c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
esc
cancel

Updates from April, 2009

  • Transparency, Where’s The Line?

    mike manuel 9:20 pm on July 26, 2007 | 0 Permalink

    Last night, during a panel talk for MENG, we got on the topic of transparency - it’s one of those multi-faceted subjects that inevitably surfaces in new media talks, and yeah, it’s also probably one of the most grossly overused and under-defined words in the marketer’s vocabulary today.

    Now, in all fairness, transparency can take a lot of different shapes and sizes, but you and I know it when we see it and maybe more important, we know when it’s missing.

    But for a lot of companies, trying to determine just *how* transparent they need to be, particularly in the context of a conversational web, is something that each company has to simply decide for itself. In my experience, it rarely comes naturally or quickly, and be it for better or worse, it takes some trial and error. I think the important thing about transparency is that it’s not just about an outcome, it’s about an effort too. The only way a company can really figure out its own boundaries for transparency in business is if it tries…

    Technorati Tags: , ,

     
  • The Power of Trustiness

    mike manuel 4:03 pm on January 27, 2007 | 0 Permalink

    Trustiness

    Reading about DoTheRightThing reminds me of a conversation I had a while back with a friend where we jokingly talked about how ridiculously easy yet powerful it would be to slap a community-driven "trustiness meter" on every company’s website.

    Think about it…an amazing amount of agony, energy, expense, and burden goes into crafting, shaping and analyzing a brand image and even then, in the end (at best), you really only have a loose interpretation of a brand’s perceived reputation, equity and trust.

    For the public, it’d be a hellofa lot easier to just glance at the trustiness meter, like you do at the star ratings for a hotel or your gas gauge, to determine if a company deserves your time, money or attention. And for the PR and marketing folks, it’d be a hellofa lot easier to just glance at the trustiness meter to determine whether or not you’re gonn’a get out of bed….

    NOTE: The trustiness meter should not be confused with the trust barometer. While both are fictional measures of trust, one was created by a real company, the other over beers.

    Technorati Tags: , , ,

     
  • A Failure To Be Honest…

    mike manuel 2:09 pm on October 16, 2006 | 6 Permalink

    Okay, it’s official, transparency is now the universal PR euphemism for honesty.

    [Richard Edelman: A Commitment]

    Technorati Tags: , ,

     
  • The Importance of Reputation in PR

    mike manuel 9:14 am on May 8, 2006 | 5 Permalink

    I’ve been experimenting with RapLeaf, a new reputation system that launched over the weekend. Mike Arrington aptly calls it “eBay feedback for the rest of the web, and the offline world.” It’s a simple idea, elegantly executed, with tons of potential, but what I find most interesting are the implications this sort of service has for PR practitioners. Bear with me on this….

    Shel Isreal wrote recently about the power of personal brand, specifically, how personal brands are increasingly influencing and shaping our perceptions of various corporate brands. I think you could argue there’s a fine line between “personal brand” and “personal reputation,” they each ultimately represent a subset of qualities and traits that outwardly define you, me, and every other poor sap out there, nothing new here really, however the difference today is that our personal brands, our personal reputations, comes with a degree of permanence and public accessibility — be that for better or worse — thanks to the web.

    Case in point, the major search engines, like Yahoo and Google, are crawling and aggregating the bread crumbs of our digital selves, our digital reputations, making this info discoverable to anyone who seeks it, while the vertical search engines, like Technorati and Sphere, are taking it a step further by focusing on blog content and assigning authority and relevancy metrics to that.

    To me, RapLeaf’s service seems like the next logical step in this progression, where real-world feedback and offline sentiment can now be combined with algorithmic metrics and online measures to capture and represent one’s reputation. I think the message this sends to PR practitioners, particularly consultants and agency folks, is the obvious one: that you’re the keeper of your reputation, manage it diligently, or face the consequences. Write a bad press release, the world can see it. Send a bad pitch, the world can see it. And if you act unethically, the world can now see that too.

    Now, there’s an upside to all this as well, especially in the context of new media. A RapLeaf score has the *potential* to become a unique, at-a-glance qualifier for bloggers, podcasters, etc., who are increasingly being approached, or pitched, by PR folks who might not otherwise disclose their agendas or exercise any degree of transparency. A RapLeaf score could help bloggers and such determine the credibility and trustworthiness of a source, in much the same way that eBay feedback helps buyers and sellers determine who they want to do business with. If this sort of thing was to catch on, the implications for PR would run deep: those that act and operate ethically and responsibly would be largely listened to, and those that don’t, largely ignored. Think about it….

