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…

Throughout this past week, I’ve been thinking much about how America was founded. There’s plenty of articles written lately on patriotism, on liberty. From Time Magazine’s cover piece to essays on Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

If you read the great documents such as the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers, you get a sense that these men were perhaps America’s real “Greatest Generation”. They not only understood the beauty of the philosophies of Locke and Voltaire and Rousseau, but were able to translate them into action, establishing a new nation based upon freedom and liberty.

They were also amongst the most elite of their time. The wealthiest, the most educated, the most “connected”.

A study put out this week by George Washington University’s Henry Farrell, John Sides, and Eric Lawrence bring out to the surface an issue that I think is problematic for American politics and culture: the polarization of the political blogosphere. This had become more evident over the past few years as the country’s political dialogue has grown ever more coarse.

The study finds that those that participate in the political blogosphere are more likely to be further to the right or further to the left, more rigid in their beliefs, less likely to engage in discussions across political ideologies and (as I have personally discovered in my own involvement on blogs) less tolerant opposing views.

I find this troublesome because their study also shows that those whose views are more tolerant, less rigid, and less idealogical are less likely to be politically involved as those who take an active participation in the blogosphere. That’s not good. Here’s why…

Read more…

Rich Karpinski just wrote an article that’s featured on the front page of BtoB. The information in the article is basic. It’s not groundbreaking. It’s about a trend that, if you’re reading this blog, then you’re already familiar with. It’s about how businesses are now embracing blogging.

Karpinski points out how only aroudn 12% of Fortune 500 companies run corporate blogs. But he gives key examples of how companies such as Dell, Kodak, Intel, SAP, and IBM run coporate blogs.

The reason articles such as this can be important is because it is located in a targeted business publication. It’s readers, many of whom are at he very least involved in corporate markting at some sort of senior level, need to be exposed to more articles such as this. Larger publications such as Business Week feature similar articles that carry influence.

The more exposure senior managers - be they in marketing or technology or finance - get exposed to blogging and, more importantly overall, social media as a business cultural paradigm, then the more likely they are finally going to “get it”.

Articles such as these are a form of professional-word-of-mouth. Many of the decision makers - those that are in the 88% of the Fortune 500 that don’t have corporate blogs aren’t going to be reading social media marketing blogs. Many of them haven’t heard of Todd And’s PowerList or the Age of Conversation or ooVoo. They’re not on Twitter. They don’t care about any of that. And there’s enough of them out there that that’s fine…for now.

So that’s why wee need more basic articles like Rick Karpinski’s.

Apparently 48% of bloggers think that’s a good idea. That’s according to the bloggers who agreed with the statement directed to PR execs “It is okay to compensate bloggers for writing about my clients, but it is not of to me to tell them to disclose the payment” as interviewed by APCO Worldwide and the Council of PR Firms. The forty-wight percent may ot be a majority, but it is a plurality. Sixteen percent had either a neutral or no opinion on the matter. That means 36% percent had problems with the idea of bloggers getting pay for play.

PR people were against he idea of paying bloggers by a whopping 96% - 4%. That’s the camp I fall into.

The Pay Per Post model is controversial, but it’s transparent. I’m not much for paying bloggers period, but transparency is of full importance. What we have here is potentially a serious stumbling block. We view bloggers to be, in part, journalists who cover certain issue areas and are therefore the ones we’re going to target. Yet they see their blogs as their personal domain, one that they had never expected to get pitched about - but perhaps secretly wanted to earn money from.

Many bloggers have little idea of what constitutes journalistic integrity, but nevertheless maintain a sense of pride in what they produce. This can translate into them not wanting to be a shrill or a marketing piece for a product or service without some form of payment. To PR people, that seems wholly counterintuitive.

The problem is that there are no established groundrules between the PR industry and bloggers. The PR industry as a whole has its own standard while each blogger has his or her own standards. And generally we have to follow the bloggers lead - or move onto the next blogger.

APCO Worldwide and the Council of Public Relations Firms just released a study on the similarities and differences on how public relations executives and bloggers view blogger relations. It confirms common sense, but it also shows me that common sense is not always applied.

The first thing that jumps out to me is that 52% of PR execs think that they and/or their firms do a good job reaching out to bloggers, while 65% of blogger felt otherwise. That means that, essentially, two-thirds of bloggers believe that PR efforts are poor.

This is important for what it says and for what it doesn’t say.

First of all, it means to me that we, as an industry are at least partially failing to effectively create best practices. There are probably too many haphazard efforts that are designed for mass exposure - meaning no effective targeting. And pitches may often empty of any relevance or filled with a false sense of camaraderie. And this probably occurs because a firm gets a client and off they go promoting.

In defense of agencies, however, it’s hard to see how it often could be that much different at times. While I agree PR practitioners should familiarize themselves with a blogger’s subject matter and style, it is impossible to do it on such a large scale. There are no Bacon’s or Cision’s media guide to work off. And clients often want results fast.

This is not to excuse the practice. It means that we in the profession must constantly seek to create methodologies that work for both the client and the blogger. I also see a potential business opportunity here for online directories to enhance their listings and perhaps charge a fee for a higher level of service.

Nevertheless, that gap is too large and the 65% of dissatisfied bloggers is abhorrently high. This brings me to a second point because the study points out that 63% of the bloggers surveyed that they get pitched at least once per week, 42% get pitched once per day, and 27% get pitched more than once per day. I talked to Matt Shaw, the Vice President of the Council of Public Relations Firms to clarify who these bloggers are. Essentially, they were approximately 400 “top” bloggers who responded to their survey.

Now we’re talking. Because it’s those A-List bloggers who are key here. Because they have the ability to make or break this whole blogger relations phenomenon. They’re the ones that are going to be getting pitched to more often - often as we see as being more than once a day.

Part of the problem is seen in the further findings by the study. Only 36% of PR execs agreed with the statement that “Bloggers are journalists and should be treated as such”, yet 62% of these execs nevertheless agreed with the statement “PR firms should reach out to bloggers essentially the same way we do to traditional media.”

This shows me two things. One is that the ways we reach out to traditional media are entirely adequate as methods that can be transferred to reaching out to bloggers. And/or it could mean that PR execs have yet to come to terms as to what the hell bloggers really are in the first place.

I suspect it’s both. Often, an honest respectful engagement can win over a reporter as it can a blogger. But sometimes it can’t . Bloggers themselves often don’t have any standards. They got into blogging and had no idea that they would soon get pitched on an almost daily basis. And what at first may have been flattering has now become annoying.

More on this study to follow…