Turn to the Message Boards – I Think Not

by Dan Ward

I gained some insight last week into why political discourse continues to devolve into schoolyard taunting and soccer hooliganism.

A former social media strategist for a presidential campaign was speaking to a group of PR professionals and made an off-hand remark that the No. 1 destination to which Americans turn for news – aside from “The Daily Show” – is the online message board.  My first thought was, “so this explains why politicians rant and rave rather than engage in conversation … they think that’s what people want to hear.”

I wish I had challenged her to share the research on which this claim was based, because I can find nothing to back it up.  The Pew Research Center reports that while people are increasingly going online for news, most still turn to traditional sources like television news.  I see very little mention of the message boards.

While the political strategist advised posting to the message boards, we advise most clients to stay far away.  Who we see on the message boards are largely the “ten-percenters,” those people whose opinions you are never going to change no matter how hard you try – as evidenced by LOUD comments and inflammatory rhetoric – when you engage the lunatic fringe, you give them credibility, and you take your eye off the larger percentage of people who are fair-minded, reasonable and open to new ideas.

As we’ve discussed here before, the people who share their opinions on message boards are able to do so anonymously, so all sense of decency is often lost.  Many news organizations are seeing the light, and either eliminating the anonymity or removing message boards altogether.

If you want to engage in fruitless arguments, by all means head to the message boards.  If you want to engage in discussion that sways opinion and drives action, don’t listen to political strategists … listen to your audience.

Wading Into the Floodwaters

by Dan Ward

If you have 10-15 minutes, read this great Forbes blog post by Larry Olmsted, describing the breathless coverage of the Great Memphis Flood.

Larry was in Memphis, standing alongside weather reporters from all the major networks. But instead of putting on his hip waders to step into the flooded downtown streets, he stepped back a few hundred yards and noticed that the flood actually impacted only one portion of one street. The flooded downtown streets were dry.

The story caught me by surprise, because I also had read and seen the news reports about the devastating flooding in downtown Memphis. But as Olmsted reports, only one stretch of a road alongside the river was closed to traffic, downtown remained unaffected, all but one tourist attraction remained open and the city’s largest annual event moved forward as scheduled.

Unfortunately, Beale Street was less crowded than normal, the bars and restaurants saw less business and hotels kept the “vacancy” signs lit. In Olmsted’s words, “I think it is safe to say that the damage to the city from the storm will be less than the economic damage from coverage of the storm.”

This is not to minimize the impact of the flood in other areas of Memphis and all along the Mississippi. But why not cover the very real impacts of the flood on residential areas instead of exaggerating the minor impacts in downtown?

We lived through a very similar scenario for Beaches of South Walton on Florida’s Northwest Gulf Coast, where 24-hour news coverage of the Deepwater Horizon incident convinced many that the beaches were coated in oil, when in fact beachgoers continued to enjoy sun and sand each and every day.

When faced with journalistic hyperbole, it’s our job as professional communicators to show our most important audiences the big picture, rather than a collection of snapshots. It requires honesty, transparency and a willingness at times to openly contradict the narrative being shared on network TV.

Location-Based Social Networking: What’s the Point?

by Kim Taylor

Last summer, after hearing friends and followers rejoice over badges and mayorships they’d earned, I joined the “check-in” craze to see what all the fuss was about.  After adding a few friends to my Foursquare account, I began checking into various locations.  Soon enough I was rewarded with a few of my own badges—and several months in I actually earned my first mayorship … probably because nobody else was ever checking into the Orlando Rowing Club at 6 a.m.

Beyond the badges, there have also been a few cool things along the way.  Once, after checking into a bar in town, I noticed an online friend I’d never met in real life was also there.  A few tweets later and we had our first in-person interaction.  Then, last month while vacationing out-of-state, I used Foursquare’s “nearby” feature to see where the locals were hanging out.

But lately I’ve noticed something.  The badges have stopped, and beyond the actual check-in, there’s little reason to participate.  The check-in rewards that businesses are supposed to be using to market themselves are few and far between.

So, if you’re using Foursquare, Facebook Places, Yelp or some other location-based social network, do you find it useful or do you find yourself asking, “What’s the point?”

Crime Declines as Casey Anthony Goes on Trial

by Roger Pynn

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry yesterday after reading this column by Mike Thomas in the Orlando Sentinel headlined “Reports of mayhem, fear distort reality:  Crime on the decline.”

Poor Mike, he has to make a living surrounded by boogey men focused on grabbing your childlike attention with stories no more representative of the way things are than a James Bond novel.

They are being forced out of economic necessity to do what I did in the headline on this post to prove a point:  that everything they do publish is about Web traffic.  Our blog will get extra traffic today simply because the name Casey Anthony is here … just as news websites everywhere know that violence, crime and sex will grab more clicks to more of their pages, driving their ad click economy.  (P.S. My Google search for the Casey Anthony link in that headline proves the point … 20,600,000 results.)

