This week, I was joined by co-host Doug Haslam of Voce Communications, a Porter Novelli company. We talked about the social media issues brought up by the Social46 program in Indianapolis, McDonald’s sponsored Tweet problem (and how they recovered), and whether neutrality and objectivity are even possible in PR.

This week’s show is 26 minutes long.

• First, Doug and I discuss Jay Baer’s post about Klout and the bruised egos that surfaced after individuals were selected to participate in a social media program designed to build “buzz” on Indianapolis, site of the Super Bowl. Participants were selected using Klout, then the list was “augmented manually” with local bloggers. As with any other list that is established, feelings were injured. We talk about several points Baer brought up in his post, including using Klout for selecting “influencers” for an effort that is so localized, the disclosure requirements, and calls for transparency in the selection process.
• Next, we talk about the McDonald’s “sponsored Tweets” effort, which started out using the hashtag #MeetTheFarmers, to draw attention to suppliers, but later in the day used what a post on Business Insider referred to as the “dangerously vague” hashtag #McDStories. Soon, people were using that hashtag in ways the brand certainly hadn’t intended for it to be used. While a number of sites have referred to this as a social media “fail,” Doug points to a more balanced post on the Realtime Report, which noted that McDonald’s actually responded very quickly by reverting to the more specific hashtag when they realized what was happening. So, lesson learned: vague hashtags are probably not the best of an idea. Also, I butcher an Oscar Wilde quote, and Doug sets me straight.
• Finally, we talk about PR Studies’ post about PR and objectivity. Doug points out that PR doesn’t need to be totally objective, and being truly neutral on any topic is all but impossible. We all bring our biases to the proverbial table, and the best we can do is do our best for our clients while trying hard not to wander too far down the path of overly fluffy speech.

And, a short PSA about our fantastic co-host. Doug will be riding in the Pan-Mass challenge again this year, his fifth. Here’s some info about the ride: bit.ly/pmcdoug

Last week, I had the pleasure of speaking with Jennifer Windrum, the driving force behind the WTF (Where’s The Funding) for lung cancer awareness. Windrum, whose mother has been battling lung cancer for several years (and no, she’s never smoked), continues her advocacy efforts with a seemingly bottomless supply of energy. In addition to continuing her work there, she’s taking the entrepreneurial plunge and will be launching a sock monkey line, called “SMAC”–Sock Monkeys Against Cancer–to raise funds and awareness for a range of different cancers.

As many of you know, Joe Paterno of Penn State lost his fight with lung cancer this weekend. Due to the stigma surrounding this disease, it doesn’t get nearly the attention or funding that other cancers do. I encourage you to listen to the interview and hear about Jennifer’s efforts on behalf of lung cancer patients.

Our talk is 18 minutes long.

The Q&A ranged from discussing the success of her efforts with WTF, how the sock monkey effort came to be, and how she–and her mom–are doing.

This week, Sarah Santucci and I discuss the PR and communications strategies and tactics surrounding the SOPA/PIPA blackout effort, Politico has teamed up with Facebook for campaign analysis, and Gawker highlights some bad PR pitches–will they ever run out of material?

This week’s show is 29 minutes long.

