A note from Carreen Winters: One of the greatest things about working in an agency like MWW Group is the wealth of talent, the diversity of perspective and the new ideas that come from members of the team.  For the next generation of PR leaders, social engagement won’t be a new thing – it will be their thing – like the press conference and the VNR defined “creative” when I was learning the ropes.  (Yes, I am dating myself)  Check out this great post from Farrah Hamid about Nick Kristoff’s use of social gaming…it’s a great read.

Last week, Nick Kristof, famed Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The New York Times, announced the release of a Facebook game based on his award-winning book Half the Sky. The game, reportedly similar in format to the popular FarmVille, will allow players to make micro-donations to humanitarian groups around the world and contribute to their own causes. Kristof’s website says that the game will trigger “real-world, charitable action” in the fight against the oppression of women and girls worldwide, the cause at the center of Half the Sky.

The announcement and a particularly interesting corresponding interview that Kristof conducted with Fast Company raises two important discussions about the increasing relevance of social media and gaming for cause organizations. First, it addresses the opportunities that causes and advocacy organizations have to build awareness and credibility – beyond the extraordinary rallying of the crowds on Facebook and Twitter that we’ve witnessed in the recent past, with movements such as the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street (just to name two).

For an organization advocating for an issue as serious as oppression against women, gaming is certainly a surprising medium to undertake, especially given its relatively frivolous, entertainment-based connotations. Yet, some are commenting on its potential to change the game (yes, pun intended) for advocacy organizations – Kristof’s game for one will engage users not just to become aware of the cause, but actually raise cash and benefit real world schools and refugee camps.

The second discussion the move addresses is the evolving role of opinion journalism, as reporters are increasingly acknowledging the need for the “real, multi-party dialogue with readers”, as Kristof calls it, that social networks enable. When reflecting on his role as an op-ed columnist, Kristof says, “We’re moving from a format where we ‘proclaimed the news’ to the world on a fixed schedule to one where we converse with the world on a 24/7 basis. That does feel like a significant change.” For more from Kristof, you can follow his active updates on Facebook and Twitter.

Kristof’s currently untitled game is expected to launch in late 2012. What do you think? Can the world’s societal issues be changed through online gaming? Leave us your comments below.

fhamid Social Media Arab Spring, Farmville, Half the Sky, Nick Kristof, OWS

Not too long ago, the use of social media by corporations was considered a novelty. Visionaries such as Morgan Johnston at JetBlue and Frank Eliason, then of Comcast, were among the few who responded to customers online early on, and customers were pleasantly surprised to get a response. (Disclosure: JetBlue is an MWW Group client.)

Today, any company that doesn’t actively monitor and engage with consumers online is seen as a dinosaur that doesn’t care about its customers. But social media pioneers know that while this basic “blocking and tackling” of customer engagement is now essential, it’s no longer enough.

To build trust in this new world, companies must understand the new challenges they’ll face:

• An empowered public – Craigslist founder Craig Newmark has called writing online reviews a patriotic duty. New technologies and social media are catalyzing a great power shift in society from large institutions to individuals. The same technology that enabled citizens in the Middle East to organize and overthrow their governments are allowing consumers to band together and speak out against corporate practices or products they don’t like. As David Kirkpatrick recently wrote in a great article in Forbes, “We have entered the age of empowered individuals, who use potent new technologies and harness social media to organize themselves.”  Unhappy customers, who once would tell a handful of friends and family members about their bad experiences are now able to broadcast to the world as part of a permanent online record.
• A cynical public – Thanks to the financial crisis, a growing skepticism of the media, corporate and political scandals, trust in large organizations, from governments to corporations, is at an all-time low.
• Less control of brand – Until a few years ago, companies owned their message and their brand. Today, brands still spend billions of dollars pushing out carefully packaged, focus-tested messaging points. But customers no longer believe or put much stock in these messages. A recent Nielsen study found that 76% of consumers believe recommendations from friends are the most trusted form of advertisement, and increasingly, they’re sharing with their friends using social media.

So what can your company do to be successful in the social media space?

