Quelling "But They Could Say Anything" Syndrome

As of late, it seems nearly everyone is diving head-first into social media and evolving their digital communications. Companies like Pepsi, Molson and Comcast have made big news engaging their stakeholders online and are setting the bar high as rules for social media continue to be written. Still, there are many organizations that haven't jumped into social media for a host of reasons - some because they don't know where to begin and others because they don't see an immediate or clear ROI. For some companies, however, the biggest barrier is that they are timid when it comes to finding out what people are saying about them online and talking with their stakeholders. I've heard the fear of the web expressed with phrases like, "It's just a bunch of people in their pajamas wanting to cause me loads of trouble," and, "They [the royal they] don't represent real consumers. They're just angry." However, the most common way this fear manifests itself is by proclaiming, "But they could say anything!"

Companies with "Say Anything Syndrome" see the web as completely separate from the real world, where people are out to spread rumors and tear them down. The reality is that the discussion of brands online really doesn't differ much from what happens every day in coffee shops, offices and bars (and they're the same people, too). The true difference is that companies can now actually hear the conversation they've been missing out on, and it's not all terrible. One of the biggest opportunities in social media is the first (and safest) step to joining the online community: listening.

Kat French has several great posts on the Social Media Explorer blog about getting started in social media monitoring (she actually just posted another today). If engaging your stakeholders online isn't right for you at this time, listening to what they're saying is an easy way to dip your toes in the water. In fact, the majority of the discussion may be just what you'd expect: some really positive, some really negative and most just neutral. Monitoring allows you to identify your fans and detractors and analyze trends in conversation. It also gives you the ability to spot false rumors and correct them. "They" can and do say "anything" - online and offline - sometimes even false things. However, you may be surprised to find that untrue things are often corrected by your fans. Similar to a cocktail party conversation, if someone hears something they think is false online, they raise skepticism about it. Other more believable rumors stay out on the web and don't get addressed. If you've decided to engage online, this is where you can confirm true facts and refute senseless gossip.

One of the best arguments for getting over "Say Anything Syndrome" was given by one of the members of the social media team at Molson during a BlogWell conference call a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember exactly who said it, but Molson's decision to engage in social media was essentially "opening the flood gates to what was already happening." If people don't have the facts about a situation, the company reaches out and provides them. They've received a lot of praise for their outreach efforts and have shown measurable growth in their reputation. If they weren't at least listening to the discussion of their brand online they would never even hear it and would never have the opportunity to proactively protect their brand on the web.

Accountability, Innovation and the PR Way

I just read Richard Edelman's most recent post about PR's role in forming a new business environment through straight talk and direct counsel. He references Paul Seaman's Wall Street Journal column about our industry's complacency with the current major issues facing businesses today. He says:

"I predict that the public will be interested to hear from genuinely knowledgeable and thoughtful businesspeople of every stamp, from the bold to the cautious. There will be a premium on professionalism, competence, coherence. To those buzzwords, I'd add these: authenticity, frankness, seriousness. Business and PR are about to get real."

About to get real? Shouldn't we have been "real" this entire time? I agree with Seaman's conclusion that we need to offer blunt, authentic advice (and encourage our clients to speak that way), but that should be the standard operating procedure of a profession that wants to be trusted and heard in the board room and escape our ugly stereotypes.

Looking at the current communications landscape, Seaman says we've basically lost our edge in an effort to make nice with all of our clients' stakeholders. Seaman is right when he says, "Being loved by everyone isn't a successful business strategy." It is, however, successful business strategy to work with those stakeholders we can to move the needle forward as a conscience organization (even "greedy" capitalists). There is room for strategic Corporate Responsibility programs in the next chapter of business.

We get paid to advocate on behalf of our clients, big or small, and to inject their thoughtful, well-formed opinions into the public space. We are paid to "be real" and to bring fresh ideas to the table. It is also our job to bring those generally thoughtful businesspeople to the media and encourage our clients to exude professionalism and competence. If we are not doing these things, if we haven't been doing these things, we are not doing our jobs well. It shouldn't take the failure of our clients for us to realize our fundamentals may be off. And if they are, we certainly can't wait to fix them.

Media analysis 101: Metrics are everything

The Culture and Media Institute today released a study of news coverage of vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin showing “character assassination” by the major broadcast news networks ABC, NBC and CBS. The report also concluded “the public cannot trust what they’re hearing from [the networks].” The research is getting some major attention in the blogosphere and on several major news outlets, so I thought I would comment on its methods, findings and conclusions considering I believe CMI seriously cherry-picked their data. I should note that I’m commenting on the full report the organization provides on their web site, which offers the most details about how they arrived at their conclusions.

First, their findings - CMI found three narratives about Sarah Palin:

1. Palin Is a Dunce, Lacking Qualifications and Intellect
2. Conservatives Are Rejecting the Dunce
3. Palin Is an Obama-Attacking Demon

While there are several inconsistencies in the way CMI coded the media coverage for positive, negative and neutral (more on that in a bit), the biggest issue I have with the report is the number of stories actually included in the study. CMI says there were 69 news segments that covered Sarah Palin over two weeks (Sept. 29 – Oct. 12) on ABC, NBC and CBS. If there really were only 69 stories on the networks, the average major network would have aired less than 2 stories per day that mentioned Palin. Perhaps this would be possible during a slow news week (or two), but certainly not during this campaign cycle or this specific time period, which included the run-up to the vice-presidential debate. The reality is that Palin was mentioned in more than 200 stories on major networks during those two weeks. CMI chose to include only the stories that fit their predetermined conclusion.

