Virgins wanted. Who's next at social media's sacrificial altar?

The wonderful thing about communication is that there's always fresh content to discuss. Take for example two cases where companies found themselves at social media's sacrificial altar this past week: Celeb Boutique and Chick-fil-A. Social media is a game changer for companies. Never before have companies been able to have such a direct and immediate dialog with their customers. Never before have companies been able to communicate in this "in the moment" kind of way.

This is both good and bad. While companies can reach audiences in the fifteen seconds it takes to compose a status update or tweet, consumers also have this same power. In the social media arena, this often gives consumers the upper hand. In this new world, consumers can love you one day and crucify you the next. Corporate executives beware.

The first example comes from Celeb Boutique and their ridiculously poorly timed tweet promoting their Aurora dress. Until a week ago, most people didn't have the Colorado town or the trendy dress on their radar. What transpired across social media is a lesson about how not to make your grand entrance.

  

The morning following last week's horrific shooting in Aurora, "clearly" Aurora was trending on Twitter (among the grown-ups). An employee at Celeb Boutique saw the Twitter trend and couldn't contain her excitement as she fired off her less than 140-character tweet. Celeb Boutique featured a Kim-K inspired dress called the Aurora, so the social media employee mistakenly assumed all the buzz around the world was about their $157 white Aurora dress (that's like totally newsworthy, right?). This, folks, is all it takes to make you the laughing stock of Twitter, Facebook and every other social media outlet. Celeb Boutique soon realized their humongous gaffe and issued an apology, coupled with a convenient excuse for their sheer stupidity. Apparently, their communication was handled abroad and they weren't aware of our news due to the time difference. I'm not sure if blaming the Europeans or the Prime Meridian are valid excuses, but if your clients include Kim K. and other celeb wannabes, I don't suppose it matters much.
Lessons:

1. Always a good idea to look before you tweet.
2. Sometimes it's actually beneficial to have an adult in charge of social media.

Next topic example comes from Chick-fil-A. Once again, they've fumbled with their anti-gay rights stance. This time, the controversy ignited when President Dan Cathy commented that he is “guilty as charged" of defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Cathy's mistake is in not understanding how this proclamation carries the weight of a $4 billion-dollar Goliath when he continues to express it on a public platform.

Cathy's statement caused Jim Henson Co. to back out of a partnership with the chain to make toys for kids' meals. Jim Henson Co. went further by running a full-page ad featuring the Muppets with a statement of their own: as a group embracing diversity, they would not do business with someone they perceived to be discriminatory. Despite a public apology and some backpedaling, the misstep has not gone away. Chick-fil-A's own Facebook page has been a hotbed of controversy as their critics have swarmed their page with hostile posts. The company's Facebook page continues to serve as a battleground for the gay marriage debate, as Chick-fil-A's similarly principled chicken-loving fans have come out in mass to defend the company's position.

It's unclear whether Chick-fil-A can keep alienating so many with this issue. It seems their sales are actually up (and if you believe their loyal Facebook fans, the chains are packing in record crowds during lunch this week). However, this just tells me that right-wing Christians enjoy chicken and will consume large quantities to show loyalty and prove their moral ground. Once this immediate call to eat more chikin subsides, I suspect Chick-fil-A's numbers will dip if they continue to confuse their agenda against gay marriage with the sale of tasty waffle fries. I suppose the Facebook banner advertisement announcing the peach milkshake is back will distract the angry mob somewhat until the dust settles on this one.

 Lessons:

1. If you want to drag religion and politics into the sale of fast food, pray that your side will eat more "chikin'" than the other side.
2. Peach? It's no Shamrock Shake. Seriously.

Martha, is that really you tweeting? Emerging issue of ethics and the practice of ghost tweeting

I recently came across a thought provoking discussion about the practice of ghost tweeting. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, the practice occurs when a communications professional (either agency or internal employee) is tasked to write for social media outlets, but does so in the name of a higher-up (typically the CEO) who is too busy to be tweeting).

