I’ve been having a running conversation with Chris Kieff about the ideas of authenticity, transparency, and flogging. We agree on most things, disagree on some others.

I have a problem with something he says. Not because I disagree, but because I think he may, in the end, be correct. And there’s not much we can do about it.

Until last week, he was one of the purists. Someone who would be upset at flogging and want to point it out. Then he had a conversation with his favorite focus group. It was a focus group of one. His wife.

“It’s just advertising” she said, meaning of flogs and false persona blogs. (For the record, I say it’s not advertising. It’s marketing, there’s a difference.)

That got Chris to thinking. Hmmm…maybe it is. It may not be what should be, but what should be and what is are two different animals. And in the real world, “what is” carries the day 95% of the time.

Essentially Chris is saying “Let’s face it. It’s going to happen. Fake blogs are coming. In fact, they’re already going on now. I may not like it, but whether or not I like it, isn’t important. It’s happening and it’s going to continue to happen. The problem is that we haven’t developed the cues to recognize flogs”.

In other words, we know what a commerical looks like on TV. Most of us now know what an infomercial is. A print ad in a magazine or newspaper often has a frame around it saying “Advertisement”. Those are the cues that tell us “Advertisement”. And the problem is that we haven’t been able to develop the cues to directly identify a flog.

That’s an excellent point because it’s true. And some marketers will take advantage of this and create flogs. They’ll often get away with it as best practices develop. We can’t prevent this because it isn’t against the law.

Where I disagree with Chris is that I see blogs as a form of personal expression and direct relationship building platforms. It goes beyond a comment here and there, it’s about trust and sharing. People, on some level, rely on that trust. So to me, personal blogs - unless patently obvious or explicitly stated are wrong.

But back to Chris’ wife. “It’s just advertising”. Think about that.

That mindset is the result of years of being advertised too. Of years of being somewhat misled, fibbed to. Outright lied to. We are all that way to an extent. I know I am. The advertising industry has created an atmosphere that has caused tremendous cynicism in people who are under the age of, say, 105.

Her opinion is important as any of ours. Because it’s opinions like hers that will both allow flogs to exist…yet make them struggle. Why? Because the expectations are lowered. And people aren’t going to engage with a blogger if they feel as if they’re being lied to. And it’s also important because she’s not an ‘industry insider’ and it could reflect the attitude of the masses out there that think authenticity and transparency (or at least translucency) is important. It would be nice, but it’s not expected.

She, as a consumer, is a thought leader. She didn’t know it. Neither did Chris. Neither did I.

In the end, I still have to disagree somewhat. I think that a false personal blog, one that is cleverly wrapped up enough that one can’t tell has the potential to cause great harm And not just to brands, but to readers.

But I also know that many on the marketing side don’t care about these principles of which we speak. So they’ll forge ahead, creating flogs and spoiling what some of us hold up in an idealistic manner…proving Chris Kieff’s wife right the entire time.

It’s just advertising.

Yesterday I hopped over to Chris Kieff’s blog, 1 Good Reason, and came upon an excellent post that sparked a discussion both online and off. I ended up talking to Chris and five others about what likely is to be a major problem in the upcoming years regarding online marketing and PR, especially through the social media lens. The five were Jen Zingsheim, Bryan Person, Dave Evans, Jake McKee, and Mark Davidson.

I’ll start by saying that I think often that those of use who practice social media are, if not naive, very idealistic in our thinking on the principles we espouse. And I’d say that a confluence of emerging trends, mindsets, events, and business practices could come back and knock a lot of us on our asses.

What caught my attention from Chris’ blog was his interaction with a young woman who had been hired as a blogger by a clothing company:

Yesterday at Social Media Camp NYC hosted by Mashable, and Yoono, there was a very lively discussion started by a young woman who presented herself as a “Persona Blogger.” She was joined in this discussion by a company (who I have decided to not name, yet) who is employing her to blog for them.

She discussed how she assumes the persona of several people; 52 year old woman, 25 year old man, 20-ish woman, and then blogs, twitters, and creates pages on social networks like Facebook, MySpace, and others as these people. She spoke about how this is a 24/7 job that requires her to maintain this work constantly to keep up the facade.

I’ll not mince words, this is simply lying, and as I’ve stated in this blog before, lying is a terrible way to build a relationship.

