“I would like to see crowdsourcing reach deep down into the bowels of local city governments… [The suburbs] need good investigative journalism as much as anywhere else. More probably. There’s a lot of corruption in those places, and the mainstream press is dropping the ball.”

     – Chris Anderson, New York City Indypendent

“I think local crowdsourcing is an excellent idea… We are suffering from a lack of news about local and state government because [the local paper] has been undergoing severe budget cuts…”

     – Ms. Panstreppon, citizen journalist

Unmasking government corruption is never easy. Crooked politicians go to great lengths to conceal evidence of their schemes, which are often hidden behind a complex maze of bureaucracy and legal jargon.

But, as Anderson and Panstreppon point out in “Open-Source Journalism: It’s a Lot Tougher Than You Think,” citizens are far from powerless.

Crowdsourcing and crack citizen journalism can help break through the walls of political establishment, protecting taxpayers and keeping our politicians honest.

Unfortunately, the “watchdog” that is traditional news media can be asleep on the job. They often fail to recognize scandal as it’s unfolding, or only put the pieces of corruption together after it’s too late.

A perfect example occurred in 2000 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In a quiet vote, the Milwaukee County Board (a body of locally elected officials charged with administering key municipal services to county citizens) approved a benefits package for themselves and several of high-ranking employees.

Provisions in the package allowed lump sum payments to then-County Executive Tom Ament that could have topped $2 million (on top of his $136,000 yearly pension), as well as $1 million payments to three other county officials who were also slated to rake in hefty pensions.

Now, you would think the citizens of Milwaukee would raise holy hell after such a bold dereliction of duty. Well, they did… nearly two years later when the mainstream press finally realized and reported what had happened.

Here’s a clear example of why crowdsourcing is key. It’s ridiculous that Milwaukee County citizens had to wait two years before catching wind of the pension scandal. Clearly, the county government beat reporters throughout the city failed to fulfill their journalistic responsibilities by not recognizing the vote for what it was: a fleecing of county taxpayers.

Had more citizen reporters been on hand to study the vote and consider its implications, perhaps the proposal could have been stopped dead in its tracks.

In 2004, perennial hip hoppers the Beastie Boys recruited 50 of their biggest fans over the Internet to participate in an exciting new project that would bring music fans into the fold like never before. The participants were given two items: a ticket to a sold out Beastie Boys concert in Madison Square Garden, and a Hi8 video camera. Their mission: turn the cameras on the minute the show starts, and keep them rolling all the way through.

By the time the Beastie Boys stepped off stage their fans produced over 100 hours of film covering everything from the backstage to the bathroom stalls. The footage was then skillfully mashed together to create a full-length, multi-view film of the show, beautifully dubbed Awesome: I Fuckin’ Shot That!

Having seen it myself, I can say without hesitation that the film is pretty (insert choice word here) awesome.

A far cry from their greedy peers and even greedier music labels, the Beastie Boys have long embraced the musical expressions of their fans. The group’s Web site even allows visitors to freely download a cappelle tracks of their songs to create their own remixes. This idea of mass collaboration and cocreation is a central theme in Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams’ book Wikinomics.

In Wikinomics, Tapscott and Williams discuss the concept of prosumption – the idea that customers can actively participate in the creation of products they consume. The Beastie Boys are a shinning example of prosumption, but they’re not the only ones on the bandwagon. The virtual world of Second Life is one of the most obvious examples of prosumption (in the game, the more you create the more vibrant your experience).

Most companies, musicians and organizations, however, are not so willing to give consumers unbridled control over their products and intellectual creations. Tapscott and Williams point out that companies that give their customers “free reign to hack” risk cannibalizing their product and losing control of their business model. Yet, on the flip side, the authors note that resisting customers can soil a company’s reputation and stifle innovation.

Prosumption makes sense, and potentially a lot of cents for businesses that embrace customer innovation. Tapscott and Williams were right on when they concluded that cocreation “could only accentuate positive attributes such as balance, fairness, and accuracy, while making the media experience more dynamic.”

The Beastie Boys are proof positive this concept works. They’ve had a fiercely loyal fan base for the better part of two decades, and helped pave the way for legions of wildly popular hip hop artists that now regularly top the music charts.