• First, we discuss the PR and communications lessons from the online “blackout” protest opposing the SOPA/PIPA bills. Sarah agrees with Neville’s headline that “Hollywood had Chris Dodd and a press release, Silicon Valley had Facebook.” The interests supporting the bills had a long history of lobbying efforts and a simple message on their side. The uphill battle on this issue was clearly on the part of the web companies that opposed the legislation. By using a combination of humor and a very attention-getting tactic of blacking out some popular sites, Silicon Valley was successful–extremely successful–in channeling opposition to the bills directly to Congress. I wonder if it’s a once-in-a-lifetime tactic. Clearly, coordinating the effort across multiple sites isn’t something that can happen often, but typically when one meets with this kind of success the desire to replicate it is strong.
• Next, we talk about Politico’s decision to team up with Facebook to provide analysis for the 2012 election cycle. We both agree that this is an interesting way to examine opinion data, but also agree that sentiment analysis of Facebook status updates probably isn’t going to yield much good information–there’s just too much sarcasm and irony present. Additionally, supporters of President Obama rooting for whomever they believe is the weakest candidate would be counted as positives–which is hardly accurate. Still, with opinion polling changing, it will be fascinating to watch and see what data this type of analysis will yield.
• Finally, we talk about Gawker’s post titled “Let us all come together to improve the PR industry through ridicule.” Sarah notes that bad pitches are hardly something new, after all the Bad Pitch blog has been around for…around six years or so? (Wow!) Still, the bad pitches, they keep on coming. The Gawker entry is barely a pitch at all, it really seems to be thrown together without much technique. Basically, Gawker was right to call out this bad pitch, but it’s notable that it certainly received far more play this way. Sarah wonders if the whole thing was staged. She’s a net-cynic like that.

This week, co-host Bryan Person joined me to discuss Google+ integration into Google’s search results, the twist on social communications that corporations that are franchised-businesses have to face, and some ways Facebook is changing–and why it matters to companies with fan pages.

This week’s show is 27 minutes long.

• First, Bryan and I kick things off by discussing Google’s decision to integrate Google+ accounts into search results. Clearly an attempt to address the growing power of Facebook, this new adjustment has been met with some resistance from existing social channels, like Twitter. Twitter is none too happy with the changes, which it notes push down Twitter results–Google points out that their agreement with Twitter expired. What will this mean for other social channels, like Facebook? Facebook is nearing a billion members, and the treasure trove of data the company has within its walls is tremendous–and worth a lot of money. Google is clearly trying to chip away at that dominance–will they? Can they?
• Next, we talk about the Papa John’s receipt flap, but concentrate not on how the receipt went viral, but instead focus on questions that seem to present franchise-based businesses with some significant challenges. The strength of franchise businesses is their uniformity in product and advertising, while allowing each business to operate fairly independently. But this structure is proving to be a problem when it comes to social media–most people don’t think about the difference between a corporate-owned store and a franchise-owned one: they just know the name of the corporation. So the corporate entity–in this case Papa John’s–is going to bear the brunt of customer wrath, even if it’s a store’s responsibility to manage and train the staff at each location. And what do you do if your employees view their employment as “just a job?”
• Finally, we talk about the Facebook subscribe button, and how subscriptions are favored over fan pages. This is something every brand with a fan page needs to start thinking about, because it will impact Facebook stats. If people prefer subscribing to an individual associated with a company’s Facebook feed over “liking” its fan page, this could have implications for the company down the road. If people are subscribing to Pete Cashmore’s Facebook feed over Mashable’s Fan page, and Pete decides to leave…do the subscribers stay with the company? It’s the exact same debate we’re seeing play out on Twitter for Twitter accounts. Like the personal brand issue, the pitfalls need to be taken into account along with the benefits.

This week I was joined by co-host Chip Griffin to talk about PR pros and Wikipedia, whether blog comments are worthwhile, and if we in the PR community should stop blogging about PR blunders.

• First, Chip and I discuss Wikipedia and the “PR problem.” Wikipedia rules prohibit firms from editing their own entries, citing bias. Some solutions have been put forward, but most are inadequate. Phil Gomes and Stuart Bruce both wrote posts saying it’s high time Wikipedia sit down with PR reps and figure out a way to address this issue in a way that is more fair–and responsive. Chip relays that he’s worked with companies that have had some success going the route Wikipedia suggests, but admits that Gomes is right in that the process takes time. I wonder if Wikipedia has the interest to address the problem, as a PC Mag article back in August that Jimmy Wales noted the source is losing contributors. In any case, it seems as though PR folks are going to be pushing harder for a solution to this problem.

• Next, we talk about a GigaOm post titled “Yes, blog comments are still worth the effort.” I guess I’m still surprised there’s even a “spirited debate” about this–hey, if blog comments work for you, have at them, if not, don’t. Chip says he’s consistently surprised at how awful some of the comments on TechCrunch can be, even with the Facebook commenting requirement. He adds that some, like Fred Wilson’s blog, have great and insightful commenting communities. Chip also notes that there’s a broader discussion that could be entered about the overall value of blogs and where they are headed.

