Finding nice bloggers - finding nasty bloggers

In recent weeks, development in using Bayesian inference on Latent Semantic Analysis of blogs has been keeping me up at nights.

From a simple engine developed by my friend Girish, I have been thinking about how one can use this information as a predictive tool and it has some promise.

Let me go back a bit.

Here is a simple application to find out the sentiment of bloggers between two competing entities. You can try it out. Try comparing 'clinton' with 'obama' and see who is getting the most positive and most negative blog posts.

You will also see that the programme also measures the extent of objectivity in the content analysed.

Because of the way we have set this application up if the comment about the candidates is neither positive or negative it produces a nul return (because of the nature of the experiment).

This experiment has moved on quite a lot and soon I hope to have a more advanced example you can try out here.

The experiment we are working on is to use the concepts identified in the blogs to monitor what subjects are growing and which are retreating and the sentiment attached to them.

The next phase is to predict where such concepts are going within a level of confidence that is acceptable.

Now comes the theoretical leap of faith. When a new concept emerges, it will be disruptive and may well provide an insight what future news will be.

Now that really will add a new dimension to PR practice.

Relationships the missing link in Clay's book

At last after some long train journeys I have finish Here Comes Everybody, by Clay Shirky.

He brings to the modern time the work of a number of American researchers and weaves some great case studies in a very engaging way.

The one element he needs is the dynamic behind why 'if you publish it people will come'. Of course this is not true but is a truism and it all comes down to the basis of relationships and notably relationships online.

Relationships form when the values of one entity (or person) finds another entity (or person) with values in common.

We go to the places where we know there will be like minded people. We talk to people with similar interests, we seek contexts where the values are akin to our own when we are in the 'mood'. We migrate to the blogs that interests us and then pass along the best to people who follow our blog.

On page 217, Clay explains the nature of 'networks of dense clusters', with a nice explanatory diagram which is a social media take on social networks.

There is some interesting work from the Haas Business School Alumni Networks' blog Group Scope which is not theoretical but is similar and from real life mapping and which shows the diversity of organisations (click here to see interactive version of the graphic) that form around a range of relatively narrow values and through a range of online channels for communication.

It is the basis upon which the Relationship Value Model ( a very European model) is predicated.


Group Scope have been investigating ‘hot company’ networks based on the idea that key people and investors can help point the way to new companies. They point out that the goal of a ‘derivative network’ is to take a network of interest (aka values systems) and ‘invert’ it to see another view of its affiliations. In each of the ensuing three derivative maps, they expose new sets of people and companies that are not in the group of ‘hot companies,’ but are related to that group through these derivative networks because they have common value systems interests.

In other words, the common themes of 'hot companies' (aka 'hot company values systems') are of interest to a wide, interlinked, network.

Its the values that encourage people in networks to find and then distribute the values in networks of dense clusters.

Here is a Touchgraph image of this blog and we can see the networked relationships:

It is closely interlinked with a relatively few (but germane) other blogs and sites.


















BoingBoing.net, for all its reach is not as heavily networked. It is like a newspaper, a broadcast medium. It is the point well made in Clay's book.

What PR can take out of this is that the 'top blogs', the ones with a big readership and consequently relatively little interactivity, are really just publishers of stuff like any other mass media. If the content from these 'broadcast bloggers' is picked up by the network of dense clusters, great. But if not, try an advert in The Times.

On the other hand, further down the power curve, people who are interactive will pass on the news adding value (commentary, personal recommendation, insights and other values) on the way.

Thus PR is about relationships in this milieu where values are added to the values public relations explicates for its clients. In the networked community, values have a dense relevance among people who have a close relationship with them. These communities are very affective. They are the real key to reputation, for when content in the communities migrates to other (including, but not exclusively broadcast) media, the effect is significant because of the added values contributed by the networked communities.

And, values come before communication. So PR is not just about communication.

Let me explain. Suppose two actors (people) have common interests in similar values but there is no communication between them. In such a case there is no possibility of a relationship forming. However, in a network of dense clusters, there will be a third party who can act as the bridge between the two original actors and will show the values one to the other either overtly or, more often, through other values that are common to all three.

It explains the phenomenon of why RSS is so powerful in bringing relevant people and information to us so quickly. It explains how some activities truly 'go viral' online and it also shows that effective values systems, including corporate values systems have a wider and diverse online 'community' of direct, related and indirect interest. To miss quote an ex US president 'its the values stupid' .

In recent weeks, I have been exploring values and value systems for clients. Of course, driven by the idea that 'key messages', a 20th century marketing idea for brand exposure in mass media, most client have such messages in the meta data on their web sites (although some are far from well optimised). But often these 'keywords' are at odds with the actual content that people seek or read. Even worse, the value systems offered in texts and images on web sites miss the mark which shows up in the demographic data now available from services like Google Trends and MSN labs.

So far, every time we have shown these results to clients, there is an element of shock and a demand for re-evaluation of corporate and brand value systems as well as web design. The former falls directly into the lap of the PR practitioner who now can clearly see where the disconnect (dissonance) between the 'user generated social (sometimes market) segment' and the organisation lays.

Here we begin to see how whole organisations can be changed by the 'messages' (aka values) and how the online community is having a direct influence not only on brand positioning but corporate positioning, not to mention direction, as well.

There are more than a few organisations that are beginning to see that corporate values are critical to long term survival.

The book is worth reading and with just the one further, relationship values, step, would be seminal.

Thank you Clay.

Here comes Everybody Part 3

Here Comes Everybody, by Clay Shirky should be in the library of every business and PR school. Its out later this month and will challenge most minds when thinking about online public relations. Its engaging style, modernity and use of case studies makes the arcane come to life.

There are some interesting new insights and explication of previous work in a modern context and responds to Harvard's John Palfrey criticism at the same time.. The one that is powerful is his explanation of Power law as it applies to interactivity online and notably, blogs. There have been interesting papers, notably with contributions from Elizabeth Lane Lawley, Clay Shirky, Ross Mayfield, Sébastien Paquet & Jessica Hammer.

In response to some ideas of David Sifrey Jason Kottke did the math.

Back in 2003 he noted:

The dotted blue line is a linear equation, the dashed red line is a quadratic equation, and the solid black line is the power law equation. The linear and quadratic equations fit the data poorly. So the quadratic is an improvement over the linear equation, but neither compare to the excellent fit of the power law.

What this means for PR people is interesting and comes from another part of the book dealing with the nature of networks online.

First the power law part. Bloggers range from people with a lot of followers, who because they have so many, cannot be very interactive with them all, to the blogs at the nexus of a few chums (who interact a lot with a few). This means that the 'average' blogger is probably a long way down the curve and 'average' is a meaningless approach to identifying influence.