Unless you’re about to come out with the next iPhone model, customers on social media likely aren’t interested in your canned marketing messages. If you think of social media as another way to advertise, you’ll only be tuned out.

To be relevant and part of the social conversation, your messaging must reflect and reinforce that social media is all about community – and that you are an essential, beneficial member of that community. Old-style corporate philanthropy – writing six-figure checks without any engagement – is seen as buying good will (or political favors) rather than building it. Tellingly, many leaders of the biggest web and social media sites – Craig Newmark of Craigslist, Chris Hughes of Facebook, Ev Williams and Biz Stone of Twitter, Pierre Omdiyar of eBay – are now focusing on efforts that benefit the community.

Here are a few ways your company can do this and generate social media buzz:

• Show how your daily operations are important to society.  As one example, with the continued employment crisis, any company that is currently expanding its workforce should actively use social media to recruit candidates.  Of course doing so will not only help show the important role you’re playing in the community by creating jobs but will also help find top candidates.
• Adapt your business to benefit society – but be genuine. Though Wal-Mart has received much criticism in recent years, many environmentalists recognize the enormous positive impact of the retailer’s move to stop selling incandescent light bulbs and switch to more environmentally-friendly packaging for their products.
• Use your company’s unique skills and resources to help. In the immediate aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti, Google’s scientists worked with the State Department to build a “People Finder” database. The company also released Google Earth satellite images to help rescue workers. Similarly, my former employer AT&T as well as Verizon and other U.S. phone companies made all calls to/from Haiti free in the weeks following the earthquake.  Two other examples just announced at the Clinton Global Initiative that are sparking positive online conversations are Pepsi’s public-private partnership in Ethiopia to increase chickpea production, and Microsoft’s “Shape the Future” 3 year initiative to bring computer hardware, software and internet service to 1 million US students from low-income families.
• Find ways to help your community. While a number of companies encourage employees to volunteer, more companies can do well by developing programs that help their customers volunteer and reward them for doing so.
• Don’t think you’re the exception to the rule. As management guru Gary Hamel said in the Kirkpatrick Forbes article, “I don’t think it’s crazy to ask if your CEO is the next Mubarak…. The elites—or managers in companies—no longer control the conversation.”

Your company can be a part of the social business revolution – or get left behind.

About the Author

Richard Robbins, MWW Group Vice President, Senior Digital Strategist, provides senior-level expertise on using digital and social media as an integral part of any successful communications program. He can be reached at rrobbins@mww.com or @rich1.

admin Social Media Craiglist, Employee Engagement, JetBlue, Pepsi, Social Media, Walmart

It’s hard to believe that five years ago there was no twitter.    In a society where we are uber-connected, but task saturated and inundated with content, the simple 140 character format provides the ability to make a statement…quickly.  If its beauty is simplicity, its relevance stems from the access it gives us to celebrities, luminaries and thought leaders outside our normal sphere of influence.  You can follow Ashton, Queen Noor, the White House and Bill Gates.  It provides a feeling of equality and accessibility to all.

The other key to twitter’s success, in my opinion, has been its authenticity.  It’s why characters like Captain Morgan never took off…and why parody twitter handles need to be defined as such. 

Twitter’s unprecedented success lies in its adherence, thus far, to a simple formula – trust + relevance = action. It applies to pretty much every business – and in this case, the millions of people who opened, and use their accounts is the kind of action most brands only dream of.

Yesterday, twitter changed its approach to promoted tweets.  Getting a promoted tweet from a brand or cause I follow is one thing.    Yes, making it stick to the top of my timeline might be a little annoying – but if I’m following you, I’ve pretty much invited your marketing.   But inserting unwelcome, promoted tweets from whomever the twitter algorithm thinks I should hear from seems like crossing the line.  It violates the trust twitter has worked so hard to build – and puts those tweets into the same category as spam.  Will people do the equivalent of an inbox “delete all?”  Too soon to say. 

