Under Strict Embargo

So I was asked by PR Week on Monday for my views on Gordon Brown’s Ask the PM initiative on YouTube. This was the latest foray into the online world by Downing Street, following its recent embrace of Twitter. My assessment that Ask the PM “smacks of gimmickry and desperation” led the article and there was a clear consensus from other industry commentators, that this project was a typical case of ‘too little, too late’.

I had a couple of interesting conversations on Friday in response to the piece. These boiled down to the argument that as a Social Media evangelist I should have welcomed the initiative, however imperfect, as a step in the right direction. Sorry to disappoint.

I have come to a view, which has hardened in recent months, that high profile examples of digital tokenism such as Ask the PM, are actually devaluing the real potential of Social Media. They are feeding a scepticism which makes the pioneering work we are doing unnecessarily difficult.

A couple of years ago, the medium was the message when it came to organisations adopting Social Media. This was typified by those endless stories in the national press, with leading youth brands like IBM and PA Consulting opening virtual offices in Second Life. Today, the filter I always use when assessing Social Media initiatives, my own and others, is whether the communication objectives and creative approach are actually more interesting than the digital platform(s) being utilised.

Using this filter, Ask the PM just doesn’t cut it. It’s not a genuine attempt by Gordon Brown to reconnect and really start listening to a disillusioned electorate. His comment at the end of his welcome video, where he states, “I’ll be back to talk to you at some point…” betrays a total lack of understanding of the two-way conversation that Social Media enables. You may as well write a letter and stick it in the post - you’d probably get a quicker reply!

In my mind the YouTube channel, the Twitter feed and whatever online gimmick is announced next, is primarily about metaphor, the hope that some shiny digital zeitgeist will rub off on an increasingly lacklustre Prime Minister. Equally, it’s a clumsy attempt by the new Downing St communications team to ‘get with it’ and reduce the gaping void between their digital approach and that of the Opposition.

As I have been saying a lot this week in new business pitches, Social Media is not a magic wand. Ultimately whatever Stephen Carter and his team try to do, Gordon Brown at heart, will always remain an analogue politician in a digital age.

The rise of Social Media, whether it be blogging, social networks or YouTube has created a new generation of consumer content creators. Individuals now have tools to publish and broadcast their views on your organisation, brand or industry and potentially reach an audience of millions with the simple click of a mouse.

As the content creation generation matures, what are the implications for traditional media? Will today’s news organisations whether in print, TV or online survive and more importantly retain their authority and influence? How are media outlets adapting to the rise in ‘citizen journalism’ and reaching out to the public to help create the news?

Above all, what are the implications of Social Media for the symbiotic relationship between the media and PR industry that has endured for so long? On Wednesday March 26th the Greater London Group is bringing together an expert panel to debate these fundamental issues and attempt to find some answers including:

- Pete Clifton, the BBC’s Head of Editorial Development and Multi-Media Journalism

- Shane Richmond, Communities Editor of Telegraph.co.uk.

- Stephen Davies, Webitpr, Social Media and PR blogger

——————————————————————————————————————–

Cost: Tickets for this event are £20 for CIPR members and £25 for non CIPR members.

Booking: To reserve your place please email Marta Sadowska on marta@dapr.com. Payment in advance by cheque is required. Cheques made payable to CIPR Greater London Group should be sent to Marta Sadowska, Davies Associates, 95 York Street, London W1H 4QG quoting your membership number, email address and contact phone number. An electronic invoice or receipt can be supplied on request. The closing date for bookings is Wed 19 March 2008.

The leading lights of the digital industry gathered in Soho last night for a Chinwag Live event tackling the contentious issue of Measuring Social Media. The expert panel included Alex Burmaster from Nielsen Online, Robin Grant of 1000heads, Ankur Shah Co-founder of Techlightenment, Will McInnes of Nixon McInnes with Jim Sterne from the Web Analytics Association in the chair. While the debate generated a little heat there was a disappointing if not unsurprising, lack of light. The discussion covered four key strands:

1. Can Social Media be measured?

2. If it can, what’s the best way to do it?

3. Do we need an industry standard set of metrics?

4. Would such metrics actually be of interest/any use to the CEO?

The debate resisted the urge to begin by defining Social Media, but many of the difficulties around measurement are rooted in its disparate nature. Counting hits on YouTube, the number of friends on MySpace or downloads of a Facebook application are at the ‘relatively straightforward’ end of the measurement spectrum with blog conversations, product reviews on forums, negative search results etc, at the other. We are all used to measuring clicks but conversations are another matter.

Will made the point early on that there is something counter-intuitive about measuring “conversations” and questioned whether automated monitoring services from the Nielsen’s of this world can attempt to do that effectively. When it comes to analysis of human interactions people are slow and computers are dumb he added. I have to agree, from personal experience in producing social media audits for FTSE 100 companies, the value of those reports are not contained in the statistics but in the commentary and analysis of the data and trends.

Numbers need to be put into context by professionals who understand the company, its products and customers and the industry it is operating in. Apparently we are going to have to wait until 2029 for machines to become as intelligent as man, so until then slow humans and dumb computers are going to need to work better together to generate meaningful insight into Social Media impact. There are no short-cuts or quick fixes, which for those wishing to sell their Social Media expertise is surely a good thing?

Whether the evaluation process would be helped by developing an industry agreed set of metrics was the next question. Some on the panel strongly advocated the sector working together to develop open standards for measurement and effectiveness. Some in the audience shared their own proprietary and largely fluffy approaches, while others argued that it would be an impossible task.

This part of the discussion for me showed the digital industry at its parochial and navel gazing worst. Given the pace at which the landscape is developing, by the point a set of metrics had been agreed (conservatively c.2011) they would have limited relevance to the current reality. My frustration was shared by others in the audience and highlighted by a questioner who hit the nail on the head in arguing that it’s the outcomes rather than the outputs of Social Media which really matter the most to organisations.

