As these leaders looked ahead to the future of the industry, they all agreed – the road ahead is paved for success, not just because of the way social media and digital tools have evolved the way we build relationships, but because of the changes happening in society. A corporation’s greatest asset is its reputation – and in a world where transparency is of utmost importance to the social consumer and other stakeholders, communications is in a strong position to lead the way.

Further to the discussion on transparency is the question of how, if at all, we ensure that we’re building a reputation for PR as an industry. Do we “PR the PR?” Rather, the focus should be on great communications as it supports business goals – showcasing the success of brands in terms of their reputation, rather than highlighting the PR work that supports it. As communicators, it’s our job to be the standard barriers for reputation and transparency, and making sure that’s what the communications industry is all about.

Check out the video below for Aedhmar’s takeaways from the discussion – and be on the lookout for the March issue of PR Week for more details from the roundtable.

They say people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, but that’s exactly what Google did this week when it accused Microsoft’s Bing of copying its search results. What followed was an all-out war of words between both companies on their corporate blogs and Twitter. Everyone knows Google and Microsoft have been duking it out quietly for years – but this brought their battle in to the public eye like never before.

The initial accusation appeared on SearchEngineLand and explained that Google was running a sting operation to prove Microsoft was stealing its search results. Microsoft initially responded in a post on ZDNet stating outright, “We do not copy Google’s results.” Microsoft later provided more details in a blog post of its own which explained they use opt-in customer data in addition to signals and features to refine search results – but did not state one way or another that they do or do not use Google’s information to do so. Does your head hurt yet?

More back and forth ensued throughout the day – you can read more details on Techmeme’s news ofthe story. Amidst all of the accusations and denials, the gloves came off on Twitter when Microsoft’s  corporate communications lead, Frank Shaw, posted three tweets hoping to put Google on the defense.

Google’s Matt Cutts responded with this tweet:

Google then kicked things up a notch, posting to its blog with a detailed breakdown of the investigation: they had been testing obscure search terms such as “hiybbprqag” and found Bing returned identical search results to Google. Shaw’s tweets and Google’s post triggered another Twitter conversation involving Shaw, Cutts and journalist Dave Winer. The next day, Microsoft posted a final blog, “Setting the record straight,” which stated point blank, “We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop,” and accused Google of rigging the results to make Microsoft look fraudulent.

So what can we take away from this Google-said, Microsoft-said situation, other than the feeling that we just watched two schoolboys fighting on the playground? If nothing else, it’s an interesting use of social media to bypass the messaging gatekeeper. The altercation began as-reported by the media: Google accused Microsoft through SearchEngineLand; Microsoft responded through ZDNet. But once the executives took to their Twitter handles, they could speak without a filter, which allowed them to present their viewpoints in a fast and direct (albeit catty) manner. Another thing to note is the audience of both executives. Shaw has around 3,700 followers – Cutts has an astounding 89,000 – does that have an effect on the fallout of the situation? Perhaps.  As for the winner and loser in this battle – we’ll leave that up to you.

Gone are the days when you could plan out your marketing and public relations programs well in advance and release them on your agenda. The idea of working on new product launch schedules that target some distant point several quarters into the future doesn’t work in today’s always-on world of the web. We’re living in real time now, and if you’re not engaged, then you’re on your way to marketplace irrelevance.

Real time means news breaks over minutes, not days. It means ideas percolate, then suddenly and unpredictably go viral to a global audience. It’s when companies develop (or refine) products or services instantly based on feedback from customers or events in the marketplace. And it’s when a business sees an opportunity and is the first to act on it.                                                                         

Off to the airport,  by Kara Allyson  http://www.flickr.com/photos/kara_allyson/4481876743/sizes/m/

 Are some companies too big to fail? That’s been a hot question in recent years. But when talking about the revolution in real time, we need to turn this question around: Are some companies too big to succeed?  With epochal changes underway, are the largest enterprises, like dinosaurs, too unwieldy to evolve? It’s a scary question that needs to be asked.

After mulling this over, it occurred to me that the top 100 U.S. companies was as good a focus group as any. So I usedthe Fortune 500, the annual list from Fortune magazine that ranks by gross revenue America’s top 500 public corporations.