• Finally, we discuss the post on Arik Hanson’s blog that sparked a post on Spin Sucks that asks if we (as a PR community) should stop blogging about PR/online mishaps. I say no–there’s much to be learned. Chip points out that of course we can talk about failure–it’s *how* we talk about failure that needs to change. It’s useful to talk about failure in constructive terms–Chip thinks there’s still too much of an instinct to go for the jugular.

We’ve been recording the Roundtable podcast for several years now, and I don’t often take a “look back” over the content recorded. I really should, as it’s fascinating to see what has changed during the course of the year–and what mistakes in PR and social media continue to be made no matter how many times we’re supposed to have learned from them. So, a quick summary by month of what’s been discussed on the Roundtable during 2011.

A special thank you to the co-hosts who make the Roundtable so much fun–Sarah Santucci, Doug Haslam, and Bryan Person–thanks so much for your continued support of the podcast!

January — Facebook turns “likes” into ads, and removing incorrect information from news sites and Twitter sparks controversy–an issue brought forth by NPR’s initial (and incorrect) reporting that Congresswoman Gabby Giffords had died as a result of her wounds in a shooting.

February — Several interesting stories (and social media foibles) came up. Employers asked potential hires for their Facebook passwords to research them prior to job offers; the Red Cross Tweeted about knocking back a few Dogfishhead beers (and recovered nicely from the mis-Tweet); and Groupon manages to offend just about everyone with its faux-concern Superbowl advertising. Andy Carvin practically redefines journalism on Twitter by curating content coming out of Egypt during the Arab Spring.

March — March blew in like a lion, with Chrysler and Aflac Tweeting incidents that cost two people their jobs. C.C. Chapman pointed out that social is making PR pros lazy.

April — The Atlantic discusses how social media has changed photojournalism, the role of the celebrity publicist in the age of Twitter, and we discuss the need for social media “contingency plans.”

May — The case of a UK footballer (aka soccer) and UK privacy laws clash with Twitter, government requires communications to be in “plain language,” and Shonali coins the term “Barfshiner.”

June — Klout integrates with Facebook, which introduces the social media crowd to a new form of “like-gating.” PR firm Redner Group calls out bloggers on Twitter when they provide bad reviews of Duke Nukem; and Rep. Anthony Weiner’s Twitter problem begins.

July — Twitter hosts a town hall meeting with President Obama, Google+ starts gaining users after a late-June launch, and brands start to jump in early. I predict that my Google+ account will soon resemble a neglected houseplant, which has sadly turned out to be true.

August — Google+ continues to be a story, and Twitter becomes a repository of documentation about a rare East Coast earthquake. A couple of brands’ sponsored Tweets get tied up with unfortunate hashtags, and we learn the NYPD is monitoring Facebook and Twitter for posts about criminal activity (interestingly enough, sometimes from the perpetrators of the crimes).

September — The Altimeter Group says social crises are “on the rise,” the Taliban engages with NATO on Twitter, and C.C. Chapman pans Ragu’s sauce–and their outreach to Dad Bloggers.

October — We learn once again how dangerous the “reply all” button can be when a not-very-nice-at-all message is sent to the Bloggess. Chapstick gets in hot water for deleting Facebook comments, and Klout changes its scoring algorithm (meltdowns ensue).

November — A University of Massachusetts at Darmouth study is released showing a “slowing” in the adoption of social media in Fortune 500 companies. The PRSA decides to crowdsource a new definition of PR, and Google Plus launches brand pages, which no one seems to be following even though brands were quick to jump on them as soon as Google made them available.

December — A teen snark-Tweets the Governor of Kansas and receives a ton of attention, Twitter launches brand pages and Lowe‘s gets into hot water for *not* deleting stuff off its Facebook page. The death of the web was predicted at LeWeb, and K-Mart was witness to a rise in “layaway angels.”