In my mind Social Media techniques need to be employed to address specific marketing and business challenges and to reach out to specific audiences. The objectives and desired outcomes of a campaign whether it’s to directly drive sales, mitigate a crisis, reshape a reputation or whatever are going to be so particular to the client concerned that developing a one-size-fits-all set of metrics really misses the point.

Ultimately, with Social Media as with so much else, it’s not measuring it that counts but what you do with it!

Further reviews of the night from Wendy McAuliffe, Stuart Bruce and Seb Mysko.

Check-out this link next week to hear the podcast of the event.

Does the PR industry have a sufficient set of guidelines on the use of Social Media? That’s the argument which has been triggered by Edelman’s Simon Collister and Colin Farrington, DG of the CIPR. Last week Simon called on the CIPR to provide clear guidance on the ethical use of Social Media in a letter to PR Week, which elicited a response from Colin pointing out that the CIPR published its Social Media Guidelines in January 2007 and that Simon had in fact been involved in their development.

Simon has responded on his blog, remembering the guidelines do exist but pointing out that his recommendations were apparently largely ignored. Having read Simon’s detailed submission I’m a little confused. One of the main thrusts of his argument is that social media practice is little different from traditional media relations, and that the guidelines make too much of a distinction. While I would agree that there are many shared principles, I don’t see how that fits with his original plea for the CIPR to produce a clear (and presuambly discrete) set of guidelines on the use of Social Media.

There is also criticism that the Guidelines lack detail. Putting to one side that it would be an impossible task, I don’t think it’s the role of the CIPR to develop a bible on how to use Social Media with tactic-by-tactic step-by-step instructions. That ongoing and constantly evolving process is one which individual agencies and consultants need to tackle in their own way.

I think that there are two key points which need to be considered. Firstly the guidelines should be just that – guidelines which communicate the core principles which should govern the implementation of Social Media PR. Secondly, the guidelines need to be designed to be used by the entire PR industry not the relatively tiny clique of PR practitioners who have been living and breathing Social Media for years.

I regularly help to organise and attend CIPR events and I’m no longer surprised to meet PR directors for some of the UK’s largest brands who are still in the dark about the ‘rules’ of engaging with Social Media. I remember there was a rather parochial debate back in 2006 about whether a separate set of guidelines was in fact necessary for Social Media. In my experience for 90% of ordinary practitioners in 2008 it is still seen as new and discrete and they want specific guidance.

Keeping these points in mind I think the CIPR’s Social Media Guidelines are a good starting point. They don’t preach to the converted and they emphasise the importance of transparency and integrity and the unacceptability of unethical tactics such as astro-turfing and spamming.

One year on since their first publication there have been a number of significant developments which need to be considered for inclusion in the next update of the Guidelines, not least SEO. I agree completely with Simon that they really need to be formally reviewed on a six monthly basis in order to remain relevant. You can call me a radical but perhaps that development and consultation process could even be conducted via a dedicated blog where everyone with a genuine interest can easily contribute, debate and shape the outcome?

I would be the first to admit that the CIPR has been historically slow to embrace social media and there have been some serious missteps along the way, but we are by no means starting from scratch. Going back to Simon’s original point we do need a set of Social Media Guidelines which remain robust and relevant and it would benefit the PR industry for as many practitioners as possible to be involved in their ongoing development.

I’ve already predicted that all things video will be big this year, so very interesting to see a new application called Zannel which is billing itself as the first ‘Instant Media Messaging’ service. The programme allows you to send photos and videos taken with your mobile via sms to appear on your Facebook page as near real-time updates on what you’re up to. There are companies offering elements of this already and a number of start-ups trying to create a platform agnostic Video Twitter. All Facebook has some more detail and highlights the applications ease of use, always the holy grail with any mobile software. Definitely one to watch…

I noticed that the Department for Children, Schools & Families has created a great looking channel on YouTube. While obviously welcoming the fact that the government is using YouTube to communicate with voters, it’s a shame that they seem intent on that communication being one way. Most of the videos currently featured on the channel, including the latest on the launch of the new Children’s Plan have had the comments function disabled.

It looks like another missed opportunity to actively engage with the very young people, parents and teachers covered by the Children’s Plan, via a medium they are all increasingly using.

There is the obvious irony of a ‘no comments’ policy while the clip highlights the importance of listening to and consulting voters. It also begs the question whether the DCFS really understands the new rules of communication when using social media channels. Thankfully it seems to be an error that the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have avoided.

My advice - don’t be afraid Mr Balls, turn the comments on, read them and then really engage.

Martin Sorrell’s WPP Group disappointed the City on Friday with 3rd quarter growth of just 5%, but PR was one of the strongest performing divisions with an 11% increase in revenues to £157m. WPP’s vast portfolio of agencies includes the likes of H&K, Bell Pottinger, BM and Cohn & Wolfe. The Guardian reports that Sorrell is attributing the high growth to social networking. Not PR 2.0 as such, but rather that the attention being paid to social media has apparently highlighted to clients the power of independent editorial, which in turn has boosted PR spend overall.

Sorrell claims that,“Social networking is really recommendation between people about the things that they are interested in and they like… this has stimulated people’s attention in terms of the importance of PR. The people who are going on these sites didn’t want to be monetised, they didn’t want to be advertised to, so again editorial communication is so powerful, they would rather be communities that can exchange views that are untarnished.”

It’s an interesting analysis, but while being in agreement, I think the social networking story is just a small piece in the far wider and more fundamental battle raging between PR and advertising spend. I do love the bit about ‘untarnished’ editorial though, perhaps he was being deliberately ironic?