I sent an inquiry via e-mail to the media-relations department of each of the top 100 companies on the list. I asked each company to tell me how it had adapted to the new realities of the real-time Web. I asked: “In the last year or two, has the structure of your corporate communications team and/or communications processes changed to embrace the real-time digital era? If so, how?” I included my e-mail signature with a link to my site, blog, and Twitter ID in case people wanted to find out more about me right away.

I heard back from just 28 of the Fortune 100 companies.

In itself, that top-line result is not encouraging evidence that the lights are on in corporate America. Even more discouraging was that I could not even reach 11 companies because there was no way to contact them online. And I received tone-deaf canned auto-responses from many, such as Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance, Amazon.com, and Walgreens who did reply.

On the other hand, it was very encouraging to find that a few companies are already very much on the ball. That leads me to hope the others will be able to catch up once they focus on the right questions.  Boeing, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Ford, Intel, Prudential Financial, State Farm Insurance, UPS, Verizon Communications, Wells Fargo, and others who answered my questions, deserve to be recognized as leaders. So let me say this to any senior managers from those companies who might read this: “Your real-time communications team is doing a great job, please give them a pat on the back from me.”

Question my methodology all you like. Okay, so I’m not Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. And I’m not a statistician. But I write for a bunch of publications like EContent and the Huffington Post with many readers. And I’m the author of two global best sellers in a category that should cause PR people to sit up. I write about marketing and PR, for Pete’s sake!So if I can’t find a way to contact your company’s media-relations team, and I can’t get an intelligent response from them—or any response at all—I don’t think it’s a stretch to say something is badly out of whack in your real-time communications infrastructure.

Why is it that only a quarter of the Fortune 100 companies respond in real time to media inquiries? The fastest were the five companies that responded in less than one hour. Twelve of the companies responded the same day I sent the inquiry, and another 11 responded the next day.

A comparison of 2010 stock prices reveals that on average the publicly traded Fortune 100 companies engaged in real-time communications beat the S&P 500 stock index while the others on average underperformed the index.

During the period — closing price on December 31, 2009 through closing price on September 3, 2010 (when my book Real-Time Marketing & PR: How to Instantly Engage Your Market, Connect with Customers, and Create Products that Grow Your Business Now book went to print) — the S&P 500 stock index was down just under one percent. During the period, the average of the publicly traded companies that respond to my inquiry was up three percent while the average of the companies that did not respond were down more than two percent.  In addition, the stock prices of well more than half of the companies that engage in real-time (67%) were up during the eight month period I measured while less than half (only 42%) of those that do not engage in real-time were up during the period I measured.

My analysis provides us with evidence that there is a positive ROI (return on investment) for investing in real-time marketing and public relations. These companies that have developed a real-time mind-set are leaders in more ways than one.

- Guest post by David Meerman Scott http://www.davidmeermanscott.com/bio.htm

Twitter : @dmscott

You can see the spikes in the twitterverse last week, and again this week, in the below chart created in Trendistic, and the blogosphere was ablaze as well. According to a blog post from our sister agency, Beyond, data unveiled what “bordered on 80% negativity toward the Gap logo…The responses ranged from people feeling that the logo looked like it was created in PowerPoint, to concerns about the cliché use of Helvetica, to flat out hatred.”

Additional backlash included a parody Twitter account and a Crap Logo Yourself website.

Two days following the new logo launch, Gap attempted to alleviate the situation by  giving its more than 740K Facebook fans the opportunity to submit ideas for a better logo. This was accompanied by a blog post on Huffington Post by Gap President Marka Hansen encouraging the crowdsourcing logo project. Both were good attempts to remedy the situation in theory, but didn’t change the perception that Gap unveiled a new logo that people hated.

Five days later, the clothing retailer reported in a press release that it would restore its original logo “across all channels.”

The issue is not so much the fact that Gap made a change, but the way in which the change was communicated. With any change like this, you need to get buy-in of those that will be affected by it, ensure they understand the rationale, get them on board for the journey, and ensure there are advocates who can help them through the transition. It’s possible that Gap could have mitigated this negativity in the social space over time. But the company should have gotten in front of this earlier, rather than every step being a reaction to influencers.