We come across the power law a lot in online activities. Wired magazine's editor-in-chief Chris Anderson in article in October 2004 where he coined the expression 'The Long Tail' shows a commercial interpretation.

But the next part is also important. His explanation that to achieve connectedness (and enter the illusive 'viral' nature of the internet), then it is the properties (like blogs) that have very modest numbers of connections that are the most powerful.

In public relations terms and to identify content that will move people to respond to a brand or issue, it is not the people or online properties with the profile of publishing (Boing Boing being the apogee example) , it is the people with much more modest numbers of links that really count.

In a part you can see this in the scatter.com video that Anthony Mayfield has on his blog:





The notable elements are that this is a continually morphing process, that the most powerful influence is not from the big broadcasters but from the many smaller nodes interacting and range of elements that contribute to both connectedness and significance.

Online PR is not about big numbers it is about a range of changing and relatively small nodes that have a small interaction with other nodes. It is the number of small blogs that is important not sheer reach.

Here comes Everybody Part 2

I have a review copy of the new book by Clay Shirky 2008 Here Comes Everybody Penguin.

The subtitle is "The Power of Organizing without Organizations"

It is an idea that I contest.

A long time ago, last century, Mark Adams, Prof Anne Gregory, Infonic’s Roy Lipski, Alison Clark and some others worked on the key drivers that would be delivered by the Internet (CIPR/PRCA Interet Commission). There were three: Transparency, Porosity & Agency. They are proved right.

Organisations now have all three. There is greater transparency between actors inside organisation. Past departmental silos are dismembered, corporate hierarchies are an ever moving feast and the distinction between an employee and consultant, supplier and manufacturer not to mention factory owner and factory user are a nicety. The boundaries of organisations are crumbling and ubiquitous interactive communication has been the lubricant for this process.

This gave rise to a concept I call the relationship cloud. Transparent values (ethos + tangible and intangible assets) are exercised with transparent responsiveness and the internet facilitates employee relationship clouds with the networked relationship empowered online and offline actors.

There are no organisations any more. The transition is too far gone to make such assumptions.

All we have is the remnants of the 20th century pretending that Toyota is a company, the Prime Minister is Presidential and the shop is the home of retailing. We still use the names and the images but the reality is that the transition is too far gone to plan ahead on such assumptions.

We are already at the point where there is 'Power of Organizing without Organizations' is in daily practice even among the organisations but we all hasten not to recognise it. It is too far out of the comfort zone of all too many?

Next... page 19

Where are the values?

Here Comes Everybody Part 1

I have a review copy of the new book by Clay Shirky 2008 Here Comes Everybody Penguin.

I was going to read it cover to cover and then review it. But it's such a good book that I thought to express my responses as I go through it page by page (ok, few pages at a time).

It is written in a very engaging style and the first page that pulled me up was 17.

There is an assertion he makes that is interesting:

"When we change the way we communicate, we change society."

You have to test assertions like that.

If we look back at the history of changed ways of communicating is there evidence?

Was writing so important. Did those long boring inventories in the ruins of Babylon change that society?

How did the printing press change society?

Is this Middlemarch and the reach of the telegram translated into the 21st century? What of radio's influence in the 1930's, television, tapes and CD's.

Is society so changed? Do the have nots stir? Are communications changes always accompanied by social upheaval? Can common humanity ameliorate the effects?

The questions this simple sentence offers us also predicate social and economic upheaval.

The Battle for Seattle, McSpotlight, Al-Qaeda, Cyber assault against Estonia in 2007 and a host of threats against the systems for delivery.

The sentence has much more to it.

With all our modern systems for communication, are the starving fed, the poor rich?

Do new communications always have to divide peoples?

Do new communications always benefit an elite?

Was it really new communications systems that brought about these ills? Or would they be there without them? Are we really going to see society change, by that I mean, is it inevitable that evil will be exposed again as a consequence of the introduction of there new forms of communication?

Is ubiquitous interactive communication different?

So far, it does seem to be different. There seem to be sets of values that spread through these channels that provide checks and balances that past systems for communication did not seem to have.

Transparency the sword and scales wielded by ubiquitous interactive communication may yet have a part in this saga.

The book has to return to this theme.

The Influentials theory debunked.

Fast Company runs an article in which Duncan Watts, a network-theory scientist, puts to test the idea that trends are sparked by a handful of highly connected individuals, or the influentials, as they have become known after the best sellers The Tipping Point and The Influentials.

It was Ilya Vedrashko in his Adlab blog who brought me this gem.

The Influentials is debunked. Katz and Lazarsfeld are questioned and Stanley Milgram "Six Degrees of Separation" plays differently when you run the analysis using robust and life size samples.

In an environment where individual values are the starting point and where they are explicated as tokens and when they provide the basis of attraction online which can be proven over and over again, I am with Watts.

There is a ballance between marketing and Public Relations

There is a balance between marketing and hype and public relations, that discipline comprising management of relationships, transparency and communication.

On the one hand there is a part of human nature that makes people want to be noticed in the social order. This is true of companies too. We like and need marketing. On the other, there is a need to share values using communication which is at the core of relationships. Sharing requires transparency to engender trust and confidence among the people in the group - the heart of good PR.

Over the last few weeks we have seen what happens when markets respond to too much marketing and hype without the modifying influence of relationships.

Lets get to the nitty gritty. In the USA and to a less extent the UK (although it led to the actualitie of Northen Rock going bust - what ever one might call the 'rescue plan') the markets believed the President of the USA and the British Chansellor of the Exchequer when they said that these two economies were strong. They believed the political marketing of, well, the politicians.

Within the closed gardens of the financial institutions it is all too easy to believe such hype without digging too deep. That, and a lack of transparency as so many institutions ignore the conversations that surround them, and there is every belief that the West and notably the US and UK will continue to be financially secure.

Just look at the response to the Edelman Trust Barometer which revealed this week that business opinion formers seem to believe that they can trust the marketing hype of businesses when almost anyone who audits the online community conversations can see less than enthusiasm for corporate speak.

What we have seen is the corporate assets based on tangible assets turned into tradeable products and services using Intellectual Properties and process know-how have been hyped. The sub-prime lenders, celebrity brands and extravagant personal and government spending, funded by loans from the savings of ordinary folk and topped up by China and Indian economic surplus is not a receipt for endless success. The interest, if not the principle, has to be paid back.

It is not that we did not know that Gordon had sold gold at the bottom of the market or that he had borrowed endlessly to fund hospitals and city academies. It is that the balancing effects of transparent relationships and communication, the real drivers of added value have been suppressed. In the UK leaks have replaced Parliamentary announcements, Big Tents have silenced critics and EU jobs have extended political sell by dates with labels that look similar to an ad agency designed price sticker.

