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

The Future Internet

In 1995, I spoke to the Chartered Institute of Public Relations conference and predicted the Internet would be very big for PR.

Email arrived, web sites arrived and it all happened.

Five years later, in two books I made it clear that the interactive nature of communication for individuals and groups would be very significant for PR practice. Chat, Instant Messaging, Message Boards, Usenet, blogs, MySpace and Facebook (and with a nod towards Second Life) became mainstream and it all happened.

But last year, I went through a patch when I could not see forward. I am more confident now.

My thinking is now going beyond the internet as a place for interaction to a place where we truly become natives.

As a driven social species, capable of seeking and managing change, humans seeking novelty and added capability.

That is, driven by our DNA, the user public will adopt an internet model that is closer to human drivers and because so many people are involved, they will seek and demand change in the area of most internet use - social media.

Technology and regulation is becoming subservient to the online commons. The implications for PR practitioners may be un-nerving. But so too was the advent of the Internet, email and the web and even today, much of the PR industry is nervous about social media.

Each iteration of social media has been richer in content and interactivity. Each has brought more mechanisms for self expression and and ability to display likes and dislikes from favourite films to groups of interest. The social portals offer people a rich array of facilities and content. Much of this self expression is replacing or is a substitute for many of the benefits humans get from direct, face-to-face relationships.

The people who use this media have an agenda described by Stephanie Sanford quite well She argues that there is a changing landscape in polity beyond the collapse of social capital described by Putnam and that there is a kind of online substitute to the social structures that are dominant, if struggling, offline today.

We are a complex blend, a repertoire, of private and social selves and in the last few posts I have been looking at how, we, as human beings, find social media so tempting and why portals like MySpace, Facebook appeal to so many people .

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has examined how we can be completely absorbed in an activity and can 'shut out' other distractions. If you watch a youngster concentrating on a Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), you can see how absorbing some online activity can be. But such effort is linear. It does not cater for a range of 'selves'.

Facebook is very much the same, as is MySpace. Both now offer many ways to express a particular self but not many 'selves' depending on the 'mood' or social frame we are in. Can I please have a Facebook for me as a grandfather and another one as a lecturer – oh! and can I have one as a writer 'self' too. Way back in the 1990's it was evident that many people online had several different online personalities. Even today, most of us have a number of email addresses. My Hotmail account is there for different purposes to my Gmail account and I never use my University accounts at all! Many people have multiple blogs – i.e. different 'selves' already.

So people are involved through their online experience, seek Csikszentmihalyi's engrossing applications and an ability to be the 'self' that matches mood and nature (and the current influences on our lives) look for the next social network to be available online to match the moment when needed.

How big are theses 'selves' in social numbers?

Well, they are not monolithic unless they are social.

Aristotle argued that it was in our interest, given our deeply social nature, to participate in in civic life in order to fulfil ourselves. Jefferson, followed this through when he wrote the American constitution and interpreted it as the 'pursuit of happiness'. He believed that small social groups would build a strong country. There is more modern evidence to support this idea. Robin Dunbar has looked at the nature of social groups across many species and suggests that there is a correlation between cortical size and the actual size of primate species. We are biologically pre-programmed to be personally effective in groups of about 150 people. Small businesses don't seem to need a hierarchical structure until they have 135 employees. Jennifer Muller suggests that teams can function to monitor individuals more effectively than managers can control them. In companies team size is an issue and when a person my have 150 people in their personal 'tribe' working effectively means working with a small section of this tribal whole as Muller notes in her recent paper. The basic military unit is under 150 too and has been for thousands of years (The Roman army First Cohort, called Primi Ordines, consisted of five centuries of 120 men). Political systems that remove social groups (communist Russia is an example) eventually crack under the weight bureaucracy when dealing with big populations whereas delivery of social support (looking out for older neighbours and over the top teens) is delivered effectively when these are sufficient convergent values in a community (a group of actors within a compass of 150 people held together with values that form a a polity) - as suggested by J. Eric Oliver in his book Democracy in Suburbia. He posits that local government is important primarily because it provides an accessible and small-scale arena for the resolution of social and economic conflict. It would seem that the big state, the big business and the national army all have to obey social rules and at a personal level obeying the personal 150 rule in order that the bigger unit (political, economic, social) institution can thrive. To survive big means acting social.

Create a social media network to be of friends, family, tribe and polity (and many other groups) and Facebook would be old fashioned quite quickly. People seek society in different groups, different types of groups and for (sometimes convergent) different purposes and different 'selves'. The portals that provides this will be part of the emerging internet.

