Archive for “public relations”

PRSA Wikipedia Study – Full of Errors?

04/20/12 Bill Handy Comments (1)

A recent PRSA study is making the news today. The way it was presented in Tulsa, Okla is that business entries have a high degree of inaccuracies and Wikipedia won’t do anything to help. Of course the headline from PRSA likely isn’t helping either, “Survey Finds Majority of Wikipedia Entries Contain Factual Errors” which at its core is incorrect and sensationalistic. The truth is only in the case of Wikipedia articles about companies. Really PRSA, you couldn’t include that clarification?

Like all things, there is much, much, much more to the story. You can read the entire study here and I encourage you to do so.

One part they go to right is this, “Results of the survey indicate a gap exists between public relations professionals and Wikipedia concerning the proper protocol for editing entries.” Perhaps this is the real story.

There are two parts to the study which just doesn’t make sense to me. Before we get to that here is what Wikipedia has to say about PR people making edits:

I work in PR, and would like to fix up the article about the person or company I represent. Is that okay?

Possibly, if you do it in a way that respects Wikipedia’s goal of being an accurate, unbiased source of information.

Please do

remove obvious vandalism (see Help:Reverting if you want to do this as cleanly as possible)
fix minor errors in spelling, grammar, usage, or facts
provide accurate references for information that’s already in the article (and we have a strong preference that the reference/citation be a reliable source)
add or update facts, such as a person’s date or place of birth, a company’s location or number of employees, or details of a recent event – and if you do, please add a reference/citation; otherwise, other editors have no way of knowing if the change is true or not

Please do not

try to use Wikipedia to promote or advertise your client(s) (see our policy on conflict of interest, for details)
remove negative material (exception: material that violates our policy regarding living people)
copy-and-paste content from another site, even if you manage the other site (if you personally own the copyrighted text, see WP:IOWN for requirements for copying it)
add information that cannot be independently verified, or that isn’t significant for an encyclopedia article
add, delete, or modify text that’s particularly controversial or where facts are disputed (again, with the exception of removing unsourced controversial information about living people, per WP:BLP)

If you’re not sure a particular edit will be welcomed, then please ask in advance on the article’s talk page.

Please be aware that other people will edit what you’ve written, and that each article’s history page is public and will reflect exactly what you have changed. If you aren’t willing to accept that, then you should not edit. (from wikipedia FAQ)

Here is what I don’t understand. From the study:

“The most common error types as selected by respondents who indicated that they had errors currently on their company or client’s Wikipedia article were historical information (68.5%, n=287), dates (37.7%, n=153), leadership or board information (37.4%, n=152), financial figures (28.8%, n=117), criticisms (27.1%, n=110), spelling (21.2%, n=86), and other (35.2%, n=143) (see Chart 1). The “other” category included errors about product information, links, locations, general facts, and even company names.”

It would seem to me that each of those errors could be corrected by a PR person and be within the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia.

For those who did make changes the study says the following:

“Of those who have directly edited Wikipedia for their company or client, 32% indicated that their edits always “stuck” (n=112) while 24% said they “stuck” about three quarters of the time (n=85), 21% said about half the time (n=74), 11% said about one quarter of the time (n=39), and 12% said their edits never stuck (n=41) (see Chart 3). In other words, this means that about 77% of edits stick at least half of the time.”

If you’ve ever edited a wikipedia article you know the requirements for doing so are high. Third party verification, no opinion, etc. You see, Wikipedia tries to keep it on the up and up. (see rule re not using Wikipedia to promote or advertise your client). I’ve seen news break on wikipedia only to be kicked out until it can be truly verified. And when it was the content was put back up.

In my opinion, the real value of wikipedia isn’t just the information, but the debate which ensues around that information. The smallest detailes are debated and posters are challenges. My favorite example is the definition of social media. If you look at the conversations you will see this little nugget, “This page was nominated for deletion on 27 July 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep.”

Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. Wikipedia does a great job keeping the two separated. Scratch that – the wiki community does a great job of keeping the two separate.

Comments (1)

Categories : "public relations", ethics, wikipedia

The (new) Definition of Public Relations

04/19/12 Bill Handy Comments (4)

If you missed it, PRSA released a new, crowdsourced definition of public relation. For context, here is the previous definition:

“Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.”