In the end it required very little by way of transparency, notably in the shakiness of the US sub-prime loans and the exposure of poor banking practice revealed in the collapse of Northern Rock , and the whole edifice collapses. Trust and confidence is lost when the true nature of the relationships is revealed.

Relationships when undone by transparency crack trust and confidence and we are seeing the effect in spades this week.

This is why I believe that the PR industry needs to have a much better understanding of what drives relationships, why they are so powerful and why they can act for an against the interest of clients big and small.

The values that underpin relationships, including those values that surround corporate and government attitudes towards transparency need to be articulated and, in order that people should be drawn towards them, communicated in an honest and trustworthy manner.

Without such governance in PR, we will continue to hurt the most vulnerable and will undermine the nature of our civilisations.

Image: Diseno

Lies, Damned Lies, Opinion Polls

Will Beresford, strategy director at Beyond Analysis, has some interesting comments in Channel Web this week.

His thoughts come at a time when, once again, opinion polling shows its frailty in the US primaries.

Beresford points out that:

Traditional models for businesses to research their consumers are also expected to change. Customer information will be enriched by data found on the social web to supersede traditional research tools such as questionnaires and focus groups.

Feedback and influence from social networks will ultimately become more significant factors in the purchasing decision cycle.

Of course, his view has to be predicated on the niche nature of online communities and the demands, which he outlines in the article, of social networks.

This is not easy. Many organisations are dismissive of online content because it seems to them to be banal. Often this is because they have a search engine view of content which gives one reference point in what is often a longer and more structured, often networked, conversation and at other times, to quote Professor Howard Rheingold: “When you claim to be sceptical of the authenticity of online socializing and advise enthusiasts to "get a life," who made you the authority on what a life ought to be?”

We also have to think in term of flow (Kay McMahon has an interesting paper). The theory helps explain the allure of online games and social networks. Flow is the mechanism that helps engage the user and is powered by basic instincts, something I have touched on. The drivers behind this is distilled into a short video and a lengthier post or two.

So, I agree with Beresford and invite the online community to show how to be effective in finding out more about user generated 'market' segments.

Google hands advertising to the PR industry

The search engine giant is in talks with several newspaper publishers to sell space in their pages to its online clients, reports The Times.

Google Print Ads is an extension of Google AdWords, the auction system that lets companies bid for a slot that appears alongside specific online word searches.

Instead of an auction, advertisers pick a newspaper online through Google and enter a bid for available advertising space on a given page and day.

But rather than offering to pay the list price, customers say what they are prepared to pay. Publishers can choose to accept or decline the offer.

This changes the nature of PR. Lets suppose there is a big story breaking, why not bid for an advertisement on the page? Advertising would then be driven by editorial and PR generated editorial to boot.

Is this the end of advertising as we know it?

Now, lets take the argument a bit further.

Why not use the same technique in others online PR content?

PR's winning ways in recession

Despite assurances from the British Prime Minister yesterday, there are a number of commentators reflecting on the prospect of recession. Comments by Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Joachim Fels of Morgan Stanley are but two and public opinion in the USA is of a similar mind.

If the US goes into recession, the world has to tighten its belt too.

In these time of universal interactive communication when intangible assets have a greater influence in the economy, what do we need to consider? The first is that the knowledge economy goes much further that the exchange of arcane patents and processes deep into the the interactive crowd of Facebookers and bloggers. They are participants in knowledge of organisations, intellectual properties, products, processes, trade, products and services as well as confidence and mood. In the last four years, this extension of social media means a much greater part of the population is involved in the knowledge economy offering added direct and indirect corporate assets.

The extent to which organisations can use the combination of transparency and porosity to gain advantage in economic slow down depends on the extent to which they can use interactive public relations and gain advantage from the relationship cloud.

As economies slow, there is a ripple effect and experience will tell us that the process begins with worries over sales. Recruitment is stopped, travel budgets are squeezed, inventory is tightened, R&D is focued on the short term and marketing budgets slashed. A question mark will hang over PR.

As the brochure print run is reduce, film and photographic budgets slim, exhibitions and conferences are eschewed and everything is turned to face the shop window or is shunted out of the back door, times seem very hard.

Typically in these times, such steps will go through two or three iterations as the red ink keeps coming.

The loss of confidence, that most intangible of harbingers, means this belt tightening will go on far too long after the recovery is under way and economies begin to grow again.

The best companies will stay in touch with the market, retain and re-deploy the most tallented employees, and will hang on to the best ideas and developments and those assets that are of greatest value beyond some of the less productive corporate icons. In addition they will work with the most agile and innovative vendors.

Where in this mayhem is the PR advantage?

We have the advantage that corporations are more aware of the value of relationships and that the web is now interactive and we can achieve things that were not possible before.

The first addresses the problem of employees.

In recession, more people are more available as and when they are needed using online communication. The empty desks no longer means loss of capacity. The capacity, as and when it is needed is a mouse click, Skype conference or wiki post away. This does mean that companies have to become more porous. The communications professional should be in a position to aid this process, developing interactive solutions to create, build, sustain and motivate employees.

The cost of travel can be largely replaced in the effective interaction of the web. Not the dreaded video conference but the humanly interactive, richness offered in online social networks. by which I do not mean MySpace or Facebook, but similar deployed packages.

The once tight knit R&D group can lever up both the wisdom of crowds and huge opportunities available from the concept of open source participation applied not just to software but to almost any developmental innovation.

Meantime those so valuable but under utilised experts we used to find in mundane occupations, often dressed up as added responsibilities during recessions can now face front. People like product managers who are less active in a world where the supply chain is less active are a typical example. They are the authentic voice that can have such influnce in writing and interacting in the bloggersphere and using wiki's. They can now be deployed in creating a much closer and directs relationship with key markets and other publics.

Many marketing activities can be moved onlne with the advantage of being a less costly but more direct relationship building activity. The power of YouTube and Linkedin and their competitors are now available to in place of exhibitions. The cell phone can come into its own for web sized photography and video.

The natural discipline for this brand of relationships and communication professional, a person who understands the simplicity of VoIP, wiki's, blogs and the social side of social media. It is the person who sees widgets in place of data bases..


This is a corporate advisory role from is the person who can convince the corporation that niche is nice; the cultural disruption role of PR is significant and that PR has a specific role as a relationships management discipline (and is what is says on the tin).

This then is the big opportunity for PR when times are tough.

Exciting huh!

Image from: http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/

PR people eschew £50bn

Online spending is now expected to reach over £50bn for the whole year - beating predictions made by the IMRG earlier this year. Last year's total was £30.2bn.

