Let’s take a moment to talk about some people who have never heard of Twitter, aren’t on Facebook, and were really, genuinely impressed by their introduction to Skype.  I’m talking about my book club, a gathering of eight women in their mid 30’s-early 40’s. 

I’m sure the scenario is familiar: everyone reads the same book, gets together to eat, drink, and discuss.  Yeah, I know the accusations that these groups are just excuses for moms to get together and drink wine – and I’m not denying them.  Let’s just say our particular book group manages to drink AND have really good conversations about the book, too.  Seriously.

Anyway, it was my turn to pick a book and I had in mind Jon Clinch’s Finn: A Novel.  I went to Amazon.com and noticed a link to the author’s blog.  As blogs go, his is not spectacular, but it was engaging, kept relatively up to date, and had a friendly feel.  I read it and noticed that he had made an in-person visit to a book group.  Intrigued about the possibilities, I looked deeper.  Long story short, most of Jon’s visits to book groups are by phone, not in person.  I ended up contacting his publisher, Random House, to schedule a phone call from Jon Clinch to my book group.

Before I ever spoke to Jon, I thought his book, Finn: A Novel, a re-imagining of the life of Huck Finn’s father, was an incredible book: spare, but moving, and compelling, in a way that I hadn’t seen in quite a while in contemporary fiction.  Add to that impression an engaging, funny, heartfelt conversation that my bookgroup had with the author via Skype early in August, and I have now become the dream word-of-mouth marketer.

Honestly: Can there BE better word-of-mouth-marketing than actually getting to chat with a charming, interesting guy whose book you just read?  As a result of that call, all of us have talked up the book and our conversation with Jon Clinch many, many times over the past few weeks. 

After talking with him, I know for sure that Jon does these talks because he really wants to hear what people think of his book.  He said he wrote five books before this, and all were rejected by publishers.  It really came across in the conversation that getting the book published, and getting to talk with people about what they thought of it, is something that brings him a great deal of pride and satisfaction.  That being said, it is certainly true that Jon must hope his efforts will lead to the sale of more books – a perfectly justifiable goal.  But how effective is the word-of-mouth of me and my 7 friends telling everyone we know to read the book – literally, in face-to-face conversations, phone calls, or individualized emails?

From a marketing standpoint, Jon and Random House would generate more sales if “Jon Clinch” and “Finn” were talked about much, much, (really, can I emphasize this: MUCH) more online than they are now.

But, I have to say, I am so glad that I got the chance to have a real, engaging, sincere, hour-long conversation with Mr. Clinch rather than Googling his name and reading who he was Twittering, finding out who he is friends with on Facebook, etc., or even just reading a compendium of interviews he gave.  It was a real social interaction, not “Join the Jon Clinch Facebook Group!” or “Follow me on Twitter!”

Aside from my professional analyses of this experience, I have to finish with an important personal point, a true recommendation from me to you, based on a fantastic experience I had:  First, read Jon’s book, FINN.  Second, if you are a social media maven - unlike me, to be perfectly honest -tell your 25, or 100, or 1000, or however many friends you have online to read it, too. 

And, if you hurry, you can probably even still schedule a phone call.  Unless it’s too late and he has managed to get on Oprah – which will be awesome for him, but may make it a little bit harder for you to schedule your call.

I’ve been thinking about this flogging thing again.

By flogging I mean blogs that are intentionally created to appear to be innocent/detached from an agenda yet push an agenda (often with key insights) for commercial purposes.

WalMarting Across Amercian was a flog.  It was wrong.  It wasn’t advertising - it was PR.

I also think they’re inevitable.  Many people in marketing, advertising, and PR won’t care about transparency and authenticity.  They’ll care about sales, and branding, and stopping that piece of legislation.

Here in DC you’ll have coalitions pop up all the time.  “Citizens for This”, “Americans for That”.  They’ll place ads in major newspapers ( the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USAToday).  But you can’t contact these groups. You’ll see a P.O. Box, an “info@AmericansForThat.org” and if there’s a phone number, you get voice mail.

They’re usually corporate sponsored and often have ties to business groups and their K Street lobbying firms.

On the advertising end, I think top people at agencies and on the client side have the same viewpoint.  Do what needs to get done and don’t screw it up.  Best flogging practices will come about and PRESTO! They’ll be all over the place.

I don’t think we in social media have enough power and influence to stop it.  Period.  I’m writing an article for ZDNet that says essentially that.  When it’s published (likely this week) I’ll point to it.