Would you read stories that say your world is getting better?

If you get Mike’s point, here’s a likely headline, sub-head and lead paragraph on the story:

Crime statistics show your world getting safer

Some who doubt studies say “figures often lie.”

A variety of studies indicate the world is become safer, pointing to declines in the rate of everything from sexual abuse of minors and online solicitation of children to the lowest rate of traffic fatalities in 32 years.  But online comments about the results indicate many people don’t believe in research.

Troubling Social Media Trend

by Roger Pynn

As one who counts a number of journalists among his friends, I’m troubled by how many of my journalist Facebook “friends” or those whom I follow / am followed by on Twitter seem to have their personal and professional lives intertwined online.

And it makes me wonder if there’s a trend toward media management directing them to use their social media persona to promote both news and opinion.

Even more troubling is that some news reporters are finding this an open door to expressing their personal opinions on issues … in some cases even drawing new conclusions from articles they are re-tweeting, then making bold political statements that ought to be reserved for columnists or the editorial pages.

A reporter’s tweet the other day used a pejorative I thought very inappropriate, but when tweeting we all look to condense (or even let Twitter tools condense for us). Perhaps to some the term “perv” is no more derogatory or disparaging than “pervert,” but I think most people add a little tone of disdain to the shorter version.

What do you think? Should a reporter establish separate social media accounts for personal and professional communication? Should social media policies require that? Should those polices establish that when re-tweeting or posting items that reporters should refrain from expressing opinions?

The American Society of News Editors (ASNE) just posted “10 Best Practices for Social Media.”  It includes social media policies of some of the world’s leading news organizations, including those of our hometown Orlando Sentinel.  I hope my reporter friends there refer to it often.

An Ethics Reminder | Post Updated

by Dan Ward

As one of the world’s largest public relations firms, it’s no surprise that Burson-Marsteller is making national news. But the latest stories are ones the firm likely wishes were never written.

I won’t re-hash all the details (you can read them here), but the short story is that senior Burson staffers were pushing for op-eds opposing Google’s Social Circle feature, and were doing so on behalf of an “unnamed” client … since revealed to be a small social media company you might have heard of … Facebook.

Normally, I would complain about The Daily Beast’s characterization of the “PR flacks” involved in this story, but in this case the term fits.

The public bashing that Burson is now taking is a good reminder for all of us in the communications field … transparency is essential.

-If you’re pitching a story and someone asks who you’re representing, tell them (they shouldn’t have to ask).

-If a client or employer asks you to engage in a campaign on their behalf without revealing their involvement, say  no.

-If the client or employer insists that you engage in such a covert campaign, say goodbye.

Several years ago, I had a client who suggested that we form a “front group” to lead a campaign on an issue important to them. My answer was not only no, but “#@!! no.” I advised the client about the PRSA Code of Ethics, and that if they engaged in such a campaign against our recommendation I would be forced to resign the account.

I went on to explain that my refusal was not based just on the Code or my firm’s credibility. My refusal was based on the credibility my client would have lost in engaging in such a campaign, which in today’s world of the citizen journalist would most assuredly become public at some point. The client took my advice, remained a client for many years and remains a friend to this day.

Violating the Code of Ethics on behalf of a client does a disservice to that client.  How do you think Facebook is being viewed today?

Your Brand – Live on Facebook

by Heather Keroes

I’ve been keeping an eye on live video service provider Ustream since Shakira used it to debut her music video for “Give It Up To Me” on Facebook (don’t judge).  However, for quite some time, Ustream services on Facebook were limited to those who could afford to pay Ustream for a custom app (mostly celebrities) and the lucky few who managed to sign up with an ad-supported free beta account.

Now, Ustream has announced that its Facebook app is officially available and free to install on any Facebook fan page.  The new app has great potential for a number of brands, whether you want to host a live press conference or showcase live video from your destination. 

If you’re considering integrating live video to showcase your brand, here are a few tips for the new Ustream service:

1. It’s an ad world.  If you’re hoping for a free Ustream account with no advertising, you’re out of luck.  However, Ustream does offer several monthly price points for those who want to remove all advertisements from their feeds.  Ustream is also working on a “pay per view” service, meaning your video’s popularity determines your bill.
2. Notify.  Viewers of your live videos can opt-in to receive notifications before you stream your next live event.  
3. Brand it.  Just as you would ensure your brand is well represented in any video you film, you want to ensure that your video application receives the same attention to detail.  Ustream’s app has several custom settings so page administrators can set their own banner, background, text, color, etc.
4. Open or Shut.  Sometimes it can be fortuitous for a brand to “fan-gate” its Facebook page by restricting access to certain sections to “likers” only.  Ustream has this feature.