If the public can spend £750,000 online every minute why am I not getting daily emails from the PR industry Associations telling me that my membership will cancelled if I do not attend at least one Social Media workshop by 21 March 2008?

How long can a whole industry ignore the richest high street ever?

Its not just about a swanky web site its about reputation, trust, relationships and zillions of online publics. THAT sounds like PR or are all these things the industry talks about just spin.

First, where is the list of accredited degree courses that do NOT have a one year compulsory digital module - that will show how seriously the institutions are taking £50bn in the context of accreditation? Second, where are the workshops, interest groups and specialist trainers to show how well these organisations are preparing members for £70bn next year.... I could go on.

Its time to elect leaders for the PR institutions that are going to lead.

XBRL - How the accountants stuffed the PR's

Neville Hobson blog about the first companies to use the eXensible Markup Language designed for the financial sector, the eXtensible Business Markup Language (XBRL).

XBRL is an emerging XML-based standard that permits the automatic exchange and reliable extraction of financial information across all software formats and technologies. It enhances the usability and transparency of financial information reported under existing accounting standards by reducing the need to manually key information, thereby minimizing the risk of data entry error.

Some years ago, with a forward looking groups I was privileged to be involved with a similar initiative for the PR industry (XPRL) and wrote the vision document for it.

One of its objectives was to offer the means by which computers could understand the elements of financial reporting - the PR bits as opposed to the accountancy bits, a point I have made in the past.

Not a single in-house financial PR department or major financial PR agency would get involved but that does not mean companies are not taking the matter seriously:

Curt Anderson, senior director of Investor Relations for Microsoft. “As more companies make their financial statements available in XBRL format, key financial information will be more easily and quickly comparable and analyzed across industries and companies.”

It would seem that this is not so much a matter for PR then.

Except, of course the media wants it:

Michael Porch, senior vice president, News Capabilities Group, Reuters says "XBRL gives the financial community a standard way of digitally publishing, extracting and exchanging company financial reports and associated information. Reuters is interested in exploiting the power of XBRL to bring value to our customers."

Some our traditional media see XML as the way forward for which the PR industry is simply ill prepared.

Business Wire XBRL offering, has gone it alone with a proprietary scheme that enables wide earnings table displays, bulleted highlight lists, text hyperlinks and other style options. They say that Business Wire provides the most advanced XBRL systems and tools and I bet they charge the rate that goes with beggar thy neighbour - that is the PR industry that does not have a sector-wide capability.

XBRL, got the prize and locked out the PR industry. Industry will have to adopt these standards soon. It is to be a requirement in the UK. If we want to issue a trading statement, add more words, graphs, pictures or stream video of the AGM, we have to go through a range of proprietors systems AND go cap in hand to the accountants to integrate PR content into XBRL.

So far, the PR industry has made a muck of the whole exercise and there is no logic that will get the PR industry to come out of its stupor.

Now, CIPR, IABC, PRCA, and the other Global Alliance members as well as ICO will have to negotiate bits into the XBRL schema if the PR industry is going to have much say in the content that can used in future machine readable content. Without XPRL, or an institution like it, they don't have a leg to stand on.

In an era when 700,000 thirteen to sixteen year olds in the UK regularly use virtual environments it is time that someone among the leaders of the PR industry showed some visionary leadership by understanding that today a range of 'publics' use media with a reach three times greater than the print edition of the FT. Its just not unusual - its already commonplace and its digital.

The nature of modern PR

Neville Hobson alerted me to Eric Schwartzman’s interview with Colin Farrington in the On The Record Online podcast.

Neville's point is that:

Colin Farrington, the director general of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), simply does not understand the role of social media in public relations.

By chance, I have been involved in an exchange with Simon Wakeman discussing the role of Public Relations and made the following points:

I do not hold with the idea that PR is a 20th century practice. Even Press Agentry combined with lobbying and celebrity was practised by Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire in the 18th century but PR goes much further back in forms of diplomacy.

It is not that this is a new idea. I assembled some of the roots of relationship management as a PR practice in ‘Towards Relationship Management’ (2006 Volume: 10 Issue: 2 Page: 211 - 226).

The problem is that we have very little to guide us as to the nature of relationship (which I touch on in the paper) but there is light at the end of the tunnel (as in ‘watch this space’).

It does mean that when we look at relationships and the practice of acquiring, developing and optimising effective and affective relationships, we discover that without relationships the client counts for naught.

PR then becomes the (diverse) pivotal practice ( in the mould of medicine, another very broad range of practice) in delivering, sustaining, ensuring health and vigour of the organisation.

That then is our business and is different from the amateur practitioner (e.g. the CEO) because we have (or should have) the expertise, or reach to specialists, who can deliver such benefits.

The point at issue is where we stand in the post-Bernays era and my contention is that PR practice operates in and with the widest understanding of the social domain in which values are germane as a key to human relationships and Public Relations. I put my case thus:

There is a body of work that examines value systems and organisations have a number of values systems. They might include the values associated with optimising investor returns; they may also include employee related values systems, product, customer, environment values etc. In each case there is a domain of PR practice that encompass and operates among such values.

Public relations management which deploys all these PR domains of practice using a range of tools (including most notably, but not exclusively, communication in its execution) is the practice of Public Relations in its highest form.

I accept that most practitioners are specialist and work almost exclusively in a domain of practice often with no more than a communication facilities role, but that need not distract us from the true nature of PR.

That the institutions like the CIPR, the Universities teaching PR and other institutions choose to exclusively grub around in the undergrowth, does not mean that we should not enjoy ambition among the stars with a wider view of the significance of relationships which is fundamental to the social nature of humanity.

From that perspective, we can better understand the significance of the social media revolution and not be constrained by the narrow view given to us by 20th century agents and propagandists.

If we choose to remain in the undergrowth, our view of ubiquitous interactive communication will be that it is but a channel for communication (to be controlled and channelled). If we choose the higher calling, we unleash the interactive, creative human spirit with the wider human state for each to elect to be of, or contribute to, the nexus of their personal social networks.

For me, that is the vision for Public Relations.

The contribution made by Colin Farrington to Eric Schwartzman is perfectly legitimate for a Bernasian practitioner rooted in 20th century PR. The PR that gave us the proto Bernasian mass media manipulation with consequence manifest in Nazism, Communism.

Command, control, de-humanised, 'one value system fits all' approaches legitimise propaganda and the suppression of diversity in the of human state. Today, because of ubiquitous interactive communication, a process that has been gaining ground for 50 years (telephone, multiple broadcast channels, fax, email, social media are drivers) , there are apologists for the practice of public relations as an extension of propaganda. Among them Kevin Maloney at Bournemouth University.