“Someone outside your organization today knows how to answer your specific question, solve your specific problem, or take advantage of your current opportunity better than you do. You need to find them, and find a way to work collaboratively and productively with them.”

That was a quote by A.G. Lafley, the high-power CEO of Procter & Gamble. Lafley was speaking to the power of peer production, the focal point of Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams’ book Wikinomics.

Tapscott and Williams provide myriad examples of how companies have successfully wielded the power of collaboration and peer production to solve some of their most pressing challenges. But, for a field like public relations – one that often requires crafting rapid responses to highly sensitive matters – is it feasible for PR practitioners to seek out fresh ideas and solutions in a network of peer producers?

Tapscott and Williams describe peer production, or “peering,” as what happens when masses of people and firms collaborate openly to drive innovation and growth in their industries. Some of the most recognizable examples of this new mode of value creation are Wikipedia, Linux, YouTube and MySpace.

The authors contend that companies obtain higher rates of growth by learning how to engage and cocreate with these dynamic, idea-rich and increasingly global networks of peers. However, these companies also need a strategy to address peer production that weighs both the threats and opportunities for their businesses.

So how does public relations fit into the equation? Outside of case studies, news stories, a handful of professional associations, and their own employees, companies and public relations firms have virtually no forums through which to harvest new ideas on how to address their communications challenges. But, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a place in the industry for peer production.

Although reaching out to a vast network of collaborators wouldn’t work when deadlines are tight and organizations need a quick response, peer production could prove extremely valuable when those organizations clearly understand the obstacles that lie ahead. After all, chances are other communications pros have faced similar challenges, and tapping their expertise could be the difference between a winning and losing PR campaign.

So, is there a role for peer production in public relations? I definitely think so, and the companies who can successfully implement these forums will no doubt have a tremendous advantage over their competitors.

Ever heard the term “bad profits?” Sounds like an oxymoron, right? Well, the truth is there is such a thing, and scores of managers depend on them to create the illusion of growth and profitability on their balance sheets. But, what role do bad profits play in the communications business… within companies whose goal is to service clients, not customers?

In his book The Ultimate Question, Fred Reichheld describes bad profits as income from detractors – customers who feel so badly treated by a company “that they cut back on their purchases, switch to the competition if they can, and warn others to stay away from the company they feel has done them wrong.” These detractors, Reichheld argues, can be a source of profit in the short term, but the damage they wreak over time as disgruntled customers far outweighs the monetary value of their business.

Similarly, public relations firms often find themselves working for clients who grow dissatisfied with the services and counsel they’re receiving. Whether it’s creative differences, discrepant expectations, or a firm’s outright failure to get the job done, these clients become a source of bad profits. In other words, they monopolize precious staff resources, and carry no intention of extending their contract or recommending your services to others.

Weaning a business off of bad profits can prove exceptionally difficult – especially for companies with a corps of middle managers who depend on them to boost their numbers. But, for businesses truly dedicated to creating promoters and more profitable customers, eliminating detractors and bad profits is essential.

In Chapter seven of his book, Reichheld lists the three priorities for creating more profitable customers/promoters. The second of those priorities is reducing bad profits – removing those who “are hammering your reputation and turning off other prospects by voicing their grievances.”

For communicators, the key phrase here is “hammering your reputation.” Public relations, after all, is the science of managing relationships and reputations. If there’s the perception that a PR firm can’t manage its own reputation, what does that say about the firm’s ability to manage the reputations of its clients?

To deal with these detractors, Reichheld suggests following a simple rule – “up or out.” The rule says that instead of dumping additional profits and resources into appeasing stalwart detractors, companies should do one of two things. They can either discover a more efficient way to serve the client/customer, or move them to the competition.

The more time and energy a PR firm spends working to mend a client relationship that’s beyond repair, the less time and energy it can spend strengthening existing partnerships and building new promoters. And for a company that serves a handful of clients, rather than an army of customers, the voice of a single promoter/detractor can make all the difference in the world.

Ever heard the name J.D. Power and Associates? If the answer is no, you’ve probably never sat down in front of a TV. Car manufacturers flood the airwaves with commercials touting awards they’ve collected from this customer “satisfaction” firm. But what does an award from J.D. Power really tell us? Or better yet, do satisfaction surveys really tell companies what they need to know about customer behavior?