One of the amazing things about people is their ability to extent the capability of the body and brain beyond its biological capacity. We can travel further and faster on a bicycle, car or plane because we have extended our physiology with knowledge. We have extended our brain with devices like pocket calculators, digital cameras and computers, that is, we use our brain to make machines do extra mural work. We have also extended our memory with access to wikipedia and the rest of the internet. We have also limited our physical capabilities. A Londoner, and attempting to survive in the Borneo jungle is beyond our ken. We have lost skills and knowledge too. The proverbial Londoner does not have the skill to feel the texture of ground corn to know if it is properly milled into flour (a skill called the 'miller's thumb').

Using the evolving internet will include achieving even more things to facilitate our needs both physical and intellectual (and emotional).

Large brains confer an advantage when responding to variable, unpredictable, and novel ecological demands through enhanced behavioural flexibility, learning, and innovation. (Vrba, E. (1988) in The Evolutionary History of the Robust Australopithecines ). Human have large brains. Better than that, humans like novelty. Humans are quick to learn causal associations between co-occurring environmental stimuli.

The evolving internet is and will continue to be a place where we can experiment with novel things. From Usenet to Twitter and beyond is part of human biology. This means the evolving internet will be a place where people will seek to experiment for simple human gratification.

As a nerve cell in the human brain is stimulated by new experiences and exposure to incoming information from the senses, it grows branches called dendrites. With use, you grow branches; with impoverishment, you lose them. People can even use parts of the brain to do novel things. The ability to change the structure and chemistry of the brain in response to the environment is called plasticity.

This plasticity capability in the adult cerebral cortex can change substantially as a result of practice and experience throughout life (Kolb B, Whishaw I. Q. Brain plasticity and behavior). Furthermore, a specific variant of the gene ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) in humans suggest that the human brain is still undergoing rapid adaptive evolution (Mekel-Bobrov et al ).

The evolving internet will be more addictive and people will develop their brains to cope. With the new internet we can expect new skills to emerge (even programming a video recorder can be learned) and we will both learn and evolve to do these things.

Human biology as much as human society seeks to satisfy needs that ensure that the social group can be trusted. We need to be able to trust people. There are dozens of devices that say they offer secure relationships and for people this means more than ever they need to be recognisable. Throughout history, people have recognised people from their looks, voice and mannerisms. But online, its easy to steal identities. I guess that its the next evolution of Facebook and MYMelcrum will have something like eye scanning (biometric iris scanning) built into a security system that allows many 'selves' but only one self.

As the internet evolves into these new social networks, its networking sites will need feeding. Just as Twitter or Last.fm can be embedded in Facebook, so too will services be needed for the future internet. Web Widgets have a fine future. Feeding these places where people hangout is a big issue and big business. The services available for word processing or automatic video download from cell phone to MMORPG or PC is technically possible and cannot be far away. Integration will be important if only to beat the big problem online today - available time.

Finally, there is the question of when.

When will all this happen?

Usenet and IM stood the test of time for five years before the better blog mousetrap came along. MySpace took three years, Twitter a few months. Adoption of new and more 'human DNA' friendly social networks will accelerate.

Look back five years and the rate of change is fast but its the rate of adoption that is more interesting. Usenet was for geeks and sex maniacs. Myspace is for them (still) but mostly for a huge proportion of young people. Most of my friends in Facebook are older and the podcasters are older still! Adoption will become less a generation thing.

So, who will be using this new Internet. To begin with it will be less complicated and thus more available to more people. And the more it satisfies human biology, the more pervasive it will become. Answer - everyone.

The new Internet is a place to live.

Social media CSR and the reptilian brain

This post is about the physiological (evolutionary) and psychological explanations for the success of social media and its relevance to PR and organisations.

Deep in our brain is the ventral pallidum. It is commonly called the 'reptilian' part of the brain.

Over our evolutionary history, the brain has evolved in animals layer by layer. Humans have complex (and big) brains and we carry the baggage of evolution deep in the layers of brain from our evolutionary ancestors. These inner parts of the brain provide most of the unconscious responses to stimulation that are part of our normal existence. We don't have to think about how to walk. We just walk.

But these deeply embedded responses also dictate how we evoke instinctive action to events, people and organisations. An interesting article in the New York Times covers a lot of this ground.