Take it from Gap, the power of influencers and social media is real.

It’s no secret that social media vehicles such as Twitter feeds and Facebook updates have changed the way all news is dispersed. And today’s athlete seems to take it to a different level entirely. These athletes talk. A lot. And coaches, who are notoriously control freaks and tight-lipped, aren’t big fans.

This NFL offseason was filled with players Tweets about contract status, Facebook updates about feuds with other players and who they might be visiting in free agency – just a couple years ago that was information largely kept in-house until an organization wanted it disseminated through ESPN, NFL.com, a local beat reporter or any other traditional source.

The week between NFL games has always been a funny time. Coaches hold their official press conferences on Monday afternoon, and historically downplay injuries. The information is often intentionally misleading – for example the quarterback doesn’t have a fractured left ankle, he has a “lower body issue.” No sense tipping the opposition off so they can target a million-dollar extremity any further.  But those smokescreens are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Now, with players directly addressing the masses on social platforms, things are that much tougher for a coach. Payton has taken this into consideration, talking to his team about how Tweeting is a mini news conference, and the importance of keeping team business in house.

As Payton put it on ESPN’s Mike and Mike radio show last month, he’s got 53 leaks in the locker room. 53 players who not only talk to their friends, family and teammates about their issues, but 53 players who might be telling the world that Drew Brees is banged up, or a defensive lineman failed a drug test, or the star running back is seeking  trade. Payton doesn’t want his integrity compromised by lying to a reporter only to have a player expose the truth moments later in a Facebook status update.

The idea of “53 leaks in a locker room” applies to any organization and communications professional as well – it’s not a huge stretch from gridiron to conference room. A coach and his players aren’t all that different from a CEO and their employees. Activity, authenticity, and transparency are important in both arenas. Indulge me as I drive that point home with a football-theme:

First down: Create a social media policy – as Text 100’s Jeremy Woolf shared earlier this year, as few as 29 percent of companies have formal social media policies. He goes on to say, “I’ve seen clients engaging in social media without a policy in place. And if they have a policy, it isn’t being monitored or managed successfully. The barriers to policy creation have much in common with companies that lack a crisis response policy. They tend not to prioritize policies until something goes wrong.”

Second down: Ensure transparency. To put it simply – don’t do what these guys did.

Third down: Empower employees – in the same article Jeremy addressed this point. “First, recognize that social networks are a critical part of human interaction. Those companies that block and discourage access will struggle. Those that realize that social networks are enablers of productivity, customer support, marketing and sales will prosper.” In Rochester we recently worked with a client on a major product launch, but before nailing down our social media activity we researched which employees were active in social media. Then we brought them in the loop about the launch and encouraged them to share key messages with their social networks—only if relevant.  We let them know what content would be available and when, and stressed the importance of being transparent. Rather than worry about company leaks we empowered the employees and made them a part of the extended PR team with great success.

Fourth down: Listen to what’s being said in the social media landscape and react accordingly. A great example of this is Gatorade’s “Mission Control” where employees monitor mentions of the drink and join the conversation where appropriate; it culminates in Gatorade shifting sales and marketing strategies in real time based on that chatter.

Now you’ll have to excuse me. I have to check Tweetdeck for any last minute injury news, it’s time to set my fantasy football lineup.

Last week I had the pleasure of accompanying our CEO, Aedhmar Hynes as she spoke at the Conference Board Corporate Communication and Web 2.0 Conference. The panel, “Overcoming Barriers to Building Digital Relationships,” discussed how many of the “new” rules in social media are in essence the very old rules and fundamental elements of traditional PR.

As companies begin to evaluate new methods of effective communications management using social media, there is a rising trend in the convergence of marketing and PR departments, and their joint efforts in using social media as an engagement tool to reach their consumers directly. As these departmental functions continue to silo into one via social media, the fundamental public relations principles of transparency, authenticity and consistency could not be more relevant.

Panelists alongside Aedhmar included, GM’s Director of Social & Digital Communications, Mary Henige,  Diane Schwartz, VP and Group Publisher of PRNews and Ray Scippa, Director of Internal Communications at ConocoPhillips.