The audience at SM Camp NYC seemed to divide somewhat along generational lines, with some of the younger people taking the side that it’s understood that people can’t be trusted on the internet. Their arguments followed the logic that everyone on the internet makes things up. They’ve grown up understanding there are different levels of honesty.

I chose to highlight that last sentence because it’s very problematic. It’s both true and bullshit. Honesty, by definition would seem to be an absolute. But people, out of convenience have altered it to fit their needs and circumstances. We all do it. I’ve done it. We rationalize. We justify. That’s life. We’re human. But there’s consequences.

What stuck me is Chris’ point on the outlook of the attendees regarding the concept of the “persona blogger”. It “seemed to divide somewhat along generational lines” My concern here is more through the aspect of looking through the eyes of practitioners as opposed to potential audience members.

How Did This Come About?

Consider the following:

1) We’ve had a President of the United States, someone who often sits atop the “Ten Most Admired Men in the World” surveys, who by his very position is a role model for our nation’s youth, recklessly having an extramarital affair with a woman young enough to be his daughter. He then lies to cover it up and attempts to position the woman as delusional and, if not a stalker, somewhat obsessed. Oops, a blue dress appears with a certain stain on it, and, well, it turns out he did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. We’re then told that this really doesn’t matter, it’s only an affair, and of course he lied under oath, but so what?

Say what you want about it, but I’ll say it tarnished the Office of the Presidency and it demeaned the institution of marriage. Meaning, it lowered the standards of what we expect out of our leaders and it created different levels of honesty.

2) So let’s fast forward a couple of years. Wall Street. Greed is Good. Irrational exuberance. Brokerage houses telling their brokers to push certain stocks. Outright lies. A couple of companies went under, a couple of people went to jail, but more importantly thousands lost their life savings because a few who were already rich got even more greedy.

In a lot of cases, the amounts measured up to a couple of days profits. Those brokerage houses still exist, still treat themselves as noble entities, still are looked upon by the business media as having thought leaders.

From this, we subtly learn not to trust institutions…but often those same institutions are the only ones out there.

3) If you’re Catholic, like me, you soon found out that the very people who represent God before your very eyes are not only failing to protect the most innocent, they are covering up the grievous sins of their subordinates. On a national scale. For some (no, not me) it was as much as part of the Church as a sacrament. Nothing is sacred.

4) Speaking of presidents, we’re now at war in Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction they likely have ties to al Queda to spread democracy in the Middle East. We’ll be greeted as liberators and then we’ll be out of there in a few months, where we can say “Mission Accomplished”. The war will pay for itself with Iraqi oil money.

Oops. We don’t need more troops. We don’t torture. We’re in the last throes of the insurgency.

What we’ve seen with all of this - and it’s coming out in memoirs of administration aides - is that there was a huge propaganda campaign coming out of said administration, pushing falsehoods on practically everything. Dissent within the administration was squelched and that attitude seemed to spread around the country. Ask the Dixie Chicks. The media often went along for reasons only they know.

In my conversation with Jake McKee, he pointed out how many of today’s young people don’t question authority. They may not follow it blindly, they may just accept that they are going to be lied to.

So it’s been reinforced that it’s OK to fudge the truth and dissent is often bad.

5) Like sports? Like steroids? This generations’ greatest hitter and greatest pitcher are heavily believed to have been juiced up. As were Olympic hopefuls, past Gold medal winners, and Tour de France winners. Toss in souped up cars in NASCAR and Formula 1 and you’ve got cheaters everywhere. Whatever it takes to win. The end justifies the means. If he’s on our team, that’s cool, as long as he produces. People may fall from grace, but that’s after winning millions of dollars.

What we learn here is that it’s not how you play the game, it’s whether you win or lose.

I’m not writing all this to shove down your throats moral standards or to condemn society or to shame us as role models for our nation’s youth or to point out how young people are going to be less ethical than we are.

I’m writing this instead to shove down your throats that, at the very least, we’re likely going to have to deal with some serious issues in the near future. Those same standards fo authenticity and transparency may not be worth snot. I’ll further explain in How Social Media Will Get Screwed, Part Two.

