Click here to listen to the 32-minute program.

• First, Jen and Doug discuss the Old Spice social media advertising initiative, and how the implementation of the initiative seems to have further blurred the lines between advertising and PR, as discussed in a piece by Dave Fleet. Aside from blurring lines, though, there is a question as to how advertising will be measured in a situation like this, which looks an awful lot like a PR campaign, not an advertising campaign, as articulated in this piece by Chris Thilk. Both agree that we’ll have to see what the numbers look like when they come out (oh, look they have–thank you to Beth Harte for pointing to this).

• Then, the two discuss an exchange on Twitter between MSU’s Scott Westerman and Ford’s Scott Monty on giving interns the reins in social media. Ford has  Both agree with Scott (Monty) that for a global brand, turning a Twitter account over to an intern doesn’t make sense. Yes, interns should be given work that matters–but turning over a brand’s social media channel to an intern, making them essentially responsible for the brand’s presence on Twitter, is ill-advised. Jen points out that even if they are the smartest and most adept intern out there, it’s unfair to put them on a global stage to make their mistakes.

• Finally, the two cover a dust-up between Jack O’Dwyer and Katie Paine about Ad Value Equivalency. Both Jen and Doug agree AVE numbers are useless–but both really wonder what O’Dwyer was getting at when he suggested that PR’s role should be focused on “rescuing the remaining media,” instead of being so focused on measurement. Doug doesn’t think we should be rescuing remaining media, we should be focused on working with the media as it currently exists–regardless of the platform.

Click here to listen to the 33-minute program.

• First, the team tackles issues surrounding a recent online flare-up in social media. Jen asks Ike to discuss some of the very important points raised in a piece he wrote, especially the role of “Chesters” in making online discussions spin out of control. Sarah notes that participation in social media–putting yourself out there and drawing attention to your ideas–requires a bit of ego (in a positive way) in the first place, which makes it more likely feelings can get bruised. Jen wraps up the discussion by asking what we can take away from the recent dust-up; both Ike and Sarah agree that these sorts of things will pop up from time to time–it’s the nature of the Internet.
• Next, the group discusses this week’s runaway social media success: The Old Spice Guy. Sarah is impressed with the actor, stating that the series of commercials and YouTube videos should lead to considerable fame, and perhaps a TV show. Ike warns that this didn’t work out so well for the Cavemen, but acknowledges the actor’s charisma and the success of the campaign. Jen points out that the work behind the scenes must have been significant, and was executed brilliantly; she then asks if the bar has been set quite high for advertisers. Ike feels that the success of the campaign could lead to further rifts between PR and advertising as those groups struggle for ownership of–and the dollars that fund–social media campaigns.

Click here to listen to the 45-minute program.

• First, Jen asks Mitch about his role in Chris Brogan’s new Man On The Go project, aimed at those who travel extensively for business–it has tips and tricks for traveling, hotel reviews, and reviews of travel-critical gear, like backpacks and laptop bags. As someone who travels quite a bit for business himself, Mitch is contributing videos for the blog. The blog is another interesting move in the online space for Chris Brogan, as the site is predominantly video. Bryan Person has also launched a new blog, which the group discussed, called Exploring the iPad.
• Next up for discussion was Fast Company’s Influence project (at 11:42)–and more specifically, Amber Naslund’s pointed blog post about the project. Mitch points out that influence can be defined as compelling someone to click a link–or, fill in the “other” blank in a contest, as Howard Stern did with Hank The Angry Drunken Dwarf in 1998. The question of “who versus how many” was raised, as was the issue of “slacktivism”–the very low barrier presented by clicking a “like” button still indicates that there is engagement.
• The group concluded the show by discussing Neville Hobson’s post about The Guardian’s new WordPress plugin (at 29:20), which is yet another way print media is trying to grapple with sharing content. While some publications are moving their content behind paid firewalls, The Guardian is trying something different–but Mitch asks:  “what’s stopping a blogger from copying the relevant paragraph and reposting?” Jen asks if this initiative has to do with advertising revenue–is this a method to generate money? Mitch points out that a blog that simply reposts articles from elsewhere would turn him off, as there’s little point–that’s not why you read a blog. If the objective is advertising, Mitch asserts, it’s already a failure–and he asks if we can move beyond the advertising model to a marketing model–what adds value to the experience?

