Dems in the Driver’s Seat

It’s always good to feel like you have the upper hand, especially when you have the upper hand. Garrett Graff, author of The First Campaign, argues convincingly that the Democrats are ahead of the Republicans by more than a nose when it comes to the Web 2.0. Why? I couldn’t do justice to Graff’s work if I tried to recite the many reasons here – you should read the book – but it highlights one of the core difference between the two parties: some versus many.

The Democrats have made a choice to define the party in terms of a greater audience. Graff makes the point at the end the book, noting that leadership is critical as we find ourselves, as a group, poised to make a choice between the ordinary and the extraordinary.

Graff is right that we need leaders who are willing to drive the discussion of the future of America. Yes, we need it now! But, can politicians really change the game?

I recently had lunch with a senior Republican Senator who was talking about how hard it is today to be in the U.S. Senate. He talked a lot about raising money “from the same pool, over and over,” but he couldn’t avoid questions about how his schedule has changed over the past 12 years.

Does he wake up at the same time? No. Earlier. Does he have the same number of meetings per day? No. Four times as many. Does he travel home as much? No. He travels to other States to try and help colleagues keep their Senate seats. Does he have a bigger staff? No. Pretty much the same size, yet very “potent.” Spend the same amount of time on policy? What’s that? No. In all seriousness, he said no. His attention is drawn to other things. Is he trying to change any of this? No. Not at all.

I give him credit for being honest, particularly because I don’t think there is anything unique about his view. If you could poll the U.S. Senate, many would agree that things have changed regardless of party affiliation.

But, as Graff points out, sometimes one group can harness energy and force change better than the other because they have both the skill and the will to do so. If he’s right, the Democrats are poised to lead the charge to change the country.

 

The Dean Team

I can’t tell from our class how many people “experienced” Howard Dean’s run for President and how many people view our conversation about his successful Internet strategy as a case study. Again, I show my age, but I remember first hand how news of the Dean campaign’s approach to Internet outreach flooded Washington circles over night.

What had they figured out that no one else figured out? And, was there any possible end to what they could do? My old boss worked for former Speaker of the House Tom Foley and was completely engrossed in Democratic politics at the federal level. He read every article he could find about the Dean campaign and told us his children were helping him to see the success for himself on the Internet. He didn’t care much about the work going on in our office. He trusted us to get it done and kept his sights on what he thought was the most important technological advance Washington had seen in years.

Was it a technological advance or did emotional intelligence prevail over cautious thinking? Years ago, when we talked about the success of the Dean campaign, we talked about the team’s ability to control the message. But, maybe it was the opposite. Maybe the success of the team lies in the fact that there were willing to take risks and allow people from outside the campaign into the campaign in a significant way. “Control,” as we think of it in politics had, for the most part, left the room.

Now, with a better understanding of how things developed behind the closed doors of the Dean campaign, I am even more impressed and encouraged by the power of the Web 2.0 and the people who see its strength. However, I am curious as to how long it will take MOST people, particularly business people, to truly embrace it.

Control plays a large role in corporate America. I had a friend who lost a job once because she sat her CEO next to a liberal member of Congress when he was a staunch Republican. Her boss told her the CEO complained about “not being able to control the conversation” and that was with just one person, albeit an important person. But, how could that same company embrace Social Media in this type of corporate culture?

I plan to spend some time this summer delving in to the corporate sites we have discussed to learn more about how they strike the right balance or if they attempt to go beyond balance in search of conversation. I still believe Social Media will distinguish the good, the bad and the ugly in years to come. And, with the Dean Team as an example, I hope to identify the enormous upside potential for those that are willing to take a deep breadth and welcome people in …

 

Hide and Go Search

I’m sure there is an outstanding quote – somewhere out there – that would illustrate what I’d like to say, beautifully. How about, “There are two sides to ever coin.” The attribution escapes me, but these are words to live by for someone that considers himself or herself a communicator. Several weeks ago, I blogged on Search, John Battelle’s book on Google and how the company (and its rivals) redefined the world of business.

How should we think about search? As the consumer, search is liberating. You simply don’t have to be bothered with anything you don’t want to be bothered with. Through the power of search, you can go directly to those things that are of most interest and find opinions that resemble yours. As the owner of search, Google for example, you own perhaps the most powerful culmination of human thought ever available. Everything we care about and think about is part of our search. And, while we may thing of certain items as predominate and others as experimental, to Google and other search engines, it’s all the same. If you search for one item because you are an expert in the filed and it occupies a large part of your professional time, it does not ignore the other items, small and perhaps contradictory, of the primary interest areas.

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post called “To Lie or not to Lie.” At the time, I was thinking a lot about search and whether consumers should experiment on the Internet to protect their privacy. The idea was straight forward: if consumers could get onto the habit of breaking their patterns, no one could make assumptions about them as a result of search. For me, that would mean visiting site I normally don’t visit. Maybe the short movie site, Nice Shorts, or maybe a NASCAR blog, or maybe an ode to classical music that was rejected by previous generations because of its religious references. Put differently, should I search for things I don’t care about as often as I search for things I do care about – to protect my privacy? Any thoughts?

 

Corporate Communications and Disintermediation

Disintermediation has been a hot topic in several industries over the years. Often the discussion is tied to the emergence of a new technology that makes a job function obsolete. Will blogging disintermediate corporate affairs representatives?