No doubt many brands will be rushing to get in on the action, and fill twitter’s coffers to access a new marketing channel that might prove to be effective.  But at what price to twitter’s reputation?

cwinters Social Media Ashton Kutcher, Bill Gates, Promoted tweets, Queen Noor, Twitter, White House

In the aftermath of the raid on Bin Laden’s compound, fascinating accounts of what transpired in Pakistan are circulating in the media. One of the most interesting is the New York Times’ piece on how social media once again broke the news while TV anchors only previewed what might be coming. While TV viewers waited, people’s emotions flooded the digital sphere instantaneously, all across the country. Whether the news was right or wrong, it was out there in a big way.

Twitter, which has been at the center of the “Arab Spring” protests across the Middle East, saw its highest rate of posts ever, according to the Times, with an average of 3,440 tweets per second in a less than two-hour time span Sunday evening. And Facebook had more than five million mentions of Bin Laden in the U.S. alone. These two outlets simply cannot be ignored by anyone involved with news cycles – and basically that means almost everyone on the planet.

Many people question whether Twitter and Facebook have a place among the journalism elite.

If you have any doubt, listen to this. According to the Huffington Post, a former defense department official tweeted first, at 10:45 pm.

I’d say that’s journalism in today’s era. Reliably sourced, fast out of the gate and clearly for attribution.
As the team leader for the Reuters Airline, Aerospace and Defense team during 9/11, this phenomenon was a sharp contrast to what happened in the news media a decade ago. On that fateful day in September, TV broke the news with pictures of airplanes flying into the Twin Towers. Our journalists scrambled to cover the impending devastation by calling everyone we knew, running down to Ground Zero, sourcing headlines carefully and refraining from printing anything speculative about what had happened. While our newsroom in a Chicago skyscraper was evacuated due to fears it was also targeted, we hastily grabbed laptops and other reporting tools we’d need to write the story from another location.

Today, all we would need are our cell phones and it is highly possible we wouldn’t have been the first to report what happened.

Kathy Fieweger is on Twitter. You can follow her at @KatFieweger.

kfieweger Social Media Journalism, New York Times Social Media, Osama Bin Laden, Reuters, Twitter

Corporate sponsorship isn’t just for stadiums and celebrity charity events anymore as The Wall Street Journal details in its aptly titled article, “Here, Tweeting is a Class Requirement.”

The piece discusses how several consumer products companies – including Sprint, Levi Strauss and Fox Sports Net – are sponsoring college and graduate classes in return for fresh thinking about their online marketing efforts.

This concept is a definite win-win for everyone involved. The students, charged with developing and executing social media and PR campaigns on behalf of the sponsors, get a chance to learn first-hand about the goals and objectives of these marquee brands, while the companies get fresh ideas from Generation Y on how to leverage social media vehicles like Facebook and Twitter to engage with target audiences.

Presumably, the companies benefit from the insights of a generation who has grown up with the Internet and for whom social networking is a vital part of their daily lives. Students get a break from lectures and term papers while serving as valuable brand ambassadors, who will likely develop into loyal customers.

And while corporate challenges have been integrated into b-school curriculum for years, these examples take corporate sponsorship to a new level and show how integral online initiatives have become for marketers and communications pros alike.

And perhaps, even more importantly, the partnerships present the leaders of tomorrow with tangible, real world experience to build their resumes.

skenney Social Media Facebook, Fox Sports Net, Generation Y, Levi Strauss, Sprint, Twitter

There seems to (finally) be universal acceptance that the old guard news business will soon be a distant memory. Newspapers and magazines are adapting to apps and electronic delivery, in hopes of remaining relevant. We know that television advertising just doesn’t work like it used to….but the plethora of 24/7 television news would suggest that television remains (and will remain) a critical delivery mechanism for news.

This study paints a stark picture for all traditional media, including TV. While TV remains the leading source of national and international news, the Internet is gaining and closing the gap quickly. It’s no surprise that the Internet is the No. 1 source of news for people under 30. Not under 20…under 30. Almost half of people 30 – 49 cite the Internet as their main news source. Television is losing ground very quickly.

What does that mean for PR?

Digital media isn’t the future. It is now. And EVERYONE on your account team needs to be digitally engaged. Being a dig-illiterate will significantly limit your career options, and your relevance to clients.

What does it mean for pop culture?