Even with social media on the forefront of most communications and marketing departments, many companies restrict access to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter with fear that employees will spread company-related blasphemy. On the flip side, those organizations that encourage their employees to engage in their social webs often get something beneficial in return.  A Text 100 client, IBM, is a prime example of this thought process. By instilling trust in their employees and allowing them to engage in various social media platforms, they establish an understanding that individuals will be held accountable for anything they “broadcast” on behalf of the company. According to GM’s Mary Henige, there is often a greater risk of restricting access to social media than offering employees the freedom to engage in the social media web.

I caught up with Aedhmar briefly after the panel and she shared some insight from GM’s Mary Henige discussing transparent crisis management via social media:

Odd.  I’m of the opinion that when people wrongly believe you have died, speaking up might actually be a fairly effective means of changing their perceptions.

Here’s the progression as I understand it from Second Life’s birth as the “next big thing,” through to today’s exhumation.

• Second Life launches to great fanfare and hype–>
• Hype starts to fade as (a) companies question the ROI (b) people who loved the game dynamics moved on (c) the press got interested in the next Big Thing –>
• Second Life begins slowly and methodically reinventing itself and sees impressive results in users, time spent on the site, etc….And decides it’s a good idea not to talk about any of this for a long, long time.

The irony for me is in seeing a new media pioneer resort to old-world communications strategies.  When you’ve been in PR long enough, you’ve probably experienced at least a few times working with a white-hot brand.  And you probably rode that wave as far as you possibly could, wringing every ounce of coverage you could out of the attention the media lavished on your client.

But in the age of authenticity, hype is the enemy.  It’s seductive as hell, sure–but 99 times out of a hundred, hype will misrepresent your brand, even while claiming to extol it.

It reminds me of one of my heroes, Bruce Springsteen.  When Springsteen landed on the covers of Time and Newsweek in the same week, way back in 1975, the Boss was distraught by the hype because he saw it for what it was: a real threat to building a life-long relationship with his audience. His answer, though, wasn’t to clam up.  It was to go out and bust his butt doing what he did best: play passionate, marathon rock concerts that converted even the most hard-boiled skeptics.  (He did the same thing a decade later when the Born in the USA hype went nuclear.) Eventually, even as the press coverage dropped to “normal” levels, it started to focus more on the music and the concerts, not the phenomenon.

Yes, hype is a dangerous thing.  But so is silence.  The marketplace is littered with companies and brands that couldn’t live up to the original hype. The only real solution is to communicate–consistently, honestly and transparently.  To keep telling your story.

Second Life, welcome back the the land of the living.  Don’t make the mistake of going dark again.

Photo Credit

That all changed with Reg FD, which was enacted in October 2000. All earnings conference calls are now broadcast to the public, sites like Seeking Alpha make transcripts available in near real time, and SEC filings are also freely available. Intel, for instance, now gets 600 people on the phone for its earnings calls and 3,000 on the webcast. All combined, the information available to the public and reporters has come a very long way in a relatively short time period.

With money, its best to keep it simple. Photo by AMagill.

Here in San Francisco recently, earnings calls and quiet periods took center stage at an IR panel discussion hosted by BusinessWire and moderated by Don Clark, deputy bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal, with Peter Schuman, manager, investor relations at Intel; Alex Hughes, director of investor relations at Dolby Laboratories; Stephen Schrader, partner at Baker & McKenzie; and Jim Jelter, corporate editor at MarketWatch.

The discussion boiled down to how best to communicate financial information. Jim Jelter had perhaps the best advice of the panel when he recommended companies trying to communicate with anyone would do best to keep it simple and to write and say – whatever it is – in plain English.

Likewise, Dolby’s Alex Hughes prefers to keep his company’s earnings scripts very short at around 15 minutes with the remainder of the time devoted to Q&A. The extended Q&A, Hughes said, increases the impact of what is discussed: He attributed a statement made during the scripted part of the call as worth only half the value as the same information provided in response to a question.

That’s a great observation — a higher degree of accessibility and willingness to take questions always seems like the stronger path to take. Next up would be allowing more buy-side investors to ask questions. Incidentally, a breakdown Text 100 did a couple of years ago on conference call structures for 10 major corporations showed the average time devoted to the scripted portion of a call amounted to a third of the call’s length, with the range falling between 20% and 50%. As a reporter, the calls with more Q&A always seemed more genuine and transparent. And simple.