In January, I blogged about Naked Conversations, a book which I generally enjoyed. For someone that is new to the power of the Internet and Web 2.0, I felt like it was a good guide to the future.

But, Chapter 7, survival of the publicists, struck me as a bit harsh. Here is a basic premise: corporate public affairs representatives are awful people who hide information from external audiences seeking the truth. These people use bad language – that doesn’t make sense – they highlight information that no on cares about – they prevent the outside world from getting in contact with the real experts. Pretty tough stuff.

I think Public Relations people deserve a break. We are talking about a group of people that got into the business because they believe that it is important to provide information to stakeholders in a clear and concise fashion, not to hide the dirty corporate secrets from the world. And, many corporate affairs people have done a good job, one that the scientist or accountant or engineer might not do because he or she is not particularly concerned with the expression of an idea.

We all have or skills sets and our talents. And while I know that corporate structures have been criticized for their layers and isolated functions, some of them do exist for good reasons without sinister intent.

I have been working in corporate America for 15 years. My boss was responsible for public affairs, internal communications, government relations and corporate philanthropy. He has been in this job for over 25 years. Before that, he was a professor of English and history. He writes beautifully, finding the perfect word for every occasion. He was also a gifted storyteller, which I believe is consistent with all of his other strengths. He made an enormous contribution to the company, his colleagues, our department and our customers in both the consumer and business environments and I hate the idea that the nature of his contribution would be completely discounted as a result of new technology and the perception that he is nothing more than a corporate cock-blocker.

 

Clueless Manifesto

What’s really eating at the authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto? Why so much anger? This is not a new topic on OTB, but it is becoming increasingly important for those of us that are trying to bridge the gap between the world of corporate communications and social media.

Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and they say something so absurd, so over the top, that all consciousness leaves the room? How about Thesis number 10 of Cluetrain: As a result, markets are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in networked markets changes people fundamentally?

When I first read Thesis 10, it sounded as if the networked world has less respect for its neighbors than the corporations that love to hate? Suggesting that people are dumb, uninformed and disorganized without the power of an online, networked community is silly. People are smart and for decades have helped each other make decisions about products and services through word-of-mouth. Yes, I know, the Internet is a multiplier. That fact, I would not contest. If you are someone who needs a quantitative framework, you’re thrilled to share your thoughts with thousands of strangers and make decisions accordingly.

This message would go so much farther with a bit of refinement. And what does the last sentence mean? How does it fundamentally change who we are? It adds to our lives, definitely. It’s helpful, no doubt. But, does it change who we are?

So here’s one friend’s view on the tone of Cluetrain: the language is aggressive to be provocative and force companies to move faster. And, since companies have not done a great job communicating, Cluetrain’s approach is justified. Ok, maybe that’s the motivation. But, if so, it looses sight of an important fact: you get more bees with honey than you do with salt.

This conversation will continue and I have no doubt progress will be made as long is this conversation is treated like any other conversation aimed at progress.

 

The Final Chapter

An awful lot has been said during the past ten years about the “closed” culture of corporate America. Dan Gillmor points to it several times in We the Media, including in Chapter 4. Having spent over 15 years in corporate cultures, I feel obligated to share a few thoughts.

First, I don’t believe that corporations invest time and money in communicating with their stakeholders to deceive. In comparison, I don’t believe the mainstream media chose to change the nature of reporting to make their jobs easier. Organizations, particularly those that have been established for many years, have had their own evolutions. They are the culmination of decisions – large and small – and people with different visions. Taken together, you have the mind and the muscle that create the inner workings of an organization. In addition, the organization is shaped and affected by outside influences that it cannot control.

Can organizations do better? Of course, and so can you. With the exception of some well know organizations that have broken the law in recent years, corporate America has set out to deceive its customer or prevent them from voicing their views. It wouldn’t make sense. It would be like fine-tuning an instrument to perform to an empty room.

Like people, organizations have habits and if you have tried to break a habit lately, you know it ain’t easy. The conversation would be much more fruitful if this were the starting point. The accusations and contemptuous tone is wasteful. It does not create an environment where people trying to introduce others to the positive powers of social media can succeed.

And, here’s another point. Why not lead with a complete example of the benefits? I have yet to read the case where a “conversation” resulted in a big benefit for the consumer or the organization serving it. I’m not talking about the example where a company starts its own blog and nothing bad happens, I’m looking for a positive outcome. Learning about organizations that position themselves as innovators because they us technology in a new way is fascinating, but isn’t that about leadership? I’m looking for the chapter that helps me distill this further. Maybe it’s too early to make such a request. But, if that’s the case, isn’t it also too early to condemn?

 

Is Everyone in a Position to “Gift?”

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.

 

The Power of Facebook

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…

 

An Online Bill of Rights?

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.

 

Worth Reading: Naked Conversations

Ok, so it’s not a great title, but Robert Scoble and Shel Isreal have written a book about the power of social media that even a 40-something can love. It’s not long, it’s straight forward and, importantly, it’s hopeful. Yes, we’re going through a significant change – yes, it will be difficult for many organizations to grasp, but they will, at their own speed and at their own peril.

Some of the chapters are liberating. In chapter 10, we are basically told that there’s no such thing as a bad blog. Put differently, there’s no format to follow – just be yourself and share your views and people that feel the same way will find you and reward you for your honesty.