I have been going through Google Docs and discovered an internal document I would like to share with you from back in the beginning of 2007. Taylor Donlan wrote it to explain to our new staff how best to reach out to and engage online on behalf of our clients and in general. I was inspired to share it based on this comment by Jonathan Crawford from the article What motivated you to learn about social media? Check it out and tell me what you think:

When we approach someone online, we need to approach in the same way we would in the real world. If our goal is to develop relationships, we cannot “go for the kill” instantly. Instead, we must engage in some small talk first. We must engage the blogger and his or her post first, well before any discussion of our client or their related services.

To use Chris’s metaphor, in a professional context, we want them to ask us for our business card. We want to get them so interested in whatever service or client we are touting that they are asking us for more information. This does not mean we air drop business cards everywhere or give one to every person on the street – those cards are thrown away. In the real world, it is much more effective to develop some kind of individual connection before exchanging business cards – they are much more likely to keep the cards, and remember you. In the future, they are more likely to be open to doing something for you.

For a more basic metaphor, imagine meeting someone in a bar. You don’t go right up to someone and jump into a conversation or ask them for favors. Instead you ease into conversation by engaging something that you notice about them or that stands out about your general surroundings. You need to build some rapport in terms that are common to both parties before you can get to any deeper level.

In the blog world, we are trying to do the same. When you make a comment on a post show that you have paid some attention to their post and add something meaningful - feel free to Google the subject matter and share some additional information or just share your general feelings on the subject matter. Then and only then is it acceptable to broach the subject of our client or their services.

Whenever possible, we pose our engagement campaigns in terms of offering “a gift” – usually a service or piece of information that will likely prove useful to the blogger and/or their readers at no cost. While this “free gift” approach reduces the appearance of any spam quality to our engagements, it is still necessary to ease into the gift offering. We are not in the business of spamming, and it will not be tolerated.

Another important point is that we believe in transparency. We are not interested in being deceitful. Admit proudly that you work for Abraham Harrison and whomever the client might be. Our engagement campaigns aim to offer a gift to bloggers, and there is no shame in our business.

With all the discussion on what social media is, what it’s future will be like, who will control it, I often feel we fail to see the forest for the trees.

I see it as too diverse of a phenomenon to pin down with one easy definition. Its applications go far beyond the neat capsules that can be used to pick a particular department or function that should “own” it. Social media is creating, empowering, and accompanying a paradigm shift in the way we use all media.

Are we fully there yet? Of course not. These are only the early stages, part of an evolutionary process that often comes step by step. But those steps are happening and happening and soon we’ll look back and be amazed how far we’ve traveled. Then before we know it again, we’ll be stepping again and look back again and we’ll be amazed how much we’ve come from that first time we looked back.

Yes, organizations are going to have to harness social media in ways that they can benefit from, to reach ROI. This means trying to create some sort of structure for it without “siloizing” it. Very difficult indeed.

I’ve tried to lay out what I see social media as. Not from a specific definitional standpoint, but from a several miles up point of view.

Interested in your feedback… Read more…

I can’t find the specific report, but I recently read that the number of B-to-B corporate blogs started by companies fell by nearly 50% from 2006 to 2007. The reasons given were that many B-t0-B blogs were promo fluff and slightly changed press releases. Basically absolute nonsensical feel good crap that no one wants to read. Marketing diarrhea.

For about a week, I worked on one. What a waste of time.

The company, which I won’t name, was in the promotional products industry. The VP of Marketing was a pompous ass. The type of guy that announces that he’s very hands on and that he’s knowledgeable about blogging. Basically a clueless dipshit with an ego.

Yes, it feels good to write this.

To him, a blog entry was an opportunity to blatantly market his company’s product lines an special deals. Push, push, push. People aren’t interested in reading digital sales pitches. They want to learn and to share and while they may accept some promotional aspects, they are there to be hit on.

He had no or very little respect for his customers. He seemed to think they were simpletons who could barely run their own businesses. That doesn’t surprise me because he figured that they’d be interested in reading “Hey folks, have you considered company branded placemats?”

I lasted a week doing it. Every single one of his subsequent posts were a violation of the spirit of corporate blogging. He brought in someone else, a guy who started out writing crisp, insightful posts. After a few months, he was writing crap. Then he left.

The blog lasted a total of four months. Now it just sits there.

That’s why B-to-B blogs are stalling. Pompous asses at the wheel of social media.