Our problem is that a lot of management thinking is founded on these, primitive areas of the brain. The ideas of Thomas Hobbs (1651 Levanthian ), modified by Freud (Civilisation and its Discontents) and Smith (Wealth of Nations) and provided with an economic application by Neumamn & Morgenstern (Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour), a re-working of Garret Harding's Tragedy of the Commons are no longer enough. We know so much more which is relevant to PR and especially to social media and CSR.

We already knew from the 1970's experiments that people cooperate at a much higher level when exposed to face-to-face communication. To explore this means reading George Williams (The Selfish Gene).

John Allman (Evolving Brains) at Caltech shows that, to survive, humans need both a big brain (oh... that means slow development through childhood to maturity) and an altruistic, co-operative and communication rich relationship with other people to support the long development through childhood to adulthood (family, community and long lasting social cohesion). To do this we have to be social animals. We cannot be selfish. Genetically, we have to cooperate for the survival of the species. Humans prosper and are more effective in groups.

This is why Social Media is so important to people and why co-operation online is so popular? It allows human beings to do what they are genetically programmed to do.

The richer the experience the greater the co-operation and the more productive and cohesive the group is. If you neglect a human, it fades - and the examples come from the terrible 'orphanages' in some countries even to this day (there are harrowing studies that I am not going into here).

Allman has shown that people who look after people live longer! Berkman and Syme have also shown that people with few social ties die younger. Does this mean blogs are good for you - its very probable. The richer and more inclusive the relationship - even an online relationship - is good for us. The 'sad' individuals with big online networks of 'friends' is not as silly (or sad) as many would make out.

This social part of our brain (pre-frontal cortex) is the most recent addition in the evolution of the human brain which adds cognitive sophistication including self awareness, awareness of others as people, long term planning and an ability to shift behaviour in the light of changing social contexts to create a human moral sense.

It has an immense impact and is important when PR people consider corporate values and value systems, their networks and interactions with publics and approaches to social media.

Harvard's Robert Putman's studies (among others) into the nature of richness in relationships show that Social Networks, social norms (values) trust, together making up social capital, is a major factor in economic development. Kawachi, Kennedy & Lochner (1977 - Long Live Community: social capital as public health) also show that low trust (in civic authorities) reduces average mortality rate and we see this in some nations to this day (Zimbabwe?) . It follows that trusting an organisation, for example a company, is good for people and loss of trust is bad for people.

This is where the PR practice of Corporate Social Responsibility, comes into the limelight. CSR cannot be used as a substitute for good governance. As soon as poor governance is exposed and trust is lost, the effect is not just loss of 'reputation' it is denial of social norms and community and the richer the prior experience, the greater loss which is a deeply hurtful thing to human psychology. It is probably an explanation for much anti-corporatism today.

Institutions have to be richly involved in social communities (not just employees, customers, vendors but wider communities too) and they have to be trusted to prosper.

Distinctions between the individual and others begins to fade as the identity of the crowd and the concept of self (which is also context driven) merges into one collective identity with a common set of symbols (values) shared with others, suggest Quarts & Sejnowski (Liars Lovers and Heroes) . By creating collective identities, humans can define groups more diverse than those based on kin, such as citizenship. These groups do include MySpace and Facebook groups and even blogging and other online communities. Some of these groups might be related to organisations but many do not. So people belong to a range of communities through which they can act on an organisation. A recent Wharton study is an example. It examined how these communities create an extensive 'word of mouth' antipathy to organisations.

Acording to Dawes Kragt and Orbell (1990 in 'Beyond Self Interest), "Ease in forming group identities could be of individual benefit. It is not the successful group that prevails, but the individuals who have a propensity to form such groups". Thus the people who are involved in groups online do so as both part of our, human, make up and are important to people's ability (and their belief in their ability) to succeed.

This would indicate that the closer to face to face social media gets (think of photo's and video) and the richness of the experience (a proxy for face to face) with associated trust and the ability to join or form groups is deeply important to the human condition. Online media is becoming much closer to face-to-face relationships. It is getting very rich, a subject I explored in this post last week.

One can begin to see that as, depending on experience of organisations and the social context people find themselves in, the interaction between organisations and individuals and their social groups is now touching on hugely powerful evolutionary and psychological human motives.

The significance of social media from an evolutionary and psychological viewpoint is beginning to emerge and for PR is is much, much bigger than at first thought.