A solid media analysis is based in solid, objective coding of news coverage. CMI coded stories almost entirely on subjective points. They say, “Negative stories contained more unfavorable elements than favorable, or gave preferential treatment to Biden.” CMI doesn’t actually define what unfavorable is. Is a piece coded unfavorable because of certain buzzwords, the amount of speaking time allotted to campaign spokespeople or number of minutes devoted to one candidate over the other? CMI simply doesn’t give us these objective metrics. Furthermore, many of the items CMI coded negative, or what they claim proves the networks perpetuated an attack narrative, is actually spurred by Palin’s newsworthy comments that Barack Obama was “palling around with terrorists.” This soundbite was designed to get media attention, so the fact that it was picked up by the networks doesn’t mean the stories were “negative.” Again, it depends on what metrics we’re using, which CMI doesn’t clearly define.

In addition, CMI didn’t even bother to examine coverage of the Troopergate scandal, which should have been included in their analysis because the decision came down during the last week over coverage. I have no doubt that coverage of Palin was critical, but how much of it was “media bias” versus the factual reporting that she violated state ethics laws? We don’t know because CMI didn’t look at the stories and didn’t objectively define their coding method.

Lastly, if this were a serious media analysis, CMI could have gotten media attention by using words less alarmist than “dunce”, “demon” and “ridicule” considering those words didn’t even show up in the coverage they looked at. Their study was clearly designed to support a preset conclusion and their metrics were broad enough to fit a small selection of news coverage. There may actually be some unfair reporting of Sarah Palin (as is the case with each one of the candidates), but this particular study doesn’t make the cut and certainly doesn’t support the extreme conclusion that the networks cannot be trusted.

Today's Dueling Obama, McCain Media Strategies

A lot has already been said today about the McCain/Palin press folks basically shutting out media from an extremely photo-rich opportunity at the UN this afternoon. After major protests, Palin's media handlers finally let some photographers in (for thirty seconds). Later in the day, McCain held a ten minute press conference, which didn't really satisfy the already upset press corps. The McCain campaign lost their (only?) opportunity to turn Palin's recent narrative around and better position her foreign policy credentials. Meanwhile, Barack Obama opened his campaign up to news media, held a lengthy press conference on the economy and won the day's media cycle.

This brings the McCain campaign far from the days when the senator invited the press corps to his house for a BBQ. It will be interesting to see what the strategy of non-access gets them while Obama's media team keeps a cool head and allows the press in. I won't get into the political debate about which campaign has received more negative press coverage (an excuse used sometimes to block reporter access to events). Both campaigns have taken their fair share of low media blows and sensational reporting. Despite how the McCain camp may feel, blocking the access of reporters to his VP nominee (and himself) at a major meeting will buy them no favors. As with all communications campaigns, transparency should be the rule, not the exception.

Comments are welcome, as usual; however, please keep them on the strategy, not the politics.

Going to BlogWorld!

I'm heading to my first new media-specific conference at BlogWorld 2008 and I have to admit, I am completey geeked out about it. I fear, though, that once and for all I will feel pretty inadequate with my Motorola RAZR and want an iPhone.

If you are going and would like to meet up, DM me on Twitter - @theshua

Comcast goes into the digital deep

Being one of the largest providers of a nearly essential service (gotta have my 'Deadliest Catch') opens you up to some fairly vocal criticism, especially when your customer service can be less than stellar.

Former TVNewser blogger Brian Stelter has an interesting story tonight on the New York Times web site about Comcast's new digital media engagement strategy. Spearheaded by Comcast's digital care manager, Frank Eliason, the company is opening a new front in communicating with its customers when things go wrong. Stelter writes:

From a sparse desk dominated by two computer screens in the new Comcast Center here, Mr. Eliason uses readily available online tools to monitor public comments on blogs, message boards and social networks for any mention of Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company. When he sees a complaint...he contacts the source to try to defuse the problem.

Monitoring the blogosphere and rapidly responding to customer concerns is one thing, but Comcast takes the online dialogue a step further by providing another dimension of corporate personality via Twitter. Eliason provides a name and face for the company's customer care services by "tweeting" with customers as their issues and questions occur. Did your service tech not show up for his appointment? Is this the third time in 2 days your internet stopped working? Eliason is on the case with a friendly tweet and quick action. Together with improving Comcast's customer care, Eliason rounds out an effort to improve service and humanize a massive corporation.

Developing corporate personality (an extension of your brand) is one of the biggest benefits Twitter can bring to a company. Of course, Twitter can't really do much on its own to bolster personality. However, when coupled with the right social media tools to fit an organization's communications goals (check out Red Cross for another example), Twitter can be a highly effective medium. What does Twitter do when it has its own service issues? They blog, naturally.

More tips for rumor response

I've been reading a lot of Peter Sandman lately and am a huge fan of his Risk = Hazard + Outrage principle. I especially like the way he separates risk communication issues into logical, strategic categories: High Hazard/High Outrage (Crisis Communication), High Hazard/Low Outrage (Precaution Advocacy) and Low Hazard/High Outrage (Outrage Management). His theories can be applied effectively to many issues management programs and work particularly well in health-related crisis/risk communications. All of his columns are really worth a good, thorough read.

I was excited to see that Peter's April column addressed rumor management, both online and off. He notes that even the most fringe commentary can look reputable and reach a huge audience, which is something we have seen to be often overwhelming and frightening to clients just getting into the web space. An intensive audit of online conversation about your company and regular monitoring can help familiarize yourself with your most frequent critics/advocates and help you determine where the fringe commentary is. Peter also outlines six major components to dealing with rumors, which I've put below. I recommend reading the rest of his article for more great insight.

Peter Sandman's six tips for rumor response:

1. Repeat the rumor you're rebutting.
2. Be empathetic to those who believe the rumor.
3. Demonstrate that you have taken the rumor seriously.
4. Give evidence that the rumor is false.
5. Discuss any and all evidence that the rumor is true.
6. Promise to stay alert.