Here is the new definition

“Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”

The reason for the new defintion was to keep pace with the realities of today’s environment. I’m not sure I see much of a difference. There is the emphasis of “Strategic Communications”. I like those words and included them in our company’s name but I don’t think they belong in the definition. PR should exist inside the definition of strategic communications and not the other way around.

There seems to be more of a focus on a win/win, “mutually beneficial relationships”. Reminds me of the old saying, when some tells you its a win/win they mean they won and you lost. I wonder if we found a little “spin” inside the definition.

I also think the definition is oversimplified for what the best of the best PR people do. We don’t just talk our ways to a win/win situation.

I think Edward L. Bernays’s nails the definition of public relations, (from ‘Crystallizing Public Opinion’) ”An applied social science that influences behavior and policy, when communicated effectively, motivates an individual or group to a specific course of action by creating, changing or reinforcing opinions and attitudes. Its ultimate objective is persuasion that results in a certain action which, to succeed, must serve the public interest.”

I like that and have always deferred to it. The objective is clear and path laid out. What I like most is the inclusion of influence. I’ve always said at our root, PR people persuade and influence.

Harold Burson, Chairman of Burson-Marsteller said it best. “We are advocate, and we need to remember that. We are advocates of a particular point of view, our client’s or our employer’s point of view. Ane while we recognize that serving the public interest best serves our client’s interest, we are not journalists. That’s not our job.”

Define it however you like. At the end of the day, if our clients aren’t achieving their objectives, we, PR people, aren’t doing our jobs.

A blog post in progress. As always, please disregard any typos or errors.

Comments (4)

Categories : "public relations", PR 101, Uncategorized

Facebook is stupid and for old people

04/18/12 Bill Handy Comments (21)

“Facebook is stupid and for old people…”

If you haven’t hear that yet, get ready (click through the image to the right to learn more about one such statement) as its making it way around the internet. I’ve heard similar comments about other platforms which have proven to be wrong. Several years ago students in a social media classroom said the same thing about Twitter. Of course back then Facebook was the Almighty God of online engagement.

We’ve seen Facebook and many other social platforms climb the ladder to success but we’ve also seen many others fall by the wayside during their growth, oftentimes shortly after being called the next big thing.

About a year ago I started hearing not so positive comments about Facebook from students. Comments about their parents or grandparents being on, friends they were friends with it no longer wanted to be friends with, the boredom of doing the same thing every day, after some walking away for a while because of an obligation and never return simply because, “I realize how much more productive I was when I wasn’t on Facebook”

I’ve heard similar comments from colleagues, ranging from, “just don’t have anything left to say” or “not finding anything of value there”. We no longer look in awe at the hours dedicated to spending time on facebook. We look at them with a certain disgust.

The Gartner Hype Cycle says that most technology goes through the peak of inflated expectation and then into the trough of disillusionment. The most effective communications professionals don’t look at this as a bad thing. It shakes out the chaff and allows us to really evaluate technology or in these cases platforms, and determine the best way they should be used.

What’s the next big thing?

I used to get this question a lot and thank you Google Plus for finally coming to fruition proving me right albeit a year or two late. The question these days is similar but has a different tone. I think people are getting tired of what the next big thing is going to be simply because every day there is a new next big thing. Instagram, Pinterest, fill in the blank. And, for those who didn’t jump on the next big thing last year they don’t feel any pain as a result. Nothing ventured nothing gained has a brother, nothing ventured, time not wasted.

If I had to predict the future, beyond what the next big thing will be, I would say, Facebook will go on, twitter will go on, Google plus will go, but each will die a death from 1000 paper cuts. More people will find more reasons not to use them and potential new customers will find the same.

This doesn’t mean that people won’t be living in an online world. Far from it. It simply means they will be using platforms that suit their specific need. And what we know about the world right now is that for as many different people that exist there’s an equal number of very specific needs.

Where to invest money and time

If I had to invest in a start-up I wouldn’t invest in the next mass-market endeavor, I would invest in the niche. A company that solves problems for an identified group whose needs haven’t yet been met. If you’re looking for good example, look no further than any small business offering a community based web site. There are thousands.

The same holds true if I had to invest my time energy and effort into a platform for specific communication initiative. A bit of research will pay dividends. And, of none exists, well, you’ve hit the mother load. This isn’t to say Facebook and twitter might not fit the criteria but it is to say that we need to start looking broader and toward more platforms/communities that fit your organizational need and niche. More to the point you need to start looking for broader and more platforms that your organization can fulfill the need and niche of those who are already there.