When it comes to news, we’ve long identified ourselves as being of a certain newscaster generation….beginning with Walter Cronkite. For me, it is the clear memory of trusting Peter Jennings as he reported on the first Gulf War. I am not sure what the Internet equivalent will be…but it is going to be interesting.

cwinters Social Media Digital Media, Internet, Newspapers

Corporate America gets a bad rap for its tendency to over-regulate, and over-policy their employees to death. And in an era of WikiLeaks, whistle-blowing and a general need to CYA, a move to conservatism and lots of policies may even seem prudent. I recall a client that was rolling out a new policy manual – it was thicker than the phone book I used to sit on to reach my Grandmother’s dining room table.

One of the greatest areas of new policy development is social media. In many organizations, social media is perceived as the Wild West of reputational risk…where employees gripe about their bosses, complain about their companies, or worse, use valuable work time for non-work purposes. The rush to regulate and restrict social media may be one of the biggest over-corrections in the past year.

Take, for example, Goldman Sachs, which prohibits the use of Facebook at work. One could argue that for a big bank, the need for clarity and conservatism has never been greater. Except for the fact that Goldman just invested $450 million in Facebook. And demand to get into the Facebook deal was so high, that Goldman Sachs is reportedly closing that investment opportunity two days early. Yet those people tasked with selling the investment value of Facebook can’t even access it at work.

You can’t codify good judgment. And you can’t manage to the outlier….for every employee who spends the day on Facebook rather than working, there are dozens who use social media to connect with colleagues, prospect for clients or customers, or engage with your Company’s stakeholders in a positive and productive way.

Having a social media policy is prudent. Providing employees guidelines about its use for appropriate business benefits, and with good judgment, is something every company should do. But banning its use isn’t a policy….and it won’t protect your reputation. What it will do is firmly entrench your Company with a reputation of being out of touch, and possibly irrelevant, particularly among employees. And in the case of Goldman Sachs, it is a case where their policy is at odds with their investment.

cwinters Social Media Goldman Sachs, WikiLeaks

This week marked World Aids Day – a time when various organizations work to remind us that despite red ribbons, celebrity studded charity balls and the good work of organizations who search for cures, advocate for prevention and tend to the needs of people living with HIV, the AIDS epidemic is still very much an epidemic.

Alicia Key’s charity “Keep a Child Alive” recruited a dozen celebrities, including the immensely popular and digilicous Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake, Usher and more who “sacrificed” their digital lives until they raised $1 million on donations. In theory, a social media pledge campaign for a million dollars should be easy to accomplish. Lady Gaga – just one of their celebrity participants – has 7 million followers, and she is asking them to text a $10 donation. Usher and others are driving people to the campaign website where you can read the last tweet and testaments of the celebrities and pledge. If a fraction of the followers of these celebrities gave $1 dollar, a million dollars would be a walk in the park.

So why would this campaign only have raised $160,000 in its first day, the time when they would have expected to raise the most. At this point, I have to question if they’ve even covered their campaign expenses to build the website and the campaign.

On paper, this is a PR person’s dream campaign. It has a great website. It is provocative. It is clever. Why isn’t it working?

Pundits are suggesting that the $10 donation minimum is too high. Or that the problem is that the celebrities are not tweeting to drum up ongoing support. That may be part of the issue. But I’d suggest it is something even more basic — celebrity endorsement is no longer a guarantee of campaign success. Celebrities sign on to too many causes, too many issues and too many endorsements for their endorsement to be meaningful. Followers don’t equal influence. Just because people digitally follow you doesn’t mean that they are willing to reach in their wallets. People love the glimpse into celebrity lives that social media provides, but it doesn’t necessarily translate into changing behavior.

So what should Keep a Child Alive do now? Certainly they can’t expect these celebrities to be digitally dead indefinitely?

One idea might be to ask these celebrities to put their money where their tweets are…and make personal donations to help drive up the kitty. Another would be to offer people who donate something more valuable to them than unlocking Ryan Seacrest from twitter limbo. (Has anyone even noticed that these celebrities aren’t tweeting?). Maybe a donation should qualify you to win a celebrity encounter. Perhaps anyone who donates via text could download a file that makes one of these celebrities their voicemail message (Hey it’s Usher, leave a message for shorty – we’re too busy fighting AIDS to answer your call.)