But for now, what should we do?

Simon Owens has an excellent post over at Bloggasm, The Politics of Digg.  He gives an indepth analysis of how top “Diggers” use and/or game Digg to get high rankings.  It involves a helluva lot.  Relationship building.  Timing.  Persistance.  Free time.

It’s very much now a quid-pro-quo environment.  It’s people developing relationships over time to help one another’s Diggs.  While that may be obvious, the point is that for the top people on Digg, it has become IMPERATIVE for long term success.

One of the people Simon interviewed said, regarding the concept of how important great content is, ““While you need to first find an interesting article, Digg gives you that power to sell it. If you don’t have the power to sell it, then it’s not going to make it to the front page.”

This frankly ruins it for me.  Meaning that the initial idealism behind it is no longer warranted.  But that idealism was misplaced in the first place.

The content that’s pushed to the top on Digg HAS to carry some weight.  It can be gamed and it may not be fully genuine.  But you can’t fake it for too long.

That’s how it become tactical.  Know when to strike.  Know when to participate.  Know when to hold back.  I would imagine it becomes an art.  And art because you’re dealing with the emotions of others who may or may not want to respond.

This takes talent.  Just it does pitching a reporter, speaking to an audience, and writing an ad.

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.

Google’s come up with a great idea.  They’ve apparently reached out to several leading political journalists and bloggers to include their shared Google reader feeds on political stories for “Power Readers in Politics”, a service that people can catch what some of their favorite political prognosticators are following.

The service includes the Readers from the McCain and the Obama campaigns.  But what I like about it best is that they don’t go after the same standard DC media crowd (that’s if they even know what Google Reader is).  Instead, they’ve turned to guys like Patrick Ruffini, one of the founders of The Next Right.

After a while, I’ve gotten sick of the same old go to folks that are nothing more than fallback personalities because assignment editors or producers haven’t bothered to take the time to learn about anyone new.  This changes that.

Check it out.

by Jonathan Trenn

I was about to blog on a bunch of stats that came out of a study put out by Universal McCann about the adaption of social media when I came upon a quote by Senior Vice President of Consumer Insights. In talking about that fact that more and more people are adopting what at least Universal McCann called in their study “social media”, Hutton gave us this gem:

“We’re definitely seeing continual shifts. The great unwashed - those people who have never sent a text message - is getting smaller all the time.”

The Great Unwashed. A most definitely negative description. The Unclean. Sounds like a report from a British imperialist observing the hoards of poverty stricken living in squalor on the Asian subcontinent 100 years ago. My apologies to the Brits if that offended anyone.

I write this because yesterday I began following @BlogActionDay on Twitter. Blog Action Day is an attempt by socially conscious individuals to draw attention to a cause or an issue that Last year, we at Abraham Harrison were associated with a related effort on the environment, so I took notice of this year’s effort. It’s against poverty, be it world poverty or poverty right here at home. Wherever “at home” may be.

But back to the statement - and attitude of Hutton. A Senior VP of Consumer Insights no less. I’m glad he’s got an insight into how we consumers think.

I’ve long felt that one of the biggest problems about advertising is that so often the people that are in the industry feel a sense of superiority over the masses. Or some oddly feel that most everyone who is “with it” thinks like them. Has the same values, same worldviews. Some do, some don’t. And, obviously, those that don’t - the masses - who perhaps may be a bit behind are “The Great Unwashed”.

Here we have the words of someone very high up - a Senior VP - of a major company - Universal McCann - who handles Consumer Insights. What does this show?

It shows me that once again there’s a disconnect between people in corporate thought leadership and, oh, say half the population of the United States. They often can’t relate because they take no time to understand. They’re so self-satisfied they don’t even recognize that what they say smacks of superiority. This lack of understanding leads to a benign self-righteousness that’s often constantly reinforced by like-minded colleagues who also take pride in being on the cutting edge.

A lot of people are in lower middle to lower classes can’t really afford the latest this and the most up-to-date that. A lot of people who are a bit older, or a bit less adapted to certain things. They need not be tagged with negative terms. Especially by those who profess to have great insight.

While it’s true that those of us in advertising tend to be early adopters, we also are informal anthropologists, learning and (to borrow a phrase from Chris Brogan) listening to the different publics out there to get insight. Hence, Hutton’s title, misapplied as it may be.