When a company creates a Twitter account in the company's name and attaches it to a corporate image or logo, we assume the Tweets are coming from the corporate communications office and represent the "voice" of the company. With the growing popularity of Twitter, many executives and CEOs feel they need to establish Twitter voices of their own. Sometimes they're Twitter-proficient enough to take on this task alone, while other times it's outsourced. The discussion of whether it's ethical for CEOs to create Twitter accounts where someone is posting on their behalf keeps cropping up on industry discussion boards.

My first thought was that it was not a big deal. Was this any different than how marketing has operated for the last century? When I receive a letter promoting the benefits of cable tv, signed by the CEO of Time Warner, I don't really think he wrote or signed the letter personally. I know it's coming from a marketing department on his behalf. I sort of assumed the same thing of high-level business professionals on Twitter; they probably were too busy with all the meetings regarding government bailouts and inflated stock prices important stuff to be tweeting. However, tweeting, unlike direct mail, involves more of a fluid conversation or dialog. Looking at it from this angle, assuming someone's identity on Twitter becomes a different beast. I believe it does inolve some degree of fraud (at least on ethical grounds).

I decided to at look a few high-profile people on Twitter to see how it's handled. I follow Martha Stewart because...well....who doesn't aspire to be more like her?

When I pulled up her profile, there was no disclaimer stating that the tweets were coming from Martha Stewart Enterprises, rather than Martha. Looking at her tweets (many of them were from places where I'd envision Martha tweeting from...like dressing rooms or her chicken coup), it seemed believable that these were her own. I knew with 99.99% certainty this was Martha from the above tweets about not putting too much coriander in your meatballs. Only Martha can joke about meatballs....or coriander. If a social media intern tweeted casual jokes about coriander and meatballs using Martha's name, she'd be out on her ass (chestnut brown pashmina scarf and all).

For the next example, I looked at the highest office out there. Nobody would expect Barack Obama to be composing his own tweets from the Oval Office. I think he'd probably get a lot of backlash if he were tweeting all day instead of attending to corporate bailouts important stuff.

So, how does President Obama have a Twitter presence without tweeting himself? His account openly states that it is run by the #Obama2012 campaign staff and that any personal tweets would be signed by -bo. Michelle's profile is the same, her personal tweets would be signed by -mo.

I've covered the cases of people posting as themselves and people having others post on their behalf (with full disclosure). What happens when a CEO or executive wants both the presence on Twitter and the "appearance" that he's posting himself (making himself look hip with technology), when he is actually using someone on staff to post on his behalf? Is this an ethical area? Is it different than the direct mail letter with his signature that he never wrote or signed? Does the continued dialog or conversation aspect of tweeting make this a type of fraud?

These are questions we don't have answers for in this new and emerging field. As a communications professional, I would always advise to be honest and open about who is posting. Creating profiles where people are misled to believe the CEO is posting is a dangerous game. Who's to say your social media intern hasn't had a drink or two at lunch, and starts posting about coriander meatballs crazy stuff. It's a lot easier to explain and recover if the account clearly stated it wasn't necessarily the CEO tweeting.

You could try the old "my account was hacked" line, but it didn't work so well for Senator Weiner. Complete honesty and disclosure about who is tweeting behind the account is always the best policy.

Is anyone else upset about the coriander meatballs being a joke? Those sounded good, Martha.

Too much communication? When channels of communication are diluted

There's nothing that drives me more crazy than when businesses or organizations practice haphazard communication. All the information is "out there," but too many channels are used to communicate and the information is not consistent. Finding the piece of information I need becomes a monumental task while searching all the competing channels across the web and e-mail.

A clear example of this haphazard communication is with my boys' school (we'll call it Woodbridge Academy). In the first year the school opened, communication was simple: they had a website. While communication wasn't stellar, any information (albeit, limited) was on the school site.

Fast forward six years. Vast communications outlets (including social media channels) coupled with no central communications staff person at the school = communication diarrhea. No other way to say it: it's messy.

