“The public mind poses little danger and could be engineered through dexterous appeal to its instinctual and unconscious inner life.”

I’m still thinking about the concept of gifting on the Web. Today, I bumped into an old friend who was, at one point, very active in fighting for human rights and against labor violations.

Nike was the company she loved to hate – at the time – and she seemed excited that Nike is now leading in corporate social responsibility. But, she hearkened back to her old mantra: it is absurd for people to think other people will work for minimal wage.

Well, how about no wage. Otherwise known as free?????

Here’s something else I am trying to figure out. Does it make sense for all bloggers to “gift” their words, ideas and observations? Yesterday, I read a PR blog by a gal who has been in the business for over 15 years. She is currently working for an agency.

Her blog included a series of instructions on how to approach various projects. I couldn’t help but wonder how her clients feel about paying her when she is giving advice to the world for free via her blog.

I used to think people were “holding back” when they blog or podcast about things they know very well. But, more and more, it seems I might be wrong about that.

I’m new to social media and most of you know that. In some ways, it’s still a leap for me and that’s because I believe that Web 2.0 is based on truth.

A few years ago, people were more hesitant to use their real identities when visiting chat rooms and surfing. But, today people seem pretty truthful, which is making marketers and advertisers very happy.

So what if people grow more concerned about their privacy on the internet – then what?

The simple solution is to lie or break with your normal patterns, so you online personality becomes less perscribed.

Think about the sites you visited today or how you described yourself on Facebook. Did you provide an accurate glimpse? Now, throw the marketers off your scent by checking out things that are not really of interest.

The end result is your online personality becomes harder to figure out. (And advertisers can’t bank of your Facebook profile if they believe its only 60% accurate.) Then, they would have to do more to make sure they offer you products and services you really need and want.

Right or wrong?

Wow. Garrett’s demonstration of Facebook’s ability to target market was really interesting.
I was amazed at how quickly the information requested became available. I thought it was excellent, but I know people around me called it “scary.”

I didn’t grow up with social media. This is all somewhat new too me. But, I get the sense that some Facebookers still believe this online community should be protected from commercial penetration.  What’s the right balance?

The person that first introduced me to Facebook was an egomaniac. She made me sit through a 10 minute explanation about why her weddings pictures took precedence over the pictures from her high school reunion. They she told me all the ways I can follow her life and how she “works hard” to keep everyone in the loop. (Think Julia Allison without the professional motive.)

I was scratching my head after that session, wondering what had just happened. She’s a lovely person, but huh????? I shared the experience with my mentor, born 30 years before me and basically unimpressed by social media. He described it as the tech geeks winning one over the psychologists.

That’s a bit harsh.  I don’t hold it against him at this stage of his career.  And, I have to acknowledge that all of my friends that use Facebook love it -  some have even gone so far as to say that Facebook has enhanced their lives.

Maybe we would all be better off if we accepted the fact that there is very little privacy left in this world.  After all, all the information on Facebook we create and offer to the world – no one is twisting our arms.   We know from our talks that people are checking Facebook before they hire.  I think this trend will continue and soon we will see more services emerge that allow employers to go one place to check out someones complete online profile.

It will be interesting…

We all know that the Internet is powerful. So, does this medium require structure? Guidelines? A framework? A Bill of Rights?

No, I don’t think so – at least not in the official, legal, sense. There’s much to say on this topic, but lets focus on the practical reality: in the United States, the people that would develop these guidelines in the form of national standards are ill-equipped to do so. In fact, I must say that the most courageous thing I have seen the US Congress do in the past 15 years is agree not to regulate the Internet during it’s critical growth stage.

The practical consideration regarding regulation is enough to make you dizzy.  For starters, which committees in the House and Senate have jurisdiction over the Internet?  First guess: House and Senate Commerce.  Answer: Sure.  But, what about Financial Services?  Given the growing number of people that bank online.  And, what about House Ways and Means? For starters, a significant number of people are new filing their taxes online.  And, let’s not forget about the Judiciary Committees.

It might have made more sense to approach this question from the opposite point of view – is there any committee that doesn’t have jurisdiction over the Internet?  The process would be very, very difficult.