Gartner Hype Cycle

Death of a thousand paper cuts (creeping normalcy)

Comments (21)

Categories : "public relations", Current Affairs, facebook, PR 101, PR Communication Methods, Public Relations, Social Media, Uncategorized

Tags : Blog hosting services, communications professionals, facebook, Facebook features, Facebook Inc, Google Inc., online engagement, Online social networking, online world, Social information processing, Social Media, Social Media Classroom, Technology/Internet, time energy, twitter, Twitter Inc., Web 2.0, World Wide Web

Dear PR – Google Search plus (is) Your World

01/11/12 Bill Handy Comments (1)

I’ve spent the last twenty-four hours wrapping my arms around Google Search plus Your World. the fundamentals aren’t difficult to understand. In fact they are quite easy. What was perplexing me is how this impacts an organizations ability to effectively communicate to and persuade its customer base. Or, in a more dynamic environment, how to beat your competition.

A recent business insider article “Google plus is way bigger than we thought: it’s totally going to change how the web works” does an excellent job outlining Google’s new approach to search. Of everything covered what I consider to be the most important was “Forget SEO”. That short paragraph nailed the most critical element as it relates to business as usual.

They are correct when they say that suddenly the game of search engine optimization has totally changed. But we have keep in mind it changes only when people are searching on Google. Okay, so that is a huge percentage. But for those using google, how they are using it (logged in or not, logged into google Plus or not, logged into google plus and using Your World or not, etc. I suppose there is a baseline but we already know Google Plus is influencing this.

A few points:

We will see this system continue to invade our daily lives. Growth will be much like what we saw with Facebook and Twitter but here’s the rub – while users have to log into Facebook/Twitter, when it comes to Google we simply launch the internet and use their search engine.

We now have to look at SEO or the ability to get information in front of a person as a result of their search in a completely different light. We have to understand that it’s no longer a sterile environment which after certain amount of time we learn how to ultimately or somewhat work the system and moving search rankings to the top. There will be certain situations that we’re still able to do this but but an opposing proactive approach to leveraging Google plus suddenly creates challenging to compete – especially if you’re not willing to enter the field.

This means war!!! (perhaps hand to hand combat) - Let me present an example. Keep in mind Google plus is going to focus not necessarily on articles or websites but instead on the conversation surrounding those articles and websites. So let’s say, in an effort to support your client you create a website and then run commercials, create a facebook page, twitter account, etc. In a vaccume you could control your customer – they visit your site, engage on your facebook page, follow tweets, etc. But they aren’t in a vaccuume and sooner or later they will google your clients name or the topic related to the product offering. A few weeks ago, when they would Google the name up would pop the website or an article about the product. If you were quicker than your competition you could always stay one step ahead on these search results.

Move to today – if my client wants to compete with your client. We take a similar approach but focus instead on generating conversations through Google Plus. We include your website in a conversation or include key terms and it is likely that conversation is going to show in the search results. In some cases were already seeing that the conversation may actually rank higher than the website itself. I can only imagine that your client is going to be furious that after spending all the money to create a website and create commercial and all we did for our client was to create conversation.

Why PR?

1st PR is better equipped to leverage this approach. If we are doing our job well our focus isn’t to just promote or feed information, it’s to generate a conversation or even better, debate (remember, Google considers tone in search). This is what we (PR) are trained to do. When it comes to debate we aren’t only efficient but effective in this battle. No other industry is prepared to take on this challenge.

Before all you PR folks start high fiving each other – there are still a few challenges ahead. Debate is just one part. You have to understand how the fundamentals of search works. A one-size-fits-all is no longer effective and variables in play or possibly will affect the strategy and approach you take in any effort. This means feet on the ground and constant attention to what is taking place in real time. You can’t just wind this one up and let it go. This means more time spent on project and we are going to have to explain this to our clients. Just saying its part of the cost of doing business isn’t enough.

One last point – expect more change. Google’s objective is to provide their clients the search results they want (filter bubble anyone?. We are fighting against that. We want their clients to get the search results we want. Google will try to stay one step ahead. Not sure we can beat them – but we need to at least keep pace and be ready to turn on a dime again (and again and again).

I plan to continue editing this post (pardon any typos, moving fast today). Lots going through my mind and I’ve already stated a few experiments to see the true ramifications. Will keep you posted.