Our responsibility to ensure PR takes corporate social responsibility very seriously (not just a teddy bear given to the local fete - or even millions given to the poor in Africa) because online, the pervasiveness of social media is storing up a heap of trouble for those involved in poor governance. At which point - watch out for the reptilian part of the brain to kick in!


Photo: Forestry insights

Evaluation online is creeping away from us

Every time I look at numbers that may help the PR evaluation industry, I come up with the same answer. Its getting harder. As Brett Crosby, senior manager for Google Analytics, notes for Mark Glaser we will be hard-pressed to cover the wide variety of websites and their functions. “My personal opinion is that it’s going in the opposite direction [from a unified measurement]”.

Perhaps we should stop trying to emulate the advertising industry and start evaluating public relations.

Its not hard. Some organisations have good public relations and some have bad public relations.

Such judgements are inclusive of the organisation and its performance, its communications, its ethos and so on. That is the role of the PR manager. So why not use a PR measure.

That does not mean the 'worlds most admired company' based on journalist column inches and tone or ROI or profits or, even, growth.

The simple measure is would you be thrilled if your daughter got her first job there.

So I am offering a new evaluation metric - the daughter litmus paper.

For those who really want indigestion, the following is a kick start for measuring:

For information about numbers of people online http://www.internetworldstats.com.

Who owns and runs sites is quite easy to look up using 'Whois' services such as this like these http://www.internetters.co.uk/whois.php, http://www.nominet.org.uk/

How the internet is performing can come from http://news.netcraft.com

Research data can be from www.nielsen-netratings.com and Pew Research http://people-press.org, and the National Statistics office. Among others you can find out about web site statistics from http://www.websiteoptimization.com and Site Report Card http://www.sitereportcard.com/.

More tools are available at http://www.toolurl.com

To find out about links into and out of web sites, how many pages a web site has then http://www.google.com/help/operators.html, is very helpful.

To be able to identify words associated with a person, brand, company or other organisation when people search using search engines (top of mind words about the organisation) then the use of Wordtracker or similar.

Most sites should be monitored for their Google ranking http://www.googlerankings.com/

Google Analytics for a web site or Google Trends to find how many people search for your keywords are helpful. Compare the numbers of visitors to sites with Alexa Trafic Ranking (www.alexa.com) and other web analytic information is available fro a Google search “web site traffic analytics”.

Hitwise (www.hitwise.co.uk) offers a lot of data about online traffic and monitors who is doing what online.

A quick free monitor to try out web site visitor tools is available from http://www.sitemeter.com.

For some exciting views of online activity try http://labs.digg.com.

What users do using a service like Clicktale when they vist web sites is also a metric that is helpful when identifying how a site is used. Eye tracking is used to see how web pages are used too. Research is already well established with heat maps too and available for citation.

Podcast data can come from http://www.radiotail.com/ripple And

Then there are some of the monitors and some interesting new ideas including one that looks at a range of metrics from Edelman PR which was first discussed on David Brian's post http://www.sixtysecondview.com/?p=325.

PR Research Prioreties - the official list?

Tom Watson at Bournemouth University has been trying to find out what the PR industry would like researched most.

He has consulted widely (globally even) and his respondents (all senior people in management and PR) came up with a dozen subjects.

I have some thoughts about where we go based on his findings.

1. Public relations’ role in contributing to strategic decision-making, strategy development and realisation, and organisational functioning.

The significance of disintermediation, the value of intangible assets, enforced transparency, management of unknowns and porous organisations is not much discussed in PR circles. It will be interesting if this study brings these issues into the debate.

They require a comprehensive understanding of ICT and social media mediated business and economic theory and advanced management tools.

The practitioner who is not able to plan for the unexpected and to manage risk across all the channels for communication (think not just of newspapers and TV but YouTube, Blogs, Facebook, SMS and many more) will leave the company exposed.

Uncertainty and risk management are now essential tools in the PR toolkit to aid stategy management. A range of platforms and channels for communication are tactical tools that just have to be mastered.

The question suggests that PR has a role in contributing but in reality (whether practised by a 'PR person' or, more likely, a CEO), as corporate transparency moves closer to radical transparency (I offer IBM and Microsoft as two companies that have and continue to be subject to such pressures – and which have strategically changed as a result), strategy becomes ever more re-active.

To contribute to strategy we need to improve the management tools used. There is a need for structured risk and opportunity management that can mesh with corporate direction which in turn will inform realisation and contribute to operations.