This week, Doug Haslam of Voce Communications (a Porter Novelli company) joined me for the Roundtable. We discussed George Colony’s recent presentation at Le Web, the phenomenon of K-Mart “layaway angels” and Facebook’s advertising predicament.

This week’s show is 31 minutes long.

• First, Doug and I talk about George Colony’s presentation at Le Web. Colony, who is CEO at Forrester, suggested that we are now in an “app economy” and that the web as we know it is dead. These sparked some discussion online (including on FIR, which is what led me to thinking about the issues raised), but Doug points out that much of his talk is directed at very technical types who understand the architecture arguments made by Colony. Indeed, Colony posted a follow up piece, further clarifying his intent on several points made. We also discussed Colony’s statement that we are entering a “post” social period–which, as Doug notes does not mean social has or is going away–it simply means we need to be thinking about what comes next.
• Next, we talk about the phenomenon of the K-Mart “layaway angels.” From a media and communications perspective, it’s interesting to note that it’s highly likely the first reports of an anonymous citizen paying off others’ layaway accounts for the holidays came through Patch, AOL’s local reporting arm. The news quickly spread through social media and traditional media, and Doug notes that some of his friends have joined in paying off accounts for others. However, K-Mart has done little to highlight the generosity of shoppers, and we take turns speculating as to why, when it seems to be one of the top “feel-good” stories of a holiday season marred by reports of pepper spraying shoppers and near-riots over $2 waffle makers. It might be a tricky comms needle to thread to draw attention to the story without seeming like they are trying to capitalize on it, but we both feel it could be done. Regardless, it’s nice to see such generosity.
• Finally, we look at Facebook’s potential advertising problem. Doug notes that we don’t really have all of the information we’d need to really compare apples-to-apples with respect to Facebook advertising versus, say, Google’s advertising such as the discussion on the Ad Contrarian’s blog post. Still, it’s worth noting that Facebook does seem to have a conundrum on its hands: advertising revenue is one way to monetize the site, but users have become accustomed to the clean look and very subtle advertising–so subtle the click-through rates seem quite low. The Ad Contrarian’s post suggests several possible ways to counter this, and we discuss the merits of a premium site for businesses or more intrusive advertising.

We’ll be off next week, and will see you in early 2012 for another edition of Media Bullseye’s Radio Roundtable. All of us at CustomScoop wish you and yours a very happy holiday season, and best wishes for a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.

This week, Sarah Santucci joined me in c0-hosting the Roundtable–we discussed Lowe’s PR mess regarding its withdrawal of advertising from the TLC show “All American Muslim” from both a general PR perspective and from a social media vantage point; the pros and cons of Twitter brand pages; Facebook and Google’s efforts to refer suicidal people to help lines, and the new Facebook Timeline roll out.

This week’s show is 30 minutes long.

• First, we spent quite a bit of time discussing Lowe’s recent string of PR gaffes. Sarah points out that the home improvement store made not one, but two major PR blunders–first by capitulating to the Florida Family Association’s demands to pull its advertising from the show “All American Muslim,” and then by leaving horrible, vitriolic comments up on the apology it posted to its Facebook page. The first blunder was bad enough, but was then compounded by a gross misinterpretation of what social media standards are, in that they elected not to moderate their Facebook page and allowed comments to stand that should have been deleted, all in the name of “social media transparency.” I note that usually on this show we are discussing companies that go too far in the other direction, who delete any negative comments. There’s a middle ground Lowe’s–and it’s in moderating comments. True to form, the wit of the GlobalPR group has jumped in the fray with the parody Lowe’s Global PR Twitter account. We also briefly discuss the difference between the Kayak decision and response to the Lowe’s backlash.
• Next, we discuss Twitter’s new brand pages. Sarah and I both agree that most of the people we know don’t use Twitter through the web interface–they use Twitter clients such as Hootsuite and TweetDeck, or a mobile version on a smartphone–and, both posts we discussed during the show mention this. While Brian Meeks is more acerbic about the utility of brand pages, and Shelly Kramer’s post is more positive, both acknowledge that the method people use to access Twitter might hinder the success of brand pages. That said, there are some very cool features, and the ability to “pin” a Tweet at the top of a stream and keep it there is one that could prove very useful for brands.
•  Finally, we talk about Facebook and Google’s efforts to do something to help people who indicate that they are suicidal in social media posts, and search for topics related to suicide. Sarah notes that there is a potential for false accusations to be made, particularly on Facebook as it is a reporting system. But, any effort to help people out is a step in the right direction. We also touch on the roll out of Facebook’s Timeline feature (which neither of us has yet), and Sarah notes that of all the Facebook changes, this one seems as though there’s the lowest amount of negative response…so far.