In his book The Ultimate Question – Driving Good Profits and True Growth, Fred Reichheld throws a spotlight on the shames that are customer satisfaction surveys. He discusses the example of GM – a company that in 2005 ran full page newspaper ads lauding their awards from J.D. Power. Meanwhile, the car company was losing market share and watching its bonds get downgraded to junk status.

In chapter 5 of his book, Reichheld argues that “you cannot build an effective customer-feedback system on the shaky foundation of current satisfaction-survey methods and practices.” As if the GM example weren’t enough, Reichheld shares his top 10 reasons why customer satisfaction surveys are a joke.

A few of the top 10 I found exceptionally compelling were:

Number 9 – “The wrong customers respond.” The most profitable customers have little use for a satisfaction survey, as they more than likely have a direct channel through which to share their praise or criticism. That means a majority of surveys are completed by individuals who comprise only a small piece of the profit pie.

 

Number 8 – “Employees don’t know how to take corrective action.” In other words, feedback surveys need to tie specific problems to specific types of customers, especially when those customers represent the lion’s share of sales.

Number 3 – “Surveys confuse transactions with relationships.” A customer’s relationship to a company is far more important than their individual transactions. If the two have a solid relationship chances are the customer will make more transactions. If, however, the two develop a poor relationship the customer can turn into a detractor.

The only quibble I have with Reichheld’s top 10 list is the contradiction between Numbers five (“plain-vanilla solutions can’t meet companies’ unique needs”) and four (“there are no generally accepted standards”).

In reason number five Reichheld contends that companies need customized research solutions to gauge their customer relationships, not one-size-fits-all surveys. Yet, in number four he claims that the lack of a standardized system makes it tough for companies to interpret their survey research. Maybe I’m missing something, but to me a one-size-fits all survey and a standardized system are one in the same.

Regardless, the fact remains – satisfaction surveys are a flawed measure of customer relationships worth little more than the paper they’re printed on. And, companies that invest precious resources into these hallow ventures will likely be left with more questions than answers, or worse – a compass pointing their business in the wrong direction.

In chapter 12 of Robert Scoble and Shel Israel’s book Naked Conversations, the authors pose a series of questions bloggers should consider when determining what should and should not be done in a blog. They also provide a code of conduct (what Scobble termed the “Corporate Weblog Manifesto”) to keep bloggers from ruffling the feathers of corporate culture, or worse getting “dooced” (i.e. fired).

Although bloggers would be well advised to carefully review and follow each of these criteria, the common message behind them is simple: don’t do anything stupid. If you’re a flight attendant thinking about snapping some racy photos wearing your uniform (a la former Delta employee Ellen Simonetti) – don’t do it. If you’re in a rigid office and want to compare your boss to the pointy-haired manager in the Delbert comic (a la a former Waterstone employee) – don’t do it.

When drafting a post that could be construed as controversial, here are some questions Scoble and Israel ask that you consider before pulling the trigger:

• Will this match up with my company’s PR image?

• Am I leaking financial or other confidential information?

• Will this disrupt the workplace by pissing off my co-workers and bosses?

• Will this generate unexpected work for the PR team?

• Am I exposing dirty laundry?

• Am I creating legal liabilities?

• Am I damaging the company’s relationships with partners, competitors or other entities that could affect its standing?

To steal a metaphor from Naked Conversations, it is possible to maintain an interesting blog that pushes, not pierces, the corporate membrane. However, it’s a question of knowing where to push and how hard. If you’re thinking about launching a blog that offers commentary on potentially sensitive work matters, Scoble and Israel also suggest doing the following:

• Read your terms of employment.

• Avoid discussing litigious issues.

• Talk to your boss; know what he or she will tolerate.

• Know who owns what (i.e. your blog’s content and ideas shared on it).

• If your office has a blog policy, READ IT!

Most of this stuff is pretty commonsensical. However, where I break ranks with the authors is in how companies should treat employees who post disparaging information on their blogs.