Some of you will think I’m overreacting. It’s just a phrase you’ll say. So here’s a phrase from me:

Maybe Graeme Hunter can take his insight and Great Washed Ass and do something about poverty for Blog Action Day.

On Thursday I had a chat with Shiv Singh, Vice President of Social Media & Global Strategic Initiatives at AvenueA/Razorfish and the leader of the company’s social media efforts. He’s behind the upcoming launch AdLife, and effort that AA/R and Pluck, the social media technology company.

The service will combine traditional digital marketing - ad units - with social media aspects. In other words, consumer generated content. This sounds like an excellent idea and I hope it works. It’s in it’s early stages and won’t be up and running until this fall.

I’ve never been anti-banner. At first they got too much hype and then became unfairly trashed as being useless. But they still, in my book, put a product or a service name out there, giving would be stakeholders inadvertent exposure.

What AdLife offers is rich media models in which the public - you and me - can contribute to the marketing message. Be it a short product review, a small piece of artwork, a photo. At this point, it can’t include video or audio, but who knows? At some point it may.

I did, and still do, have some concerns about the feature. Some of the content will have to be vetted so as to keep the presentation consistent with the brand. And vetting could lead to client control - doing away with a negative review. But vetting will be needed. Heck, I could add a “Hire Me” post and it could appear all over the place.

Secondly, Shiv mentioned that they’ll be working with their Fortune 100-1000 clients and the ads will probably appear on larger sites. My concern their is that, as we see with social media, targeted sights based on demographic similarities or by interest may be the spots where this plays best. The more targeted, the more people usually want to share information. Sites for moms, for geeks, for sports fans. Many of those sites are huge enough.

The bottom line here is that online marketing needs this. Traditional digital could use a means to involve the viewers of the ads and social media needs to be able to be seen by those who aren’t necessarily looking for it at the time they see it.

I think this will be a success for those reasons.

Thanks to Shiv for the interview and AvenueA/Razorfish PR person Katie Lamkin for setting it up.

I’ve read and reread Michael Arrington’s screed on the state of PR today. No doubt he’s had his full of moronic pitches from overly enthusiastic types pushing this story or that. Many of the pitches will be totally inappropriate for TechCrunch.

If you’re an entrepreneur, he’s got some great basic advice laid out. He also has some dangerous ideas that, once again, show me that some of the people out there who become somewhat successful in a relatively short time have: a tendency to assume that most aspects of marketing are somewhat frivolous and that all one has to do is follow these small steps.

Let’s get right to what he wrote:

So back to practical advice: what do you do if you’re a startup looking for help in getting the word out about your company? First off, don’t hire PR help until the volume of inbound requests by press are simply too much to handle without help. That’s way down the line for most companies.

Until then, take the time to start reading blogs and other publications that cover what you’re doing. Go to an event or two. This should be fun for you, since they’re writing about stuff that you’re spending all your time on. You’ll start to see links to other relevant sites, and before long you’ll fully understand who’s who in the space, get a feel for people’s personalities and passions, etc. Leave a few thoughtful comments. Better yet, start your own blog and link appropriately. And in your leisure time participate in the fascinating conversations occurring on Twitter and FriendFeed.

Suddenly you are no longer just a spectator with an agenda. You are now part of a community. You are a person that gives and takes. Someone who makes the overall network stronger. And I guarantee that after a few weeks of actually participating in the community, you’ll have far better press connections than most of the PR people we deal with daily.

I highlighted that last sentence because it is so stupid. A few weeks? Please. It’s like telling an aspiring actress that all she has to do is go to Hollywood and hang out at a few cool places for a couple of weeks and she’ll have far better connections than most agents.

Other than that, it sounds like great advice. And it is, for the most part. But it’s unrealistic for many. And it consistently spewed out views - seconded by many of the repondees that they’ve got in all under control as far as marketing goes. I’ve seen many a crash and burn from those who take on this mindset. That’s because they don’t think beyond the mindset.

If there’s a shitload of competition out there to break through the noise, then there’s a shitload of competition to break through h noise. Regardless of whom is getting out there amidst the conversations both online and off.

One intrepid PR person, a real fireball by the name of Kel Kelly, came in and told it like it is:

Most of our clients are savvy, Web 2.0-based businesses and they come to us because the “blogosphere only” strategy failed miserably…

…As for having the CEOs do it themselves, I encourage you to get your lips off the crack pipe and step away. Most of my CEOs don’t have time to scratch their ass never mind build and execute a blogosphere strategy or pitch, secure and manage a segment on The Today Show.