These apologists suggest that because PR practitioners (by this they mean political and business PR practice) are countering each other's propaganda, then there is a legitimate form of practice which Colin gave voice to in his interview with Eric.

The concept is flawed.

It suggests that the citizen is to be controlled in every sphere of life by an everlasting all powerful elite. In all history, this has never been the case (if so, what was IX Hispana, the Roman 9th Legion, doing in Briton 900 years ago and how come there are foreign soldiers in Iraq) Omnipotence is fleeting and all the more so with the democratising and social reconstructionism brought about through ubiquitous communication.

The difference between the people 'who get it' and those that don't is in understanding the human voice which, as it is liberated, emerges from the shadow of the propaganda veneer and its associated counterpart propagandists (scream) advertising. In post World War society, applying mass psychology to the masses was once effective. Once the masses become individuals and can see, join, create and interact with networks of social groups, the power of the elite is changed in direction from control to engagement.

Today, an elitist view of the diversity of mankind, expounded by Colin a year ago is an example of the Bernasion view of PR which suggests that blogs are the:

...... ill-informed, rambling descriptions of the tedious details of life or half-baked comments on political, sporting or professional issues They read like a mixture of the ramblings of the eponymous Pub Landlord and the first draft of a second rate newspaper column. The concern of some public relations people as they worry about this new media for consumer comment, engagement and reputation destruction is a bit overdone.

He missed the point.

Progress towards ubiquitous interactive communication which briefly gave 20th century propagandist tools for suppression, is, contrary to Colin's assertion, influencing the very fabric of life. To pick one medium (a global news magazines or blogging) is to miss the bigger picture. People do affect political and commercial outcomes (do we already forget 'The Battle for Seattle', the first mass political activist programme driven by the internet?).

The 20th century practice of PR as a form of competitive propaganda war waged through to pages of the monoculture we called 'The Press', is no longer possible. The very institution 'The Press' is now heavily mediated by other forms of public human voice (including blogs).

The lobby practice of PR, and I think of investor relations as well as politics, depends on a well researched persuasive voice. To believe that an elite to elite conversation is not mediated by the biggest (and publicly available) knowledge repository ever known (the internet) suggests an elite that cannot respond by way of engagement. 'Let them eat cake' is not a good practitioner approach for public relations or lobbying.

For these and many other reasons, I refute Colin's version of effective PR and the PR practitioners who continue to subscribe exclusively to Bernasian PR.

All I can suggest to the CIPR, of which I am a Fellow, is raise the sights for your profession. Look to a vision of PR that is able to contribute to engagement and aspirational values systems or, with the people you support, you will cede to the likes of the Taliban.

Make the message simple - stupid

Chip Heath in an interview in McKinsey Quarterly (free subscription), offers a lot of very useful and well researched, tips on how to make messages compelling.

One of the insights I liked a lot is:

When messages are abstract, it’s frequently because a leader is suffering from the “curse of knowledge.” Psychologists and behavioral economists have shown that when we know a lot about a field it becomes really tough for us to imagine what it’s like not to know what we know—that’s the curse of knowledge. If you’ve ever had a conversation with your IT person about what’s wrong with your computer, you’ve been on the other side of the curse of knowledge. The IT person knows so much that he or she can’t imagine knowing as little as the rest of us. And we’re all like that IT person in our own domain of expertise: prone to be overly complex and abstract.

As one who does this a lot, Its a very helpful idea.

A recommended read because of the quality of research behind his thinking and a lesson for everyone in PR.

Xbox and the future of the social animal

Imagine a place that mixed Facebook, World of Warcraft, Second Life, podcasting, video, Twitter and Skype.

Such a place would be a magnet for already huge and seriously interactive communities online.

Such a place would be of interest to Chris Kimble, David Grimshaw and Paul Hildreth who have already shown that the online context is important.

What I am suggesting is context that would be hyper rich and more important that other places to go.

Such a rich environment would be very important because, as Elizabeth Shove, and Alan Warde at Lancaster University note, social theorists maintain that ‘people define themselves through the messages they transmit to others through the goods and practices that they possess and display. In an environment of games, avatars and Facebook-like display added to a wide range of channels for spoken, music, video as well as text communication, people will be able to satisfy their deeply embedded human needs online like never before.

That is why I think that the Microsoft announcement a couple of weeks ago is so important.

Microsoft is to add a social network element to Xbox. It potential offers a mix and match of sensations that are now only speculative.

This has the potential to mash the real and virtual person in a fashion we are not really prepared for.

People, that's us, manipulate and manage appearances and thereby create and sustain a ‘self-identity’ as part of their need to be effective as social animals. Its part of our DNA.

This is part of the evolution of the human species.

These new developments offer a real and virtual combination.

In an answer to the question: "What sort of person is s/he?" will shortly be answered in terms of a combined real and virtual lifestyle or visible attachment to groups rather than by personal virtues or characteristics alone and on a globally networked scale.

In such an environment, the many selves and the picture of the world we modify through inputs from our senses hark back to Featherstone who in 1991 reflected upon the tendency for the same individual to seek to present him or herself on different occasions in two or more ways, as bohemian and conventional or as romantic or formal and now, as the internet evolves, there a possibility to do so in many manifest ways in hyper virtual worlds.

It is an extension of a not uncommon practice we have see online for a couple of decades but now it will be much more dramatic, entertaining, emotionally absorbing and above all infective across the whole online experience.

This is futureology, guess work and musings.

Why would people do this? Why should sane people spend hours gazing at a computer screen? Why should people be engrossed in blogs, social networks and games?

There is a deep itch in our human make up that make such activities compelling. In our millions we already do it. But add even greater richness – a step change as great as from Newsgroups to blogs, to MySpace to Second Life and it seems that such change is inevitable.

Perhaps the big question for us now, is: dare we think of such things and be, just a little prepared, - well - Just in case.

The year of the mobile -

Maggie Holland at IT Pro comments:

Next year will be the year of the mobile customer, with a range of services and technologies on offer that are much cheaper and easier to use, as well as being much more sociable, according to predictions from the Mobile Data Association (MDA).

I have to say that its been a long time coming. It was in 2001 that I included mobile as an important part of online PR (in Online Public Relations - Kogan Page). Then, SMS was the issue but now the a wide range of Internet Protocol is available on many mobile devices from phones to laptops, games and even SatNav platforms.

This means that the ever widening range of platforms and channels in intertwined networks become much harder to monitor and interaction is across a wider range of touch points.

Building relationships with so many forms of communication affecting constituents attitudes and interactive behaviours becomes more challenging.

So how does the organisation respond.

Relationships, built on values and the exchange of mutually interesting values becomes the key element.

Companies, nay all organisations, only have one thing to offer - their values.