Another topic covered during the panel discussion covered quiet periods, the times when companies restrict communications as executives begin to get insight into material information, such as financial results, before the information is disclosed to investors.

Dolby’s quiet period covers a total of five weeks during which no executives speak with the media. Intel acknowledged a lengthy quiet period covering half of its quarter. And, indeed, an informal study of clients and non-clients undertaken two months ago by Text 100 showed most quiet periods lasting around three weeks, pretty consistent with a 2001 study from NIRI on the topic. But the variance for our informal study was high – with the range of as little as four days to as many as 43 days. The legal guidelines around quiet periods remain unclear, which helps explains the variance, with attorney Stephen Schrader acknowledging that the SEC doesn’t really like “bright line” tests.

Here again we have another argument in support of clarity, plain English and simplicity.

When the news anchors began analyzing the speech and interviewing people from around the world that tuned-in to this event– I realized that this one man, in less than an hour’s time, was able to transform the mindset of millions. Now, that’s talent. But it is also the result of a speech designed with authenticity sitting at its core.

Now more than ever, leaders of government or corporations must communicate authentically to create closer connections with their audiences. As a society, we have witnessed the meltdown of the financial markets, government bailouts and a lot of poor judgment among world and business leaders. As a result, leaders are challenged to break the halo of distrust that exists among their stakeholder groups.

So, how as PR professionals do we help leaders of companies break the halo of distrust and make stronger connections with their employees, customers, partners and shareholders?

I think the key for leaders in today’s society is authentic communications. Organizations should closely examine how the leadership team communicates and identify the best style, tone and delivery method based on a number of external factors, including the social, political and economic environments. By categorizing leadership communications into four distinct styles – Charismatic, Direct, Transformational and Pragmatic –executives can better understand what type of communicator her or she is most like and how his or her style impacts the audience . While there is no one right way to communicate – it is important to adopt a style and tone that best resonates with stakeholders at any given point in time.

Whether it’s a speech to millions of people or an intimate gathering of colleagues – authentic communications help make stronger, memorable connections with stakeholders that have far reaching results. Research has shown that a trusted leader can build a culture of respect among employees, inspire confidence among key stakeholder groups, and help to establish a trusted brand.

What are some of the other best authentic communications you’re seeing from leaders of government or business? Who’s doing it all wrong?

Keynoting at PRSA Digital Impact Conference

While the Public Relations industry does everything possible to become immersed in the social media space it’s presented with the question of “How do you sell Social Media to the CEO?”

This was the topic of a presentation I gave at the PRSA Digital Conference this morning in New York.

From my perspective, as communicators we should adopt a principle we’re already familiar with, understand your audience and get inside the head of the CEO. By understanding their current exposure to Social Media, most likely read in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, they are probably familiar with many of the examples of where social media goes wrong.

Examples such as Amazon.com, Dominos Pizza, or John Mackey, the CEO of Wholefoods will all be top of mind. And in truth they probably have more immediate priorities, the economic downturn, top line growth, reputation, shareholder value and customer satisfaction.

Not surprisingly then, most CEOs are sitting on the sidelines with only 16% of Fortune 500 companies having a public-facing corporate blog and a whopping 48% of them believing that social media lacks relevance to their target stakeholder audience. Our job then is to create a new context. Many of their competitors are already there, their customers are most certainly there and no matter how obscure their business is, there’s a conversation going on somewhere about them that they need to listen to.

But to make any of this a priority we need present it in terms that are relevant. How will improved brand reputation deliver top line growth and ROI, how do they connect with new customers in a more direct manner, how do they protect their reputation by being authentic, how can they avert a crisis before it happens and thus protect shareholder value. Only by answering some of these issues might we get a CEOs attention. The recommendation won’t necessarily be to get the CEO personally engaged in social media, but ensuring they understand it, support it and see the tremendous value it can deliver in practical business terms will take us a long way beyond where we are today.

To follow the ongoing discussion from today’s PRSA Digital Impact Conference, please join the conversation here.

Photo credit: Eric Schwartzman