Comments (1)

Categories : "public relations", Advertising, Google, Google Plus, marketing, Media Relations, Social Media, tips, Uncategorized

Tags : facebook, Facebook Inc, Google, Google Inc., Online social networking, PageRank, search engine, Search engine optimization, search rankings, search results, search works, Social Media, Technology/Internet, twitter, Twitter Inc., Web 2.0

Two Steps to Curb Facebook Trash Talk

12/05/11 Bill Handy Comments (0)

Oklahoma State University is no stranger to issues which generate an enormous amount of conversation. They take place in homes across the US, in dorm rooms, and of course on their Facebook page.

On any average day the conversations are benign. Status updates about news around campus, students posting requests for information, the occasional spam, and the ubiquitous game day posts of “Go Pokes” and “ORANGE!!!” with the equally loud response, “POWER!!!.

Then there are days like the last few weeks. The status updates and the postings on their Facebook page come at a breakneck pace and are oftentimes hard to keep up with. The online conversations (debate) also takes on a new tone which often times moves its way toward the gutter. Managing the breakneck pace and what to do with those posts are a topic for another day. Today we are talking about how to curb trash talk and worse.

Oklahoma State University follows two simple procedures to curb trash talk and to keep the conversation positive and beneficial for those involved or might visit their Facebook page.

First, they are present. They are constantly monitoring, listening and responding to the people who post on the Facebook page, especially in times of high activity. Their presence isn’t exclusive to only crisis. During the snow and ice storm of 2010 they managed their Facebook page in real-time from the offices, keeping fans updated of a variety of related topics. Once everybody went home to batten down for the snowmageddon, they monitored from there. When power went out they took to their phones.

Second, when conversations turn for the worst they simply ask and remind people to take the high road. This is often times the most effective but overlooked option for dealing with upset individuals or persons who have simply taken a more guttural approach to expressing their emotions and opinions. Yesterday, after win over the University of Oklahoma and then the BCS announcement, comments on their Facebook page did just this. The main issue was an over presence of swear words being used to describe any number of different elements. The response was simple – post a message requesting people be mindful of their language (image above). With this one simple action the comments on the Facebook page took a more upbeat tone and many posted comments thanking the University for the gentle reminder. The use of swear words came to an almost screeching halt as people abided by the reminder. My favorite is the person who used the term “poo poo” – well played my friend.

Like a playground without a teacher present, an unmoderated Facebook page can quickly take a turn to chaos. A reminder to be civil is simply the teacher’s whistle reminding all participants that you are present, monitoring and expect only the best of what they have to share.

Nothing earthshattering above, just a reminder the next time all heck breaks loose on your facebook page. Don’t get defensive, don’t challenge, simply ask for some civility. You may be surprised at what you get.

Comments (0)

Categories : "public relations", Crap!, Oklahoma State University, OKState, Social Media, tips

Tags : crisis, facebook, Oklahoma State University, online conversations, Social information processing, teacher, Web 2.0, World Wide Web

Branded LinkedIn Links

12/01/11 Bill Handy Comments (33)

Which looks better this or a branded link (below)

I love LinkedIn and honestly find more value on this one social media platform than just about any other. Especially in a world of business to business, it can be critical for success. Even if someone doesn’t connect with you they might still visit your page (you can tell, but more on that later) to get a sense of what you are about. That single visit can be the make or break for any effort you are involved in.

One of the easiest tricks to polish your page is to brand your links. LinkedIn provides generic terms for the different places you can be found. Company or personal website, portfolio, etc. Most simply choose one of these options and plug in the information. This give their page the same generic look as any other. But there is a way to provide a bit more personal brand to the look and feel of this section. It’s as easy as choosing “other”.

I’ve created a short video tutorial on how to accomplish this and posted it below. Feel free to post your questions, comments and own personal tips below.

linkedin Links from BillHandy on Vimeo.
Creating branded Linkedin Links is easy… really easy.

Comments (33)

Categories : "public relations", Education, Public Relations, Research, Social Media, tips, Uncategorized

Tags : business to business, Collaboration, Community websites, Human Interest, LinkedIn, LinkedIn Open Networker, Online social networking, Social information processing, Social Media, social media platform, Web 2.0

Conference Housekeeping in a Digital Age

11/30/11 Bill Handy Comments (1)

I recently gave a presentation to the American Marketing Association Oklahoma City Chapter and began with this housekeeping request of audience members.