In organisations there are many value systems at play. These centre on the culture, products, services, social interactivity and other drivers that sustain existence. They are the bedrock of the organisation.

They should be explored by the PR professional and need explication to be included in the scudding clouds of internet interactivity.

As we go more mobile they play locally and globally and all the time. Now they are much closer to the individual and for one very specific reason: people have an emotional relationships with their mobile phones of the same nature as once pertained to newspapers and magazines as described by Guy Consterdine.

Values and ethics now clime further up the ladder importance in PR practice.

Reputation Reputation Reputation

This post is about reputation in three parts.

First it is about the reputation of Allan Edwards at Chameleon PR.

He pitched me a story in an email that said:

Hello David,

I noticed you mentioned last year’s Blast Radius UK’s Best online report on LeverWealth. This year’s report is now out, the release is below. This year’s research has shifted to look higher up the chain.

Best regards

Allan

Of course he got my interest and I quickly went back to the post on 22 November last year.

The next reputation involved were the companies involved : Jaguar Cars Tops Blast Radius Best UK Online Experience Survey 2007, Magnet, Reebok, Burberry and SSL achieve best overall ratings; Avon, Cisco, Clarks and IBM trail in `best of the best` analysis.

The third reputation is of course Blast Radius who commissioned the report.


Everyone wins.

It was excellent PR because it was about my interests, reflects what I write about and is pitched at a level that just caught my attention at the end of the day (and I even spent time on their site - which I did last year too). I also looked into their background this years to discover that WPP had bought them a year ago (another example of johnny come lately advertising groups buying into what they should have developed in-house five years ago instead of going for short term cash hoping to buy companies instead of developing cultures - watch this space).

The work is good and the survey was done by Informars, a sister company to Datamonitor, and subjective panelists to come up with the 'best online consumer experiences of 2007'.

The car companies did well:
1 Jaguar Cars Ltd. www.jaguar.co.uk
2 Magnet Ltd. www.magnet.co.uk
3 Reebok International (UK) www.rbk.com (UK)
4 Burberry Group plc www.burberry.com (UK)
5 SSL International plc www.durex.com/uk
6 Saab Great Britain Ltd. www.saab.co.uk
7 Volkswagen Group (UK) Ltd. www.volkswagen.co.uk
8 Colgate-Palmolive Ltd. (UK) www.colgate.co.uk
9 Reckitt Benckiser plc www.veet.co.uk
10 Peugeot Motor Co. plc www.peugeot.co.uk

IBM took the 20th spot.

It is worth reading the report and visiting the websites.

If, like me you believe that a lot of reputation is tied up in web sites, their design, responsiveness and ability to act as a major part of the transition from visitors to ambassador, then this report will be of interest.

The picture is a screen shot from the magnet web site which is a great toy to play with.


Thanks Allan.

A web outage is a relationships issue

Yesterday the www.tiny.com service was down. In a few hours there was a mass migration to a range of other comparable services.

Tiny lost customers and its reputation was tarnished.

This is a lesson for us all. If our online presence is not maintained it affects our reputation. It also means people go elsewhere to solve their problem. In the case of Tiny services like http://snipurl.com, http://urltea.com and http://paulding.net and the Firefox add-on all came to the aid of the online community.

When reputation is in the news so to are obscure commenst like this one from Slashdot.com

"Thanks to twitter, SMS, and mobile web, a lot of people are using the url minimizers like tinyurl.com, urltea.com. However, now I see a lot of people using it on their regular webpages. This could be a big problem if billions of different links are unreachable at a given time."

There is a ripple effect and a raft of different issues become relevant.

The circle of relationships is fractured.

But what if your organisation is the UK airport owner BAA?

What is the consequence of its sites being affected especially in times of crisis, as for example when there is a security scare?

This is not a Webmaster issue. Webmasters will be at the coal face trying to get it back up. Its a PR issue because it went down. It will also be a marketing issues, a finance issue, an internal relationship issue and a vendor relation issue.

A web site is a big public relations responsibility. It always was. But now its is a critical area of PR practice - a full lecture and seminar for year two in any BA PR degree.

Using a service like http://www.periscopeit.co.uk, a host data about the performance of a web site plus SMS and email alerts is a simple precaution.

Hopefully, this big issue is part of the CIPR advisory to its members and to its approved course lecturers and courses.

I (ahemmm) expect so!

Web 2.0 explained

Sleletons in cupboards - how do they get there?

JP Rangaswami is one of the more interesting commentators online and he came up with this utter gem today.

Sometimes I look at what we do, and I think to myself: First we take living things and make abject skeletons out of them. Then we carefully build cupboards around the newly formed skeletons. And then we wonder why we have skeletons in cupboards.

In building relationships we display our values and the things we value and judge others by the values they hold. This is true of people and organisations and very true of organisations and their stakeholders.

We are also conditioned (its part of our DNA) to judge those who hide their real selves or who try to deceive us with false values, obfuscation or untruths.

The abject skeleton of overdone brevity in the marketing in an attempt to 'grab attention' is a case in point.

An economic ramble

If one were to take a economic geography perspective of the Internet and imagine places where people meet, converse and trade ideas, products and services (OK... Facebook is an example) then the picture of different Internet Domians and their values changes. These places are large 'real' cities. Microsoft (in part) and NewsCorp bought cities. NewsCorp is, in effect, the City Fathers of MySpace.

The value of a city is one of many faces and is not comparable with a value chain of raw materials, manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer or consumer.

Paying to buy a city, and countries and nations have done this in the past, is not part of the rest of conventional economics and should not go into calculations about the value of the properties and interactions in them.

Now, if you separate the nature of knowledge and things (Evans a & Wurster) the value of the Internet (and the value of the trade in the virtual cities) can be included in economic calculation.

If the value of a raw material is dependent on knowledge to turn it into a commodity, it has no value. The value is in the knowledge.

The extent to which that knowledge is dependant on the Internet, gives one a view of the value of the Internet.

The extent to which conversion of things is dependant on an Internet mediation in a 'virtual city' is a real value and so 'virtual cities' can be identified as a component of the 'real' economy.

If Facebook has markets trading in 'real things' it has an entrepôt value. It is a component of the real economy.

Perhaps we have to learn to think about these online 'places' and 'services' in a different light.

The model for engagement

“We are seriously under-valuing certain things in advertising,” says Rory Sutherland, vice chairman of Ogilvy Group UK. “We don’t distinguish between what consumers ask for and what they don’t. Instead, we just target people by demographic, which is patently daft.

He went on to say

“A website with 700,000 users isn’t necessarily less powerful than a digital campaign seen by seven million people.

“Those 700,000 users are visiting the site of their own accord, and they are visiting when they have an interest in the content of the site. They are far more susceptible to relevant advertising than a larger group that just fit the target demographic.”