Here’s what Scoble and Israel stand on the issue:

“While we argue that employers should trust employees to blog, employees must obviously behave in a trustworthy manner. But company decision-makers also need to cut a little slack. They need to keep in mind that blogosphere sentiment is decidedly opposed to the broadcast marketing and corpspeak that, in the eyes of most bloggers, have corrupted other communication channels.”

In my opinion, a screw up is a screw up… whether on a blog, press release, newsletter or statement in the paper. When an employee exhibits a complete lack of judgment, that employee shouldn’t get a pass simply out of fear that the blogosphere will bite back. There is a balance between intriguing blogging and being a responsible voice for your company. It’s just a question of knowing the rules, and not doing anything stupid.

I have to admit, when I first heard the phrase Social Media Optimization I thought, ‘here we go again… another million dollar buzz term that does more to confuse than communicate’ (PR pros have a knack for making things overly complex). Well, it turns out there really is something to this social media optimization stuff, and organizations that engage in the practice can see clear, quantifiable results from their efforts.

So what is Social Media Optimization (SMO)?

I thought Rohit Bhargava gave a pretty solid definition of SMO in his post, “5 Rules of Social Media Optimization.” Here’s what he had to say:

“The concept behind SMO is simple: implement changes to optimize a site so that it is more easily linked to, more highly visible in social media searches on custom search engines (such as Technorati), and more frequently included in relevant posts on blogs, podcasts and vlogs.”

The key phrase here is “more highly visible in social media searches.” What Bhargava is saying is that if you want a popular social media site, you have to make it easy for people to find. To do that he lists a few simple tips, including:

• Increasing the “linkability” of your site – Providing more external links on your site, while making it easier for outsiders to link to your content.
• Add tagging and bookmarking features to your site.
• Rewarding those who link to you – Inbound links are a measure of success in blogging.
• Helping your content travel by turning it into PDFs, video and audio files.
• Encouraging mashups (i.e. the co-creation of new content).

A popular blog/social media site can be a tremendous asset for the organization that runs it. They build greater awareness of your brand, provide new growth opportunities, create stronger relationships with new and existing stakeholders, and foster open communication… just to name a few.

In an interview he gave last year to Guy Kawasaki, Technorati CEO David Sifry said that his search engine was currently indexing over 47 million blogs, and that number was growing by approximately 100,000 each day. Again, that was last year. I’ve also come across statistics that indicated under their current rate of growth, every man, woman and child on the planet will be blogging by 2009. However, you might want to take that one with a grain of salt (for obvious resaons).

Whatever the numbers, it’s easy to see how one singular blog can get lost in the ballooning blogosphere. All the more reason to start optimizing! Like Bhargava, Sifry gave some tips on how bloggers can optimize (or in this case, crack the Technorati 100). They included things like:

• Posting often and posting regularly.
• Writing about what you know.
• Writing with passion.
• Getting a Technorati watchlist so you know when people are talking about you, and can respond if necessary.
• Making it easy for people to subscribe to your blog.

Most of these SMO tips are a snap. Others take a little more effort. But, either way, they make sense, and organizations that chose to ignore them will have an extremely tough time attracting new audiences.

Painters have their brushes. Plumbers have their wrenches. PR practitioners have their press releases.

Press releases are the bread and butter of the PR industry – the tool we communicators use to deliver messages on behalf of our clients and employers. But, as communication technologies have grown in sophistication, many in the industry have grown less sophisticated in the distribution of their releases (i.e. harvesting massive press lists from Bacon’s and e-mail blasting reporters).

In many ways, PR has become the new “Interruption Marketing.” In their book Naked Conversations, Scoble and Israel provide the example of MCI’s “Friends and Family” campaign – an interruption program that involved calling families during dinner hours. When some employees raised concerns about the intrusive tactics, one executive said, “We don’t care who hates it. We are getting a response of at least 2 percent in all metro areas and as high as 5 percent in pockets. To hell with the other 98 percent.”

In many communications shops, this “send and see what sticks” mentality is what constitutes public relations. Lost are the notions of developing relationships, micro targeting, and facilitating dialogue.

Enter the blog.

Blogs represent a refreshing, and often times more effective, alternative to press releases. Scoble and Israel cite several examples of companies that have used blogs to overcome the barriers of traditional communication, helping turn consumers into consumer evangelists.

