization: http://www.naeir.org/

Crime:  Picking and chosing social media strategies.  The website provides a Facebook link, but not Twitter, Flickr, etc.  Their website could also use a refresh.

Sentence:  This is tricky.  This organization may have decided they only want to utilize Facebook for their strategy, however if an organization is using social media it is important to keep up with the new vehicles of communication.

 

Organization: http://www.uncf.org/

Crime: No use of social media networks.

Sentence:  Again, depending on strategy this may or may not be intentional.  In this case the charity targets a younger demographic.  Since most young people utilize some form a social media, the organization many want to employee social media strategies to engage with their target demographic. 

 

A few more generally themed crimes I noticed:

 

CRIME: Always asking for $$.

Sentence:  Non-profits should be sure they are using social media to share stories, pictures, and news.  They should create a learning and community environment that people feel they can take place in without constantly being asked to donate.

 

Sentence:  One of the purposes of social media is to engage in a dialogue with customers.  If an organization is not interacting, following others, responding to comments, or answering questions the social media ”conversation” remains as one-sided as a website.

 

 

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/img/2009/05/etiquette-facebook-twitter.jpg

CRIME: Engaging in a one-sided conversation.

Sugar coated candy, but no sugar coated words.

Nestle, Nestle, Nestle.  The company’s name has been on the tip of the public’s tongue this week more than the candy the company produces.  It all started when Greenpeace began protesting Nestle’s use of palm oil, an ingredient used in many of its products, saying it hurts the rainforests when not gathered in an environmentally sensitive way. Once world-wide chocolate lovers caught wind of the protest all hell broke loose.  The platform?  Our good friend, Facebook. 

Greenpeace, PETA, and other activists groups have protested against practices of most corporations at one time or another.  Of course activists protests are not a public relations walk in the park for companies, but in most instances these situations can be handled with minimal press coverage and exposure.  Unfortunately for Nestle this account has been written up by the Associated Press , Financial Times, Reuters, and countless Blogs. 

Many would argue the reason this issue attracted so much attention was due to Nestle’s social media efforts (or lack thereof) conducted on Facebook.

Here’s what went down:

“It all began Thursday night, with the following moderator post: “To repeat: we welcome your comments, but please don’t post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic — they will be deleted.” The response, quite predictably, was even more defiant, as users only amped up their logo abuse and rhetoric. Instead of succumbing to the swell of populist aggression, though, the moderator held firm. Demonstrating a surprising ability to act real, the moderator nixed the traditional company line in favor of sarcastic banter, thanking angry consumers “for the lesson in manners,” while reminding them: “it’s our page, we set the rules, it was ever thus.” As the furor began to snowball, the moderator eventually capitulated, admitting that the attempted photo censorship was a mistake, and apologized “for being rude.”

Nestle is a company who is used to fans and followers praising them for their delicious products, they created Butterfinger, Baby Ruth, and Pixy Stix after all.  It seems their social media communications team was not prepared for an attach of this scale.  The Nestle Facebook page currently has over 94,000 fans, and when I checked out the page the only comments I saw after five pages were attacks.

One of the most important  lessons for Nestle, and others  to learn from this is when being attacked in a crisis do not go on the defensive.  Acknowledgment of customer disappointment is critical, but attacking customers when they feel they have been let down by a corporation they supported is not the right way to regain support or control the situation.  The second lesson to be learned is that if you are a company that engages in social media you MUST be willing to relinquish control.  The Facebook page does not belong to Nestle, as the moderator stated.  Nestle simply controls the page.  As the manager of your page you have the right to delete as many negative comments as you want, but is that behavior ethical?  Is the behavior going to build trust and credibility for your company?   The answer is no. 

Social media can be a wonderful and cheap tool for businesses given correct usage.  Its appears the moderator may have forgotten he was writing social media for his company instead of himself.  He/she became enraged and began lashing out at customers using the company filter.  The psychological factors are an interesting topic in themselves.  If you are the head social media person for a company you are on call 24/7.  You constantly Blog, Tweet, and write status updates for your company.  When does the line between your individual voice and the voice of your company become blurry?  How do you keep your dual identities and emotions separate during an attack?