Kel is my new best friend. She hit that one out of the park. The problem with Arrington’s point is that applies to so few people. It makes sense, but it often ain’t enough.

I nevertheless think he’s onto something in that entrepreneurs have to be their own evangelists. But I’d say the best thing they could do is enlist the services of a seasoned PR professional that knows the lay of the land…meaning knows the niche industry that the start-up is entering, meaning the key media people and key blogs and bloggers. A sherpa that acts as the initial guide. Press releases aren’t needed. Big pitches aren’t needed. Or at least as much. This type of person should be looked upon at “marketing/PR counsel”, just as an attorney is looked upon as being legal counsel.

Here’s the danger of doing a full fledged DIY strategy:

Time

If you remember, Kel said “Most of my CEOs don’t have time to scratch their ass never mind build and execute a blogosphere strategy or pitch, secure and manage a segment on The Today Show.” Oh, yeah!

So true it’s laughable. Starting and running a business is hard work. It’s a lot of work. It takes boatloads of dedication and time. Getting involved in online conversations and running one’s own blog is hard work. It can be a lot of work, It can take boatloads of dedication and time.

Entrepreneurs are human. I’m going to stereotype, but most of the audience that we’re talking about here are relatively young (under 50). A lot in their thirties. Mostly men. A lot of those have young families. They work 10-15 hour days during the workweek and another 5-8 on a weekend day. When they’re home, they’re going to want to spend time with their spouses and perhaps read their children a bedtime story - that’s if they’re home in time. Spending another 1-3 hours a day reading online mags and blogs is going to be too much. Some can do it. Most can’t.

Better Insight

Timing is everything. A PR person - a good one that is - can see trends coming down the pike. They’ll know editorial calendars. They’ll know when it’s too soon for this or a little late for that. PR people can often get you in the right place at the right time.

They’ll often know which event are worth checking out and which ones may be a waste of time and money.

They’ll know what makes key editors and bloggers take notice. The entrepreneur won’t. Which brings me to my third point…

Hubris

The reality is that, from what I’ve witnessed, the majority of people behind start ups fall overly in love with their products and/or services that they fail to realize that most other people won’t give a shit. They overvalue the relative worth of what they’ve created. They’ll enter conversations all pumped and they won’t necessarily contribute the way they should. They won’t “listen” that much. They don’t understand that most people aren’t going to listen them as well.

They’ll think that they should be featured in the today’s business section and on tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal. A crafty PR person can cut through the hubris and blind enthusiasm and set the record straight.

Just like Kel Kelly did.

by Jonathan Trenn

I just read to intriguing posts on PR.  One is by Michael Arrington on, of course, TechCrunch.    It would be a great piece except that I disagree with his key point.

Then, as Chris pointed out, The PR Roadblock On the Road to Blissful Blogging.  Jeremy Pepper wrote something really special with Can I Get a Big Cup of STFU Please?

I figured I’d add my two cents here, somewhat separate from the above, but nevertheless related to them.

Why PR is a mess?  Because we’ve - in the haste to make money and keep on top of things - have made it that way.  I’m talking PR firms.  PR firms usually hire a slew of young people.  Often, mostly women these days.  They’re enthusiastic.  They’re inexpensive.  They’re green.  That doesn’t mean that they lack talent.  It means they lack experience, contacts, and, at times knowledge.

But that happens in a lot of professions.

The firm will get a client from a pitch.  The CEO of the client or whomever is/are the key person/people at the client firm don’t really understand PR.  They see it as fluff.  They see young women in these positions and see it as if these people are marketing administrators.  But they want press coverage and think that most publications have people sitting around in rooms waiting around faxed press releases or emails or phone calls and their product/service is so great that the editor will stop the presses to do story.

The client may be in a niche field and the PR firm may be generalists.

To get maximum exposure, the PR firm may end up doing a blast fax/email after also using PRNewswire or BusinessWire.  Then the relatively young people follow up.  They don’t have those relationships yet so they may screw up.

Editors and producers and reporters often will get bombarded.  Now it’s bloggers.  But they should realize that it comes with the territory.  For the most part.  I still read blogs that complain - completely legitimately - that they’ll get hit on for everything.

But part of the problem is that the need for PR may outweigh the number of people who understand certain niches, have the contacts, and are available.  So the need for PR then gets spread to these firms that rely on younger people.