Sutherland likened “old marketing” to ten-pin bowling, with one message looking to “knock down” a large amount of consumers. Modern marketing, according to Sutherland, should follow a pinball analogy, with the message kept high on the agenda by factors other than just a brand’s input.

Sharon Shaw e-commerce manager at Standard Life adds:

"Developing a new digital strategy can be a daunting experience, especially considering the lack of case studies and benchmarks out there," and proposes an Attract, Convert, Support, Extend model.

Well welcome to the real world.

What they are talking about is developing relationships and I am not convinced they are on the right track yet.

Before we attract, there has to be worked through value systems and then, the model is to Listen before anything else.

That is why I believe that the planning model has to start with a proper audit of organisational values, the values of the online community and levels of dissonance.

It is only then that attracting the community is possible.

Just believing that 700,000 web site visitors are all happy campers is nieve and attracting people who don't want to go there is counter-productive.

Why Facebook is so valuable

This video is a visual interpretation of a contribution to For Immediate Release, The Hobson and Holtz Report.

It explores developments in psychology, human evolution and the brain sciences as motives for our use of social media. The would seem to be some very powerful drivers that explain the human need to be online and take part in generating content, sharing it and interacting. Enjoy.

Please feel free to share it from here.

The death of music?

I loved JP Rangaswami's post "Which have eyes, and see not: Musings about the music industry and The Because Effect" in which he shows how copyright and music are parting company.
But there are issues.

First, how can we be sure that people will be tempted to find out about what they desire. How do people find out about Radiohead in the first place?
Its getting harder to help people understand the significance of value systems but there lies the key.

Those people who have or acquire the complementary value systems that makes them scramble for a Led Zepplin gig is the critical issue that PR faces in order that they can attract eyeballs and action.

At the same time, we have to be able to convince clients that this is the way forward.
They have to learn the value of knowledge and those value systems that make it valuable.

It is action on two fronts and requires long and serious and cerebral conversations with leaders in organisations. This is not for a marketing manager attempting to hype the very name of an organisation through the courts. Its far more important.

What is more valueable trust or knowledge?

Slashdot announced today that

"After months of promises to IP-holders, the long-awaited filters system for YouTube has gone online. The new system will make it easier, the company claims, for copyrighted clips to be removed. 'YouTube now needs the cooperation of copyright owners for its filtering system to work, because the technology requires copyright holders to provide copies of the video they want to protect so YouTube can compare those digital files to material being uploaded to its website. This means that movie and TV studios will have to provide decades of copyright material if they don't want it to appear on YouTube, or spend even more time scanning the site for violations.'"

Which, of course is hard work for the copy holders and YouTube.

Why?

Because there are lots of copycat sites like YouTube where the copyright material can go, folk will get fed up with being fed what the studios let them have (Stalin would be proud) and will, eventually punish them and the bright young things will have alternative entertainment anyway.

Its a question of understanding the nature of the value of knowledge.

Knowledge is expensive to produce and has no value at all.

Making available information that some knowledge exists is expensive too and has high cost and low value associated with it.

If a person or organisation has trust assets, people might believe them if they say they have knowledge and should that knowledge be of interest, it may have some value.

What is the most valuable trust or knowledge?

Knowledge in the form of copyright such as films only has value when the recommender makes it so.

'King Kong' is a film. It has value because we trust the view of people who have seen it. Among a trillion films, there will be a need for some very powerful and much trusted recommenders to give king Kong future value. After all, now that films have a 'Long Tail' who has time to see all the movies?

Perhaps the studios and broadcasters will eventually understand that citizen critics are seriously important and will stop the idiocy of trying to protect valueless copyright.

Picture: Wikipedia

Who's Who at the Web 2.0 Summit

The Times has a list of the key players at Web 2.0 Summit in an article today.

This is a major conference and Professor Jonathan Zitrain will be presenting - and as always is controversial arguing that Web 2.0 is potentially a challenge with counterintuitive arguments that Web 2.0 architectures pose distinct problems for competition, innovation, and freedom.

But when you see how much he has in-press, and with whom it makes one wonder how far he will go:

• Internet Law, Foundation Press, with Charles Nesson, Larry Lessig, Terry Fisher, and Yochai Benkler (forthcoming 2006).
• The Generative Internet, 119 Harvard Law Review __ (forthcoming 2006).
• Generativity and Meta-Gatekeeping, 19 Harvard J.L. Tech. __ (forthcoming 2006).

One might start by reading this paper he published with Benjamin Edelman.

Turning a communication channel into a movement

Bloggers unite to tell world how to clean up environment

Organizers of the Oct. 15 U.N.-backed “Blog Action Day” said about 15,800 sites had signed up and were offering ideas to millions of people via blogs, or online diaries, ranging from planting more trees to how to recycle plastics.

“Our aim is to get everyone talking towards a better future,” according to www.blogactionday.com.

Says Canada's National Post.

The interest in environmental matters has a resonance (a set of values) with a wide audience that seems to want to crusade.

This seems to be another example of the effect of working with the grain of people's values.

A widget

I just made this one

New and Notable

Mark Phillimore has started a blog.

He is providing the online BA module and more at Bournemouth this year.

A PR consultant of 20 years’ experience he loves the media and technology sectors and lectures at several business schools and universities, as well as running his own training consultancy.

Academic interest and professional training are strategy, organisational change and culture, and new media communications. He just did an MBA and has these thoughts on his MBA.

Looking forward to the posts in his new role.

Looking at PR's role in the Northern Rock fallout

Northern Rock, the British bank that defied a 140 year tradition when customers besieged its branches on the streets and crashed its web site to get at their their money, was under a lot of pressure when the Chief Executive, Adam Applegarth, was reported on 17th September to say "Your money is safe with us ....

If a British banker says such things they are true. Bank managers are people to trust, aren't they?

If The Bank of England, says it 'fully backs' a bank, and it gave that assurance about Northern Rock, then 'Old lady of Threadneedle Street's' mighty reserves are there to offer confidence and support the rhetoric. This is 'money in the bank'. Surely?

The same goes for the Financial Services Authority, which declared the Northern Bank was 'solvent' and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's called for calm. These are people and institutions whose reputation we can surely trust, aren't they?

The consequences of belief in such assurances are far reaching, bring the Prime Minister's reputation into question and even affect the biggest economy in the world.

But the sober citizens who save money, have bank deposits and who read newspapers and listen to reporting from the BBC just did not believe them last week and trotted down to their local bank and politely asked for their money back - in their thousands.

The words 'trust', 'confidence' and 'reputation' are bandied around and a failure in 'public relations' is blamed.