In short, we’re still not ready for regulation. Given the pressure politicians face, they will never be able to devote enough time to a Bill of Rights. I’m sure people will take issue with this position, but it’s simply impossible. And, if they can’t do, it’s better that the Internet is left to self-regulate. Period.

Do you find professional communicators are more or less engaged in politics than everyone else? My view is somewhat biased. The bulk of my career was spent in the corporate communications department of a Fortune 100 company and the leadership team loved to talk politics. Sometimes, it made for spirited debate and sometimes it hurt careers.

Political talk is tricky stuff. People are passionate about their views and their views might not comport with the views of their colleagues, the superiors or the organization. Often, people don’t know their company is taking positions on issues and people that are in the news every day.

As communicators, people want to engage and use their skills to be persuasive or provocative. But, sometimes the conversation doesn’t allow it and people try and force it. In the end, no one has said what they really mean, but the paid communicator is in a more difficult position than the accountant, the systems analyst or other colleagues that don’t get paid to be clear.

It’s not fair, but these small encounters, over time, help to shape views on how well people do their jobs as communicators – so be careful. Most importantly, know who your talking to and avoid conversations based on generalizations. There is nothing general about politics anymore. And, when in doubt, listen attentively, express healthy “curiosity” about issues that are important to you and transition your way out of the conversation as quickly as possible. Generally speaking, you’ll be better off for it.

I’ve finished John Battelle’s Search and there is room for one last comparison of Google and Microsoft. Battelle dedicates a chapter (or two) to Google’s IPO and the fallout associated with it. In the end, Battelle suggests the organization would have done at least a few things differently to avoid the blowback from observers that thought the company and its leadership had no respect for the process on Wall Street.

Sounds like 1998 on Capitol Hill when a young Bill Gates testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (without a jacket) and talked about the technological revolution in a way that left all Senators on the Committee feeling disrespected. Gates didn’t follow the rulebook and people were pissed. Google wanted to do things differently with its IPO, and people were pissed.

In both cases, critics used words like “arrogant,” “ignorant” “ill advised” and “”young.” Getting people to understand the world that you live in is hard, at least in part, because they are always trying to get you to do the same. In both of these cases, there were powerful forces on both sides and everyone was trying to tell their story. And who has the best story to tell. The wonderful inventors/creators or the guardians of Wall Street and Capitol Hill? So much for change.

In April 2007, the Economist wrote several articles about Google. In one, the writer asserted that Google has assumed a position of a US financial institution. Put differently, the article suggested that Google is a safe keeper of valuable customer information and, may ultimately, be forced to make changes as a result of their priviledged position.

Just one important point: US financial institutions are highly regulated enterprises because they receive a protection from the federal government should a bank ever face financial struggles that could cause systemic risk. I’m sure there are some that would argue that the federal government would intervene to protect any entity that might pose a threat to our finacial markets, but, for the time being, the law is explicit only when it comes to depository institutions that hold consumer money.

I think the management team at Google would flip if they found themselves subjected to government intervention in the absence of a paralell legal framework.

Obviously, the writers general point is well taken. If history is any guide, the government will watch closely to ensure that Google does not use its might to prevent competition or, perhaps, compromise people’s privacy. But, the latter is a more difficult proposition than the former since our antitrust laws have seen more time than the privacy statutes which govern Google.

Net-net: the writer thinks the federal government is watching and its in Google’s best interest to take it seriously.

Imagine the shock: I was taking a quick trip to Maryland on Connecticut Avenue and there he was: Bernays. “There’s No Way Like the American Way” is on a billboard on Connecticut Avenue above a diner that makes birthday parties available for children for $9.75 per kid, with unlimited burgers, pizza, chicken tenders and hot dogs…

Well, I don’t know, but that seems a bit far afield from how Benrays saw his contribution to public relations. But, its standing in a major metropolitan area is a testament to what many Americans still hold true. We still see ourselves a certain way and at least some of us still think about a time when life was more simple, more straight forward.

I wonder about this pull between simple and complicated going forward from a marketing perspective. Can we find business models that accurately address complicated or “customized?” In theory, it’s a great shift to make, but what would that require from American business? Latecomers are probably in the best position, but what about everyone else….