So it can be a mess.  But that doens’t mean it’s always wrong.  What agencies need to do is take their new hires and cultivate them.  Give them some extra cash to meet and grab some grub with reporters.  Don’t just teach them your procedures, teach them how to be professionals.  They represent your company.

A note about Abraham Harrison

Oddly, for a virtual company, there’s little disconnect.  Maybe it’s because we’re social media based.  Dealing with bloggers is like suggesting.  Each attempt is not a life and death situation.  Please, please, please cover my client dear editor.  Doesn’t happen.  That’s hard for a virtual  company to pull off.   And AH has.

Jeremy Pepper just wrote a blog post entitled Can I can get a big cup of STFU please? that you should read.  The long story short is that  social media is just one part of public relations and that everything really hinges on relationships and connections:

The fact is that social media is ONE part of public relations. A SMALL part, if you are a good PR person or firm. The other parts are traditional media (while it might be shrinking, it still reaches that middle part of the country), analyst relations, events, and more.

PR is about relationships. It’s about relationships so much that Lowe’s went to Abraham Harrison for it’s recent project because of its relationships with people at Lowe and because of their relationships with bloggers. See - it’s about relationships.

It’s also about writing, about talking, about conveying a story. But, without those relationships, there’s nothing there. And, unfortunately, with the industry’s reliance on technology - let’s email, let’s launch a blog, let’s get Twitter, let’s do this and that … well, you’re failing in PR.

PS: thanks for the shout out, Mr. Jeremy Pepper. Oh, and thank you Lowe for giving us a go.

A couple of years ago I was talking to a friend of mine. She’s the head of a decent sized ad/PR agency here in the DC area. She had someone that had been doing SEO work for her for just a short period move away. It was more project work and he’d no longer be avialble. Now no one else at the agency knew SEO or even SEM.

That’s typical of this area. So I mentioned to her that she had a great opportunity to hire someone to provide the service as it is becoming increasingly important in the marketing world. Her agency would stand out.

She responded by saying that she should look to “hire someone young and train them”. Problem is, no one at the agency was knowledgeable enough to teach anyone anything on SEO. It was hire someone young (read cheap) and have them wing it.

Unfortunately, that’s been the attitude of many ad agencies when it’s come to anything related to online marketing. They don’t seek out to learn best practices first. They don’t play a role in any social media. They don’t got to the same conferences. They don’t think they need to. Because they often don’t respect it.

That’s why a lot of ad agencies will build websites full of flash. It looks great but it takes too long to download and search engines can’t find them. Big mistakes but it’s done all the time. It’s part of their portfolio and the client seems pleased, so they consider themselves experts.

That’s why a lot of marketing agencies shove marketing messages down peoples’ throats on social networks. It doesn’t work that well, but the client is on this site and that site and those sites are currently hot.

That’s why a lot of PR firms use less than transparent methods (like flogs) to push forward brands.

With social media, it’s my guess that it will only get worse. A lot of those same ad agencies and PR firms that are currently resisting social media will be finally adopting it in two or three years. Sure, some will still resist and many that go that route will disappear. But those that do take on social media will do so in typical fashion.

Between now and then, they won’t really have attempted to learn much about social media. Sure, they’ll have an agency blog that they’ll post something on every 11 days. Key people may have a Facebook account. But they won’t know the intricacies of the industry because they’ve never paid attention.

So they won’t care about concepts like authenticity and transparency. They’ve never “done” those two things and they won’t understand why they should start now. It will be inconvenient. Just like the 15 out of 16 that Forrester studied are finding out.

But they’ll want to jump in the game. To say they “get it”. So what will they do? They’ll hire someone young (read cheap) and “train” them.

The people they hire may be right out of school. It’s their first job. They’ll be doing what the ego-driven boss says. This new young employee may be pumped that they’ve got this cool new job at the agency downtown. They may not be up to par on the standards that we’ve talked about for years. Or if they are, they may be so desensitized to ethical breaches that they won’t care.

They’ll go along to get along. After all, MOST PEOPLE DO.

I’m saying this because I think that social media is a couple years away from really taking off. Right now it’s big, but it’s not huge. Marketing communications is changing, but often social media types don’t have a set seat at the table. But those PR firms and ad agencies do. And they’ll have the client’s ear just as the client wants to jump into social media.