But they need to do something, or their campaign is going to be as digitally dead as their celebrities. And no one will even notice.

cwinters General Corporate, Social Media Alicia Keys, Celebrity Endorsements, Keep a Child Alive, Twitter

Can you remember life before Twitter? What began as a forum for 20-somethings to share the most mundane aspects of their lives has morphed into a 140 character Jack of all trades.

People win things on Twitter. We have the Twitter Diet. Twitter Dating (Flitter), Twitter Job Hunting and networking. It’s changed customer service. Social media has started movements for positive change..and pulled off great hoaxes. It’s fundamentally altered Crisis Management (anyone remember little things like Dominoes? Miracle on the Hudson?). It’s even changed the dictionary.

Is there anything Twitter can’t do?

By its very nature, Twitter has captured the hearts and minds of those of us with very short attention spans that are bound to move on to something else. The very appeal of Twitter is the authentic, brief snapshots that a Tweet can give you. Who didn’t love knowing what Ashton & Demi were having for dinner? Or the ability to get their seat changed away from a smelly neighbor on an airplane by simply Tweeting. Or being the first to touch Shaq?

But now that the Twitter-verse is so massive, much of that authentic, spontaneous fun has been replaced by “stuff” that varies in from super interesting and compelling to super-boring. Really, does anyone care that you checked in at Starbucks? Or that you Tweeted about similar things 40 or 50 times over the course of the day?

This is not to say that Twitter, or social media for that matter, are going away. Quite to the contrary. Like Pashminas and Uggs, which enjoyed a massive popularity for a season or two when you just couldn’t get them, then settled in to “wardrobe staple” status, Twitter is here to stay. But as a communications tool, interest in Twitter is already changing from the frenzied client requests to one on a list of “to do’s” – A Twitter strategy is like having a website, issuing a news release or getting to your beat reporters….a must do. But not something that gives you “extra credit” on the communications scorecard.

cwinters Social Media Dominoes, Miracle on the Hudson, Pashminas, Twitter, Uggs

Point to the AP for one of the better headlines I’ve seen recently: “Feds investigate baby bottom complaints”

Now, I’m going to do my best to avoid being too cheeky (1) throughout this post, but I can’t guarantee I have that sort of discipline.

Unfortunately for Procter & Gamble, maker of Pampers, not all is smooth (2) in baby butt land. The article is about the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its investigation to get to the bottom (3) of complaints of “babies and toddlers suffering severe and persistent diaper rashes and blisters that resemble chemical burns” due to a new “Dry Max” diaper Pampers introduced.

Evidently, this whole thing, as many brands are finding out the hard way, got going on Facebook, and found its way into the mainstream media. Both upset parents and Pampers seem to be utilizing the tools available to make their respective cases. When I checked while writing this, the Facebook page serving as the hub of activity – Pampers bring back the OLD CRUISERS/SWADDLERS – had 6,424 fans. Also on the page – the damning evidence! Photos! I would not recommend looking at them though.

Pampers has dismissed these rash (4) claims as it “aimed to contain a public relations threat to its biggest diaper innovation in 25 years,” says Reuters. The company claims, and executives have stated online, that these rumors are false, and they have turned over all safety data to the CPSC.

As we’ve explored on this blog before, parents are a group you do not want to mess with. So, P&G cannot simply ignore it. And it isn’t. P&G is engaging its concerned consumers where they are gathering online.

A lot of self-proclaimed experts, as one quoted by Reuters does, might advocate contrition. But P&G is sticking (rightly, I think) to its guns. The company thinks the facts are on its side – that there is no evidence behind the claims, either presented by others or in its own research. Unfortunately, facts don’t always win the day, and Pampers might do well to at least be open to exploring the issue a bit more rather than making a goofy claim about this being nothing more than some kind of diaper conspiracy among a handful of upset parents.

While this movement against Dry Max might not affect sales or otherwise cause longer-term brand damage, all it takes is a few consumers at a time switching to Huggies.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Crisis Communications, General Corporate, Social Media crisis management, Facebook, P&G, Pampers