This week, Bryan Person joined me for an early edition of the Roundtable–we discussed the state of social marketing, the new start-up Insidr, and Jason Fall’s post asking people to stop announcing they were dropping out of Klout.

Today’s show is 28 minutes long.

• First, we discussed Brian Solis’s comprehensive post on the State of Social Marketing 2011-2012. There’s a great deal to think about/chew on there, so please read the piece. Our discussion focused on the role of social consumers: who they are, how much brands *think* they know about them, and what characterizes their marketing interactions on social. I thought the main driver would be product recommendations and research, but that is a close second–the number one reason is for customer service. There’s a split among brand managers in the research about whether social marketing is mainstream, some don’t think it will break through until 2013. Bryan makes some great points about why this might be the case–listen and find out what!

• Next, we talk about Insidr, a new start-up designed to help people get “advanced” customer service from company insiders. There are a few interesting things to note about this–first, that money is involved. You can provide a reward for the information and/or help you receive, and Insidr splits the reward with the company “insider.” I point out that this method of tackling tough customer service issues is basically the role that corporate Twitter accounts, and to some extent blogs, have played over recent years. Unsatisfied with the customer service you received? Tweet about it. But with more tweets going unanswered, maybe this is the next iteration? Bryan wonders how the heck something like this can scale, particularly if the companies involved don’t realize some of their employees are acting as “insiders.” (Note: that point seems to need clarification–no one seems to know if the insiders are company-blessed specialists, or if they are just well-placed employees who can solve problems).

• Finally, we discuss the recent spate of Klout defections loudly proclaimed in blog posts, much to the annoyance of Jason Falls who pens a self-described rant that primarily focuses on those who drop out of Klout because their scores had dropped. My feelings on Klout are rather well-documented, and I welcome anything that will cause companies to rethink how they use the service, including rants about dropping out of Klout. I just think many of the ways in which it is being used are ill-advised. Bryan notes that some companies use Klout to triage customer service complaints as a way of managing the flow. I’ll agree that helps if you’re overwhelmed with scale, but it does have potential to backfire.

Greetings from your favorite social media curmudgeon. OK, maybe I’m not your favorite, but you’re stuck with me because Jen Zingsheim is on vacation today. Or perhaps she’s just resting up for our company holiday party tonight.

Fortunately, Jen and I were able to record this edition of the Roundtable yesterday afternoon, so at least you don’t have to listen to a Chip Griffin monologue for 28 minutes. Except that’s almost what happened because I was a bit wound up, so it ended up being an anti-social media filibuster on my part for much of the show. Of course, it’s not that I’m opposed to social media, it’s just the Social Media Kool Aid that has me stirred up — again.

So what exactly did we talk about?

First, we covered the teenager who created a bit of a kerfuffle with Gov. Sam Brownback. Or perhaps the governor’s staff actually created the kerfuffle. You’ll have to listen to see what we think.

Next up was a discussion of a post by Ilana Rabinowitz over at Social Media Explorer that argued for more employees of companies to be social (in the online sense) and to reflect the organization’s values faithfully. There’s more to it than that, so go read Ilana’s post and then listen to our take.

We wrapped up by talking about Jay Baer’s post that says “social media has ruined your advantage.” He says “we can’t fool our customers any longer.” But can we fool our listeners? There’s only one way to find out!