One corporate pioneer in the blogosphere was Microsoft, whose Channel 9 blog (run by Scoble) helped massage its “Evil Empire” image. Channel 9 fulfilled a number of roles at Mircosoft – morale booster, recruiter, customer liaison and company cheerleader to name a few. But, even more telling (from a communicator’s perspective) was how it assumed many of the activities typically reserved for PR staff – namely making announcements and channeling information to reporters.

In other words, blogs can do the same thing as press releases… only better. They can communicate a message, build trust, offer transparency and create goodwill – qualities that elude many of us in the field of public relations. That’s part of the reason why PR still has a glaring image problem. A 2005 “Trust Barometer” survey by Edelman – the world’s biggest PR firm – reported that PR people rank towards the bottom of the list of credible spokespeople, just above athletes and entertainers. Take that Terrell Owens and Alec Baldwin!

Bottom line, press releases just don’t cut it anymore. In fact, they haven’t cut it for a long time. I’m still a relative newcomer to this business, but I can’t tell you how many releases I’ve come across that have been so chalk full of jargon, buzz words and corporate speak that I feel dumber for having read them.

Blogs, on the other hand, tell it like it is. They’re unrefined, colloquial and very often in need of a good eDiTt. When it comes to repairing PR’s unsavory image, they certainly couldn’t hurt. No offense to Ernie the Attorney, but I’d rather not be a rung below lawyers on the ladder of professional credibility.

In the final pages of their book Citizen Marketers, Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba concluded that “participation is the future of marketing.” You’d have to be a fool to argue with them.

Many a marketing campaign have enjoyed tremendous success because of their organization’s willingness to engage consumers.

Snakes on a Plane

Take the film Snakes on a Plane. Here’s a movie that generated an obscene amount of buzz not because of some carefully choreographed marketing scheme. No, it was the film’s ‘oh my gosh, are these idiots for real’ title. Most people thought two things. One, ‘who in their right mind would come up with such a ridiculous name for a movie?’ And two, ‘I have to see this.’

As McConnell and Huba pointed out, rather than ignore the tidal wave of excitement sweeping across the Internet, New Line Cinema reshot scenes of the movie based on the chatter online. They also, to their credit, didn’t try to tinker with the viral efforts of the movie’s crazed fans.

The result – $33 million after four weeks in the theater (which was probably $33 million more than the movie should have made).

Chuck Taylor

When one of America’s most prolific shoe companies (Converse) wanted to boost sales of its storied Chuck Taylor brand, the company didn’t look to flashy print ads or slick earned media campaigns. Instead, Converse passed the ball to its customers, offering a free pair of Chucks and some serious cash to whoever could produce the most creative short flick on their sneakers.

1,800 entries later, the company named “The Amazing Russell” winner. According to McConnell and Huba, within a month of the contest’s launch, “traffic to the Converse Web site surged 66 percent. Shoe sales on the Converse Web site doubled, and overall company sales increased 12 percent in the quarter compared to the previous quarter.”

The potential of conversational marketing to build publicity and increase sales is enormous. And, with the number of bloggers doubling every six months, and sites like YouTube serving 100 million videos each day, that potential will rocket even higher.

But, in a world where consumers call all the shots, how do advertisers and PR pros fit into the equation? Are they merely facilitators, holding contests and squabbling for participants? Or, can they play puppeteer, developing covert campaigns and generating buzz on their own?

According to Mr. Bell, “neither advertising nor public relations are particularly well-equipped to engage in conversational marketing.” Professional communicators can, he explained, “shine a spotlight on it, facilitate it, join in, measure it, even. What we cannot do is own it, control it or apply old-school thinking from PR or advertising to succeed.”

Sure, in the past companies have tried to dupe consumers and gotten burned. Last year some filmmakers and a talent agency conspired to launch a series of videos featuring the everyday chronicles of a girl named “Bree” (known as Lonlygirl15). Although presented as a “real person,” it didn’t take long for bloggers to realize that something was amiss, and soon uncover that Bree was actually a drama school grad.

My point is, with such a tremendous opportunity for positive, virally-generated exposure, will more companies try to strike matches online in hopes of starting a blaze for their brand? Can PR pros ever truly wield the power of conversational marketing?

I think they can, and who knows… maybe they have already.