So this means these marketing communications companies - which should still outnumber social media agencies by far - that are entering the social media space, will be hiring people without extensive backgounds in this field. These new hirees will be carrying out projects designed by their superiors who’ve got the results-driven “shove it down their throats” mentality. It may not seem right, but today we’ve got different level of honesty. Cutting corners is no big deal. Everyone does it. Why challenge the boss?

So incompetently run campaigns will be more common. They’ll be more cleverly hatched than the ones of today. But they’ll still be done poorly. Many won’t get caught. Some will, sullying the industry. Sort of like the way spammers have hurt email. Clients may not know the difference between actual expertise and fluff because they hadn’t been paying attention to online trends. So they’ll go with their current agencies.

This could be commonplace. It could almost become the norm. It could be the way things are done.

I’m just thinking that the standards and guidelines that we talk about today aren’t going to be respected by many practitioners of tomorrow…because they’re too inconvenient to follow.

For some time now, those in social media have talked of authenticity. We’ve talked of transparency. We’ve said that organizations must engage their stakeholders and listen. They can’t just send out forced marketing messages. If they do, it will fail. They can’t be unauthentic or they’ll lose valuable trust.

We’ll say all of this in online discussions. On blog posts. In online magazines. In podcasts. On Twitter. At conferences. At TweetUps. Podcamps. Everywhere.

And you know what? I completely agree.

But we may be in the minority and it may be - at this point - impossible to do much about it.

I go back to two studies. One is in advertising/marketing and the other is related to PR/marketing.

The advertising study was conducted by Forrester. They found that 15 of 16 social media networking marketing efforts didn’t make the grade. The primary reason? Most of the efforts involved very little listening and instead involved shoving marketing messages down peoples’ throats.

The ad agencies and their client companies aren’t listening to us. The bastards. They ignore what we say. Could it be that most of them don’t read our blogs? Our online magazines? They don’t listen to our podcasts? Follow us on Twitter? Go to our conferences? Attend our TweetUps or Podcamps?

You bet.

But what they do have is the attention of our potential clients. So the agencies pitch that they know social media, they get clients, and then they run lousy campaigns. And they get paid to do this. Often big bucks.

But the point to remember is that they don’t give a hoot what we say.

The other study was done by Millward Brown for Manning Selvage & Lee and PRWeek and pointed out that about 1 out of 5 top marketers admit to having bought advertising in publications in return for favorable coverage.

Then is showed that 10% of senior marketers have developed implicit agreements with editors or reporters to get favorable coverage.

And finally, 8% have admitted to having their company give a gift to an editor or a producer to get a favorable story placed in a publication or program.

Those are bribes. Considered to be highly unethical by pretty much any governing body that touches the issue. PRSA, news associations, publishing associations. But it’s done. Why? It gets results. And results matter. Results get the bills paid.

Now, I’m sure most of you would agree that most ad agencies, large and small and most PR firms, large and small, don’t “get” social media. Hence the 15 out of 16 poor showing. These companies resist the new methods. They may say on their websites that they know what they’re doing, but it’s a bit of a fraud.

I look here in the DC area and we’ve got two events coming up that point to this problem.

One is the week long celebration of DC Adweek. A little more than half of the speakers work for publications. Three from the National Geographic. They’ve got Chris Matthews and David Gregory of NBC speaking. Steve Forbes. People from Business Week and the New Yorker. We’ve got sales reps from MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn to talk about social media.

I’ll rant about this on another post, but the point is where are the strategists?? They aren’t to be found here. Why? That’s because the organizers don’t really get it. They’re missing out on the best minds here in the DC area. The key companies too.

The other event is InterAct 2008. Top thinkers and doers in the digital arena. And it has, among their speakers, the DC people who are kicking ass when it comes to digital marketing. The type of people the local ad club overlooks.

But this is typical. And it’s happening all over the place. Those ad agencies and PR firms that don’t get it often are the lead agencies when it comes to business relationships that do incompetent work (as we see in the Forrester study) or have dubious practices (as we see with the Millward Brown study). Most clients are new to social media or haven’t taken a deep look at it quite yet. And quite, often the first one’s they’ll turn to are their traditional ad agencies or PR firms.

Yet these firms, the ones that many digital strategist have little interaction with, will never admit that they don’t “get” social media. They’ll forge ahead and position themselves as “experts”.

So, I’ll explain what I see the upcoming problem in How Social Media Will Get Screwed, Part Three.

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.