2. The value that public relations creates for organisations through building social capital, managing key relationships and realising organisational advantage.

Is there such a thing as 'key relationships' any more? In an era of ubiquitous communication the inter relationships are now networked which means that the value of PR is in its ability to contextualise organisational values in a networked society.

3. The measurement and evaluation of public relations, both offline and online

Online communication depends on a range of platforms (PC, Cellphone etc.) and a very wide range of channels (blogs, wiki's, podcasts, Facebook, Second Life, Instant Messenger, SMS etc). Just monitoring Social Media is a challenge. Measuring the contribution or effect of 1.1 billion people involved using these platforms and channels in a networked environment and potentially being involved is going to be interesting. The reality is that we live in a very different world to one where social segments (publics, market segments, stakeholders) were identified by PR people and marketers and the mass media held sway.

4. Public relations as a fundamental management function.

As long as the word 'Relations' has a meaning that involves relationships, then the the fundamental of relationships that are the organisation and the (ever more porous) external relationships that facilitate organisational survival and success, then PR is the premier management function. No relationships – no organisation.

5. Professional skills in public relations; analysis of the industry’s need for education.

The PR industry let slip the Web 1.0 and XML. It is now fundementaly dependant on both but had little say in its evolution for relationship effectiveness. Web 2.0 is even bigger by comparison in terms of both public relations and communication practice. There is NO relationship without the Internet. The SMS message as one goes into a face to face Ministerial meeting can be critical to its outcome. The skill set we now need has to be better than a 16 year old who can be as effective as Laurie Pycroft who was more effective than all the PR's employed by all the Pharmaceutical companies in retaining their licence to operate in the UK. The new online age empowers anyone to compete with PR practitioners. Does the industry need more by way of education or are practitioners and academics prepared to cede capability to the Internet enabled 'amateur'.

6. Research into standards of performance among PR professionals; the licensing of practitioners

In an age of Internet Richness, Reach, Transparency, Porosity and Agency backed up with the mass, engaged and capable online population (one in six in the UK), the licence for PR to operate is under more scrutiny than ever before. Our standards are progressively questioned and visibly so.

7. Management of corporate reputation; measurement of reputation

Reputation is not owned by organisations. The value systems and sticking to the value systems of organisations is now critical for survival of most organisations. As people perceive value systems of an organisation, they will give it its reputation. Is this, as a subject, really about managing value systems? The era of hype, spin and bling is at its last gasp. Calling the ethic of organisations 'reputation' is typical self inflicted PR spin. Some sense of the dissatisfaction with it can be summed up by 100 comments in the last 18 hours about David Cameron's marketing and (ex – journalist managed - publicity (called PR, but obviously not). It never ceases to amaze me that practitioners monitor so little of their organisation's 'reputation'. The 280 YouTube videos about Bournemouth University or the 28,000 about public relations, an interesting view to enlighten the Global Alliance, just show the extent to which every organisation is exposed in a range of social media as well as in more traditional content such as newspapers, TV, radio and blogs. .

7. Ethics in public relations

Ethics are as good as honesty of management. There will always be weak PR practitioners

9. Integration of public relations with other communication functions; the scope of public relations practice; discipline boundaries

This is extra-ordinary. In most organisations there are more people who can harness more media than the average PR manager. Most practitioners in the UK do not know how to blog, podcast or even use Facebook. Is this a suggestion that PR practitioners should integrate their activities with these employees? As most marketing and advertising managers are just as far behind. A merger suggests thrice as much ignorance and prejudice.

10. Management of relationships

While it is something of a misnomer to talk about 'Managing relationships' this is much closer to where PR can go. First of all, there is a need to understand what is meant by relationships. This blog is mostly about the Relationship Value Model, an approach to understanding relationships. I have yet to meet a practitioner who is remotely interested.

11. Client/employer understanding of public relations

This, presumably, means that someone – um... CIPR, Global Alience, PRCA, IABC....... is prepared to stand up and say that Cameron has no PR just a bling merchant ex- journo massaging the ever less relevant mass media. Or is that too much to ask for.

12. The impact of technology on public relations practice and theory.

PR as we know it is being disintermediated and at a rate of knots. Anyone can create a message and their message is as good as any a PR person can create. Anyone can distribute a message to 1.1 billion people. If the message has 'legs' it will be change behavious and it does not matter if it comes from a 10 year old in MySpace or 60 year old veteran press agent.

The theory is under severe pressure and the practice as we know it will not be in play in five years.