    For now, ironically, under the premise of this post and my own RapLeaf score, I exist among the ignored masses, but you can change that, and so can I…;-)

    mmanuel's Rapleaf Score

    Technorati Tags: , , ,

     
  • Wal-Mart, Edelman & Disclosure

    mike manuel 9:03 am on March 7, 2006 | 4 Permalink

    The NYT takes a *very* interesting look at how Edelman is increasingly engaging bloggers on behalf of Wal-Mart:

    “Under assault as never before, Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its corporate headquarters.”

    The story actually digs into some of the tactics and language that Edelman Senior Account Supervisor Marshall Manson is using in his correspondence with certain bloggers:

    “Mr. Manson, identifying himself as a “blogger myself” who does “online public affairs for Wal-Mart,” began with a bit of flattery: “Just wanted you to know that your post criticizing Maryland’s Wal-Mart health care bill was noticed here and at the corporate headquarters in Bentonville,” he wrote, referring to the city in Arkansas.

    “If you’re interested,” he continued, “I’d like to drop you the occasional update with some newsworthy info about the company and an occasional nugget that you won’t hear about in the M.S.M.” — or mainstream media….”

    “The e-mail messages Mr. Manson has sent to bloggers are structured like typical blog postings, with a pungent sentence or two introducing a link to a news article or release.”

    The story continues, citing a few examples of where pro-Wal-Mart messages that originated from Manson’s correspondence with certain bloggers resurfaced (sometimes verbatim) without disclosure. These instances of course rekindle the ongoing debate about blogger disclosure practices, credibility and transparency — a theme that’s clearly gaining steam among the business dailies lately.

    My two cents: while the NYT seems to jab at a few of the bloggers who actively engage with Manson, from a PR standpoint, the mere fact that the Edelman team is helping to facilitate some level of discussion with ALL of Wal-Mart’s publics, be they big or small, is a smart thing, and something corporate America should embrace and replicate.

    Update: Ryan McGrath, the PR Linker, has a great collection of links and excerpts pertaining to this story.

    [Hat Tip: Blogcrafter]

    Technorati Tags: , , , ,

     
  • Blogger Disclosure Practices Tested

    mike manuel 9:24 am on February 9, 2006 | 6 Permalink

    If nothing else, this piece in the WSJ underscores the argument that bloggers are not journalists, or as Brian Oberkirch rightly puts it, “personal blogs are not media.” Unlike the MSM, disclosure standards and practices in the blogosphere are uniquely defined by each and every blogger, so trust is the only capital that can be built or dissolved, based on how we each *choose* to share or conceal our conflicts of interests when they surface.

    Technorati Tags: , , ,

     
  • Nvidia Accused of Deceptive Forum Tactics

    mike manuel 3:40 pm on February 6, 2006 | 4 Permalink

    The Consumerist along with several other sources are accusing Nvidia and its entertainment PR firm AEG of secretly seeding various gaming forums and communities with hired shills:

    “Graphics chip manufacturer Nvidia, in cooperation with the Arbuthnot Entertainment Group (AEG), had seeded various gaming and PC hardware enthusiast sites with pro-Nvidia shills. That is to say, that AEG would hire employees to create ‘personas’ in various gaming communities, slowly building up the trust of other members by frequent posting unrelated to Nvidia, to later cash in that trust with message board postings talking up the positive qualities of Nvidia’s products.”

    There’s still no proof that Nvidia has actually done this, but where there’s smoke, there’s typically fire and just the hint that this sort of crap is taking place under the guise of “PR” just pisses me off to no end. Especially, when I look at AEG’s website, where they tout a mix of PR and marketing rhetoric, underscoring the importance of community and online engagement and in the same breath touting services that at least on face value, seem to undermine communities and counter corporate participation (e.g., “strategic seeding of viral assets to ensure they are spread far and wide;” “strategic counsel and implementation: fires, misinformation, rumors, leaks”).

    There’s nothing wrong with companies wanting to participate in forums and groups, I think it’s a smart strategy, but come on, not this way, do so openly and transparently and forgo whatever perceived short-term spikes you’ll get in popularity and buzz and focus instead on building real longer-term trust and credibility in your brand.

    Update: Thomas Hawk has posted a lengthy email exchange between him and Nvidia’s PR director over this issue.