The Business says: "...a textbook case of how not to manage investor expectations and public relations...."

The FT noted: "But instead of shoring up public confidence, the public relations gaffe managed to shake it.

Douglas MacWilliams, head of the London-based Centre of Economic Business Research, said the Treasury, along with the Bank of England, had botched their response to the market crisis, damaging their reputation for economic competence.

"The public relations of all concerned has been extraordinarily bad and has exacerbated the crisis of confidence."

The Northern Rock incident is not a one off, it is symptomatic of malaise affecting organisations and people of all sorts.

The 'public relations' of these organisation and people is such that they are not trusted. People do not have confidence in them and their reputation counts for very little.

From today's headlines the same can be said of Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury and Tesco who are reported to have colluded to raise milk prices, according to an Office of Fair Trading report.

The same can be said of your local grocers who are said to add dangerous chemicals to our food and the same can be said of the medical profession.

In one day, like almost any day, the issues of trust confidence and reputation are affecting people's relationships with our institutions.

Now, as in all these cases, it is not that the organisations involved do not have public relations expertise available and at hand. They do. They have big PR departments and PR advice at the top-most level.

These cases of loss of trust, confidence and reputation is with the advantage of PR expertise.

These failures are the failures of PR professionals.

For PR people to evade the issue is, at best, disingenuous probably shameful and at worst, terminally damaging. The industry has laid claim to reputation, confidence and trust. It has had time to research, explore and develop the issues and practices involved. This is a matter for individuals but also for a wide range of privately and publicly funded organisations.

Who, then can take responsibility and who should be professionally concerned with developing trust, confidence and reputation among our leading institutions upon which our social, political and economic survival depends?

The Northern Rock episode brings into focus the failures of the whole profession involved in the practices associated with trust, confidence and reputation and none more so the representative trade associations in the field such as the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, the Public Relations Consultant's Association, AIBC among others. What are these institutions doing to provide capability and resulting belief in what their members do, say and influence?

Perhaps the Universities are culpable having churned out people with PR degrees and who yet are not equipped to affect corporate, not for profit, public sector and personal trust, confidence and reputation among their stakeholders. Are there competent teachers available to explicate the practices that the profession must have?

Perhaps we can turn to a panel of experts from five continents, representing academics, practitioners and senior executives of professional bodies who set the research agenda and the academics involved. Is their research up to informing and aiding the profession and its clients?

What of the people who monitor these things? How competent are they are in identifying the problems as they develop? What of the UK Media Monitoring Association comprising a wide range organisations that monitor newspaper, magazines and the web? Can they find the tell tale signs ? Is this something that its Chairman, the CEO of Durrants, and the members should be looking at?

It may be that there is a need for an early warning capability to show when organisations undermine their ability to create, sustain and develop trust, confidence and reputation from professional advisor's such as the Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication. Are their analysts up to the job? Have they an agenda that will help the profession?

My point is that there are a lot of institutions which, at the highest level bear a significant responsibility and who need to act to ensure that the nature of trust, confidence and reputation is taken very seriously for securing belief in the social, economic and political influences on us all.

Shoddy products and services, hype and spin, dissembling comments and obfuscation, may be at the root of the problem and that is down to individual markers, professions, politicians publicist and journalists and we may need to assemble the evidence and practices that refute such practices and offer more powerful and effective capabilities.

It is now time to develop the capability the PR industry needs and I have identified a number of organisations that need to get together and show that the reality matches the rhetoric.

If a representative of the profession, academic, teacher, monitor, evaluator, or practitioner, its time to put your hands up.

failing to do so means that forever you loose the trust of both our clientèle and the public that they so desperately depend upon.

In an economy founded on intellectual property, intangible assets and confidence in professional knowledge, skill and judgement this is an issue greater than any other in the public, commercial and private arena.

Considering risk mitigation

There are lots of things a practitioner can consider when using new approaches to communication to re-assure the client and to manage the downside.

The first is to be able to identify how actions, programmes and policies can reduce risk to optimise opportunity:




















And, there are management considerations that come into play too.

The process of managing risk

PR as a management discipline includes risk management methodologies.

Assessing risk

This is a simple way of articulating risk

Where campaign risks come from

I think this covers it.

How New Media capaigns get risky

I just thought it was worth noting.

Tomorrow is available today - beyond Facebook

Lee Hopkins has seen a Social Network site that is very important to Public Relations. It does so many of the things that emerged from the thinking I posted about a couple of weeks ago and contributed in this podcast item for FIR.

The significance of the thinking offerd by these developments are Web 3.0 for this simple reason: They allow people to express themselves as multiple personalities.

Humans, being social animals behave differently in different contexts and among different groups in order to 'fit in' for the common 'good' at home 'master of all he surveys' at work; at work 'servant of the firm'.

Add this to a capability to display, adopt and adapt, the value systems of others, the unique values of the individual in social frame of the moment and to offer all this with semiotics as varied as photo's video, text, podcast/voice mail, tags, smilies and much more and we have something closer to face to face interactions.

These are drivers that make us a successful species and we yearn to use them in our societies. Its in our DNA and this is why I am with Lee. This is Web 3.0. This is about social networks doing the things that humans want to do - and its availble with ubiquitous communication.

Managing Risk to Reputation a PR Dilemma

We live in the age of the risk management of everything. Paradoxically this still leaves organisations that diligently engage in risk management exposed to what Donald Rumsfeld called ‘unknown uncertainty’ which I have commented on before.

This warning about the escalation of the risk management of everything should be taken seriously. In his first Demos book, The Audit Explosion, Michael Power warned against that companies and governments preoccupation with measuring what is measurable – the now discredited ‘targets culture’.

In his more recent pamplet the Risk Management of Everything, he says: “Reputation has become a new source of anxiety where organisational identity and economic survival are at stake And if everything may impact on organisational reputation, then reputational risk management demands the risk management of everything.”

The anxiety about reputation means that experts and professional bodies are increasingly taking defensive steps to protect their own name, rather than managing risks on behalf of the public. One example of this the proliferation of ‘small print’ as professionals ranging from doctors to accountants attempt to hand risk back to customers, clients or society as a whole.

Part of this anxiety is brought about because of a profount misunderstanding about the nature of reputation. Part is in the lack of coherent reputation management which is about internal values and their interpretation by publics.

While it is the duty of the PR planner to asses and develop risk management strategies, one of those duties is the management of risks inherent in abuse corporate value systems from both within and without.

A company with 'small print' value systems will eventually be brought to book, either by the consumer or the regulator. But what of the company that does not have such an ethos but the lawyers insist on the small print?

It is a simple question, the answer is simple but are corporate managers big enough to be good at public relations?

Picture: www.thefunnycats.com