Thank you to Mitch Joel for a lively and interesting discussion on all three topics. He is the President of Twist Image, a digital marketing and communications agency. You can find him at Six Pixels Of Separation: the blog, his book of the same title, and the Media Hacks podcast.

Click here to listen to the 26-minute show.

• First, Jen and Sarah discuss Jeremiah Owyang’s post about how insurance companies are using social media content to “amend” customer data. In other words–your Tweets might be used to further expand on your customer profile at your insurer. Sarah says that even with her “live life online” attitude was squidged out a bit by this–that it seemed creepy and stalkerish. Jen points out that it is amazing what people need to think about now, not only do you need to pay attention to the normal privacy things, you have to consider how your tweets might appear to insurers and credit card issuers.

• Next, the two discuss Iceland’s move to become a “new media haven.” According to the piece on Read Write Web, Iceland is looking to provide a safe place for online whistleblowers and sources, along with protecting journalists. The objective, Iceland hopes, is to become a center for international news organizations.

• Finally, the two discuss Gatorade’s Social Media Command Center–not only does it look cool, it puts social media at the literal center of marketing at the company. Sarah points out that the Mashable piece hits the nail on the head: the effectiveness of this sort of setup will be determined by how the information is used on a daily basis.

Click here to listen to the 25-minute discussion.

• The World Cup has begun, and Bryan contends this could be the first world-wide shared event to simultaneously hit all social media. Both Facebook and Twitter have dedicated pages to the event, which led Jen to wonder how Twitter will cope with the additional volume, as it has already been pretty flaky this week with Fail Whales popping up considerably more than they have in a while.
• Next, the two discuss a thought-provoking piece by Jonathan Fields over at Awake @ The Wheel. His post, titled “Is Social Media Killing Authenticity?” asks if the possibility of being quoted out of context by anyone around us, now that everyone is on different social channels, is causing us to be more cautious and therefore less than our true authentic selves. Bryan points out that being selective about what you share isn’t the same as being inauthentic, while Jen thinks we’re all going to turn into politicians who watch everything we say.
• Finally, the two wrap up with a discussion on the New York Times memo asking journalists to rethink using the word “tweet” when describing…tweets. Bryan points out that the AP Style Manual has made some updates to the way it suggests are acceptable usage for words (such as the previous “web site” becoming “website”), and that perhaps it’s just a natural lag between general usage and formal acceptance. Jen agrees that language does change, and states that in some instances a stalwart refusal to use the word “tweet” would actually look worse than using it.

Click here to listen to the 28-minute show.

• First, Jen and Doug look at Facebook’s response to criticism of its ever-shifting privacy policies. Doug makes the point that the default of being “open and social” means different things to different people, and that perhaps people are becoming more aware of how much is public as the discussion heats up; simpler settings won’t matter if people don’t take the time to understand and use them. Jen takes issue with the act/apologize/roll back procedure that seems to be part of Facebook’s SOP. Doug points out that Generation Y is more likely to use and be concerned with privacy settings than those who are older; Jen asks if this increasing awareness will limit the usefulness of social networks.
• Next, the two discuss the @BPGlobalPR Twitter account and the more recent @BPCares Twitter account, both of which are satirical accounts skewering BP’s communications efforts and response to the Gulf Oil spill. At the time of recording, BP was both aware of the presence of at very least the @BPGlobalPR account–and was not seeking to have it pulled off of Twitter. Doug suggested that one thing BP could do would be to ask that the accounts be more clearly marked as spoofs, which would satisfy any questions surrounding branding and also avoid the PR backlash that would occur if they went a more aggressive route in asking the accounts to be pulled.
• Finally, the two looked at Bill Sledzik’s column asking if PR is a profession. Doug gets the discussion rolling by suggesting we substitute other professions, such as journalism, to the same standards in question–and suggests that it’s not necessary to check boxes on lists to be good at your job. Jen points out that certifications aren’t always going to guarantee quality, as there are bad barbers out there too–Doug agrees and states that he wouldn’t return to a barber who gave him a cut like Jason Williams of the Orlando Magic.

Click here to listen to the 28-minute show.