“Please turn on all cell phones, update your Facebook status, text some friends, take a picture and post it to twitpic, or Instagram if you prefer sepia tones. (I ask them to tag any images of me with the hashtag #silverfox, a brand am trying to create for myself without much success.) They are asked to turn on all computers and launch their favorite websites, watch a YouTube video… and share it with friends. If they are so bold they are asked to take a phone call, listen to their favorite song (with our without headphones), read, if anyone still does that, and connect with more people on Google plus.”

This slide was created more than 2 years ago and modified to accommodate new social platforms. The intent of the original message remains, although I think people sometimes miss the point. It is a reflection of the times we live in and is an acceptance of the behaviors of today’s audience – acknowledging that the only thing which has really changed over the years are the tools used to distract. It is not an endorsement of the audience’s actions. Whether you are in a classroom or an auditorium, it is well documented that multitaskers do nothing well but multitask. Furthermore the cognitive retention of those multitasking is paltry in comparison to someone not so distracted.

While this slide is up I talk about the changes I’ve witnessed over the years, the evolutionary nature of the tools used (from notes and sudoko to facebook and Angry Birds) and point out the research regarding multitaskers. The irony is, when I use this slide it seems to reduce the number of devices I see being used for conflicting purposes. I’m not sure if it is the recognition of the negating factores at hand or simply that the audience is more aware of their actions. Regardless, it definetly sets the tone for a very interactive presentation.

Feel free to use it as your own.

The Value of Buying Twitter Followers

06/27/11 Bill Handy Comments (10)

The last few weeks I’ve seen an increase of twitter followers to an account I own but has been dead for almost two years. Three of the new followers were Oklahoma businesses which caught my attention – that and the huge number of followers for what I would consider to be a relatively small business with a small clientele.

I’ve reviewed their accounts and found the following:

They’ve since un-followed me likely because I didn’t follow them back.
They are adding about 250 – 500 followers per week.
Each account has almost identical stats of following and followers.
Tweet streams of their followers bear similarities which would make sense if the businesses were in the same industry, but they aren’t.
Most of the accounts’ tweets are promotional in nature (hey, buy from us! with a link back to the main pages) with little engagement of their followers.
One account with 19,000 followers hasn’t tweeted since Dec. 1, 2010.

My assumption is these businesses have hired a company to handle their social efforts and the client (and perhaps servicing company) has little understanding of the platforms and how they can be used to benefit their organization. I don’t know the objectives so I can’t comment on whether they are being met.

The stats look impressive – 20,000 followers and growing by the day. Their followers’ tweet stream, a new feature offered by twitter, paints a possible different picture and reminds us that size of followers has little to do with value. It’s all about targeting, engaging, and providing value (a few other elements could be tossed in but you get the point). For this Tulsa Doctor, these new followers will likely have little value when you consider they can only have clients who can make it to their office or place an order to be shipped within the U.S.

The bigger issue
The client has likely been sold on an idea which has no real value and is well documented – the number of followers alone has little value to a business. In the PR/Advertising industry, we have a code of ethics which prohibits us from engaging in this type of practice so I can only assume it is someone outside the industry. However that doesn’t stop it from hurting our industry in the long term. In the end, when the client realizes they have received no return on their investment, those of us who abide by ethical standards will be lumped into the same category of shysters.

The value of buying Twitter followers:

To the client – little to nothing. Yes, the followers are impressive. But for the money spent, it is doubtful you will ever see a return.
To the firm providing the service – The immediate value of payment but long term they will lose the client and possibly gain a bad reputation.
To the PR/Advertising industry - Nothing and such practices actually hurt us all.

My conundrum - what to do? I suppose I could call out the company or contact the client and tell them to beware. I wonder if I could get a hat and sidekick to ride along with me on this quest. It wouldn’t be the first time I have battled windmills. I suppose sharing my thoughts here, in the hopes small business owners will trip across this post when they Google “How to increase twitter followers”, will be the end of my quest.

Thoughts?

p.s. I’ve deliberately blurred defining elements of the above twitter account. If something was missed please let me know and I will re-edit. If you are the owner of this account and would like for me to remove it please send me a note and I will be more than happy to replace it with one of the other accounts mentioned above.

Updated – 6:39 p.m. to correct typos and grammatical errors. Really need to proof read a bit more before hitting update.

Comments (10)

Categories : "public relations", Advertising, marketing, PR 101, Social Media, tips, twitter

Tags : Advertising, Flickr, Human Interest, Oklahoma, Online social networking, Social Media, twitter, twitter followers, Twitter Inc., Web 2.0