    Technorati Tags: , , ,

     
  • The Questionable Influence of Industry Research Firms

    mike manuel 10:48 am on February 6, 2006 | 5 Permalink

    InformationWeek has an interesting, albeit exhaustive feature today on the influence that tech vendors wield over IT research firms:

    “Research firms make their living by offering expert advice to business and technology people about the best ways to invest their IT dollars. It can be invaluable insight, but only if that analysis comes with no strings attached. And on that, there’s no guarantee.  Forrester, Gartner, IDC, and others insist their output is squeaky clean, yet they also rake in millions providing services to the very same companies they monitor, heavyweights like Cisco, IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle.”

    At the core of this story is a sticky question: how credible are industry research firms?

    1010b6ants05_3

    All sorts of companies rely on industry research reports to make important purchasing decisions, while

    the media frequently look to industry analysts for their expertise and objective insights into certain sectors and trends, but in most cases, the money trail clearly leads back to the pocketbooks of the very vendors that dump big dollars into research houses and stand to benefit most from the “objective” positioning of their wares, so it’s fair to ask: is something rotten in the state of Denmark?

    IMO, the need for transparency in practice bleeds through the entire media making business, it just seems of late that the PR industry has singly absorbed the brunt of this particular criticism, so in some small way I’m glad to see the magnifying glass is focusing elsewhere for a change.

    Update: Gartner responds to the InformationWeek story.

    Also See:

    Trust, Friend, or Foe – Industry Analysts (John Welton)

    Technorati Tags: , , ,

    Technorati Tags: , , ,

     
  • The Media Transparency Mambo

    mike manuel 8:41 am on April 25, 2005 | 0 Permalink

    It’s interesting to see more journalists experimenting with media transparency and offering readers a window into how "the media sausage is made."  The latest advocate: CNET’s Rafe Needleman.  Rafe’s using his blog to explore story ideas and angles with his readers before he commits to writing about them in his regular column.

    Update: Rafe’s putting his blog to work this week by asking readers: What are the different types of blogs that small businesses can use?

     
  • PR Week Interviews David Berlind

    mike manuel 7:22 am on March 15, 2005 | 0 Permalink

    Just surfacing for some air and wanted to point at an interesting interview PR Week recently did with David Berlind regarding his experiements in Media Transparency. 

    And down I go…

     
  • Berlind: IT Research Desperately Needs More Transparency

    mike manuel 10:21 pm on March 6, 2005 | 0 Permalink

    David Berlind takes
    the IT research industry to task in his latest post on the Media Transparency
    Channel
    :

    So, I think we’re in agreement that the media needs some
    transparency. And based on what I see being written elsewhere, some PR
    transparency appears to be on order as well. So, what about research? In our
    industry — the tech industry — if there’s a part the business that
    desperately needs more transparency, it’s the research part.

    David shares some insight/examples of how research studies
    and reports can be misleading. He also questions why some of the biggest and
    most authoritative firms (cough, Gartner) fail to divulge their client
    portfolios and more important, potential conflicts of interest. The investment
    industry does this (albeit it was forced to), why can’t/don’t big research
    firms do the same?

    Research transparency is definitely a discussion that needs
    to be had. For example, when presenting scoreboard like research like Gartner’s
    Magic Quandrants, shouldn’t the charts say which of the companies listed in the
    chart are also Gartner clients? Or how about when the press gets pitched on
    "new, earthshattering" results as a proopoint of some vendor’s
    readership?

    Update: Andy Lark and Elizabeth Albrycht
    chime in on the situation.

     
  • TiVo vs. Comcast PR: The Gloves are Coming Off

    mike manuel 11:45 am on March 4, 2005 | 2 Permalink

    Peter Rojas at Engadget shares his perspective on PR depositioning tactics via a recent encounter with Outcast Communications, the firm that represents Tivo:

    So it’s not unusual for us for readers to tip us off on stories (we couldn’t do our job otherwise), but we thought
    there was something funny about someone from OutCast Communications, TiVo’s PR agency, sending us a link to a piece in
    the San Jose Mercury News about the problems people are having with Comcast’s new digital video recorder set top box
    (basically, buggy software = freeze ups). Not that we blame them, it’s just that usually when PR people bug us, it’s to
    pitch a story about a company they work for, not to dust up some dirt on a competitor. We figured there was probably
    some bad blood after the news got out that outgoing CEO Mike Ramsay pulled out of a deal to put TiVo’s software on
    Comcast’s boxes (obviously Comcast managed to figure things out on their own). We have this funny feeling that the
    gloves are about to come off, but we hope that TiVo will simply would focus on making their product better rather than
    trying to highlight the flaws in somebody else’s efforts.

    Lots-o-chatter in the comments section too.