• First, Bryan and Jen tackle the issues surrounding Facebook’s recent changes and the subsequent firestorm. Is there a reason to be concerned about the changes, or is this a situation where a handful of vocal people are disproportionally reacting? Bryan highlights the lack of an option to “opt in” as an issue. Jen discusses the Byzantine settings, and points out that less-informed users probably have no idea how much things have changed. Jen closes by pointing out that trust is hard to gain, Facebook is losing user trust, and it will be even harder to gain back.
• Next the two discussed Mitch Joel’s post titled “5 Reasons Why This Blog is a Failure.” The post was fascinating, and both Bryan and Jen agree that Mitch’s blog occupies a valuable space in the “upper-level” of learning for those who have been active in social media for a while.
• Finally, they discuss a post by B.L. Ochman wherein she lays out the perils of the “stealth interview.” Yes, we all need to be careful of what we say online, but will reporters randomly pulling quotes from places online produce a “chilling effect” that has an impact on authenticity?

Click here to listen to the 30-minute show.

• First, Jen and Sarah look at BP’s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil leak. Sarah calls out BP for not using social media more aggressively to respond, but Jen feels differently, pointing out that not only are they a part of a Deepwater Coordinated response site that contains multiple social media tools, but that their primary focus should be on getting information out quickly to as many as possible using mainstream media, not responding to individuals on Twitter.
• Next, the two look at a recent study referenced by both Jason Falls and Valeria Maltoni [ed: Valeria, Jen apologizes for mispronouncing your name for a second time on the show. We'll have her flogged later.] that reveals that although awareness of Twitter is quite high, usage hovers around seven percent. What, if anything, does this mean for communicators who have adopted the platform and advocate strongly for its use? Sarah states it is but one tool in a communicator’s arsenal, and that she won’t be changing her recommendations to clients anytime soon. Jen agrees, but points out that those who have developed a bit of social media myopia need to keep this in mind when determining when–and how–to respond to Twitterrages/flareups.
• Finally, a dad decides he doesn’t care for the tone of a form letter from Boeing, and the blogosphere alights with criticisms of the company’s response to an 8 year-old boy, as Shel Holtz highlights in a post. Is there a middle ground between the legalese perceived as necessary and the response a parent would like to see? Probably.

Click here to listen to the 25-minute program.

• First, Doug discusses the New Comm Forum he recently attended in San Mateo California. New Comm Forum is a ‘deep dive’ into social media, examining case studies and best practices for those who have been practicing in this field for a while. Doug points out that while there is still very much a place for the “101/introductory” level approaches, New Comm Forum fills a valuable spot. One of the questions that arose was if Facebook’s increasing privacy issues present a significant problem for the future of the social networking tool.
• Next, for whatever reason the topic of the moment seems to be Millenials, job dissatisfaction, and job-hopping. Bill Sledzik has written about it, as have Todd Defren, Nick Corcodilos, Mark Suster, and of course Jason Calacanis. (And for a decidedly different take, Penelope Trunk says job-hoppers make great employees.)
• LinkedIn recently announced the ability to “follow” a company on their social network. Jen and Doug agree that this is a smart move on LinkedIn’s part, as it allows them to position themselves even more securely in the HR/Recruitment space that the site already excels in. In fact, if anyone out there thinks this is a bad idea, please let either Jen or Doug know, as neither could see a downside to this move.
• Finally, the two discussed a piece in the New York Times that highlights the activities of a self-designated group of renegade spell-correctors on Twitter.

Click here to listen to the 26-minute show.

• First, Twitter has been all over the news this week, from irritating apps developers to getting archived at the venerable Library of Congress. Are Tweets worth archiving, and what exactly do we hope future generations will glean from our inane chatter? Jen and Sarah debate the merits of this proposal, and also discuss the privacy implications.
• TweetUp, a new service that will allegedly help us separate the wheat from the chaff as far as the above-referenced inane chatter goes, will allow people to bid on keywords to increase the ranking on Tweets, pushing them up in results. Will this be annoying or helpful?
• Next, Sarah agrees with Jezebel that Twitter is “ruining celebrities.” From their inability to self-censor to just making it clear to the world that they are as irritating as the rest of us (and maybe more so), celebrity facades are falling right and left (but mostly left).
• Finally, the two discuss the implications of a post by Dave Fleet outlining some new proposals being put forth by newspapers to PR pros. While the pair guesses that this is nothing new, the idea of placing an ad for a client next to coverage of the client in a newspaper would seem to detract significantly from the validity of earned media, making it seem, well, less earned.