Results Not Typical, Nor Typically Enforced

In October of 2009 the Federal Trade Commission published the revised Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.  The new guidelines focused on blogger and celebrity endorsements as well as removal of the “results not typical” safe harbour for advertisers. 

I decided to investigate how some companies have adapted to these new “revised guidelines”, and what I found was that they hadn’t.  It seems Taco Bell is still trying to get around the new regulations.  Since they throw in phrases such as “based on a 1250 calorie diet” they think they are covered.  I did not hear or see anything in this commercial that discussed results that actually are typical.

When I read further into the FTC press release I discovered the following statement:

“The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.”

I think the enforcement of the new guidlines is the main issue.  The responsibility of enforcing the new guidlines would fall to the Commission.  Secondly, they would have to prove, case by case,  where the FTC Act violation lies in relation to the revised Guides.  This seems like a big job for the FTC.  How can they regulate every blogger and celebrity?  Furthermore even if they spot a violation how difficult would it be to enforce?

A second issue that comes to mind is the divide between celebrity endorsement, and celebrity promotion. 

For example: We all know Sean “P Diddy” Combs endorses Ciroc Vodka.  He is actually partnered with Ciroc in a profit-sharing plan to receive incentives based on sales.  This is where the situation becomes sticky.  P Diddy is a very social international superstar who spends more than enough time in restaurants and clubs.  When he is ordering bottles of Ciroc how do observers know he ‘s a business partner?  He also owns a record label.  Is he in violation of FTC guidelines if he throws parties and all his celebrity friends are in the tabloids drinking Ciroc?  At the same time is he responsible for announcing his association before every purchase or recommendation?  Its is a fine line, and seems difficult to define and even more difficult to enforce.

My question is why does the FTC bother to initiate guidelines that they may not be able to enforce?  Are they hoping that the fear of getting caught will deter advertisers from certain actions?  Are they simply suggesting a proper way to conduct business, without actually insisting?  Do they purposely create vague guidelines so they will not be ultimately responsible for enforcing them?

All opinions are greatly appreciated.

Welcome to Paranoiaville

A co-worker of mine is inherently afraid in New York City.  Whenever we share a cab after 8PM she insists that we go to her apartment first, and that the driver and I wait patiently until she is safely inside.  At first glimpse this may seem to be  a normal behavioral pattern for a young woman.  Last week she had to take a cab alone across Central Park.  As she was going across the cab driver stopped in the middle of the park.  My co-worker became hysterical, screaming accusingly at the drive while simultaneously  dialing 911 and digging for her pepper spray.   “Why did you stop?  I’m calling the police”.  The driver calmly pointed out the red light.  Of course she felt more than embarrassed and was extremely apologetic, but the point remains the paranoia had taken control and forced her to act in an illogical manner.

While reading Jonathan Shaw’s article “The Erosion of Privacy in the Internet Era” it hit me.  If a certain personality type read this article hysteria and panic could ensue.  Trust me, I’m guilty of checking out google earth the same way you might run home and google the name on the business card of an upcoming date.  I have googled myself and seen pictures from college days, and former careers.  Of course I have adjusted my Facebook privacy settings, and made an effort to clean up my cyber-act, but does it really matter? 

You will never be faster than the internet.

As communication professionals we want to see our names when we google ourselves.  We want to see links that tie back to the success we have had, charities we volunteered for, and prior employers.  While it’s in our best interest to try to monitor our cyber footprint, a line has to be drawn somewhere.  Should I worry that someone may know my health records, my social security number, and the value of my home?  Maybe, but I also know that I can’t control everything online, just as I can’t fully control a story I pitch to a journalist.

I am not saying we should never monitor our privacy settings, or set up google alerts for ourselves.  All I am saying is that at some point you have to come to the realization that you will never be able to monitor everything.  According to CNET two new blogs are created every SECOND.  This is only Blogs, and does not include websites, social networking profiles, etc.  How will we ever stay on top of this rapid expansion?  In order to participate  in the new internet world I believe we will all have to be willing to give up some control. 

If we refuse to relinquish control and hop aboard the paranoia train I am afraid we will spend more time searching for what others  know about our past, then living our present, and planning our future.