Currently we have the external website anyone can see, a login required site for the school community, an e-mail newsletter, e-mail updates, a family council website (with its own newsletter), a newly formed PTO website (which I believe is replacing the family council website), a fundraising website (separate from the school), a booster club website (again, not affiliated with the school), a Facebook page for parents (general topics, started by one parent) and a Facebook page for the PTO. I suspect there may be separate Facebook pages for other groups at the school, but haven't bothered to seek them out. Finally, there's an independent website for the hot lunch program and a special site that coordinates all of the volunteer efforts and opportunities. Exhausted yet? I am.You should see me scrambling at 6:30 on the Monday morning of Spirit Week, trying to figure out what the heck my kids are supposed to wear for the day!

It boggles the mind how many times people equate more communication channels to better communication. While often it is nice to have some different types of channels for customers who have varying access to information, the information needs to be consistent. I want one place where I can find everything I need to know. Instead, I have about a dozen places where something "could be," and I have to start accessing all these various channels to find the specific piece of information I need. On any given day, I have no way of knowing if the updated football schedule is going to be found on the booster club's external site for football or on the internal school site under the "athletics" tab. Often I find three or more different versions of schedules, notices and policies, depending on where I look.

Communication is not just about writing messages and spreading information. A large part of a communicator's role is in evaluating the channels of communication and determining if they are appropriate. A communicator must have a hand in all channels of communication to make sure the messaging is consistent across the board. A communicator must be able to look at redundancies and determine when there are too many sources for communication. Is it better to have 5 different Facebook pages for specific groups or interests at the school, each generating and audience of a few dozen parents, or is it better to encourage all groups to post on the parent page where there is a larger audience of 600?

Every few months a parent at the school posts on the (main) Facebook parent page saying they want to create another page for something more specific (family council, PTO, fund-raising, etc.). I'm always perceived as the negative Nelly when I (nicely) suggest that we should keep all the school information on the one page (where the largest audience will see it). I really don't have the time to be monitoring two dozen spin-off websites and Facebook pages for information relating to the school.

As a communications professional, a lesson can be learned from the above situation. Organizations need someone to take ownership of communications efforts. Without accountability, it's easy for communications to develop into what happened at this school. Communication wasn't any person's specific job, so it became the job of anyone (and everyone) who had any kind of interest in publicizing information. At this point, when the school does get around to hiring someone in this position, it will be a daunting task to untangle all these communications channels and shut a few of the redundant sites down (especially difficult since so many of them are now parent-driven and not official school channels).

As you all know, communication is essential. We just need to be careful that our main channel is not being diluted by so many others with different information. Often, with too many channels to pay attention to, people aren't really paying attention to any of them.

Now, where's the remote?

What's the coolest, trendiest thing in communications?

This question was recently posed on a LinkedIn group. A member was asked this question on a job interview and wanted to know how others would answer.

Some answers from the group included: Pinterest as a marketing tool, content marketing, brand journalism, interactive communications (all valid trends). I recently read a blog suggesting all communications professionals go on a "press release diet" for six months or more, arguing that press release content could easily and effectively be distributed via twitter, blogging, YouTube videos and LinkedIn. The writer suggested we've come so far with all this cutting-edge technology that the press release was now out-dated and no longer an efficient communications tool.

He got slammed (in a polite way). Several communicators jumped in and argued that the press release was still an essential tool. Think smaller town communities and newspapers (many of which are not online). Communicators need to be targeting the least common denominator in their audience, instead of using the "trendiest" communication tools at the expense of missing most of their audience.

Mistake number one among some communications professionals is that everyone out is using the social media with the same ease and frequency. If you're gulping down your morning coffee while hovering over HootSuite to coordinate how you will push content out to your Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn accounts, you are still in the minority. You are also at risk for being out of touch with your audience, who may not be using any of these forms of social media.

Admittedly, there are some industries where marketing and communications are all about social media. I'd imagine that companies like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and HootSuite practice a much different kind of communications since their target market is the social media junkie. Marketing skateboards to twenty-year-olds or used textbooks to college students could similarly benefit from an online and social media communications strategy.

For most communications professionals, it's not so black and white. While advances in social media have opened up some "cool" and different communications channels, it's important to not lose sight of who your audience is and what they are using. To paraphrase one comment, "I can write the most brilliant and engaging 140-character Tweet, but if my audience isn't on Twitter, they don't see the message." This doesn't mean we should be ignoring social media by any means. Social media can and should be used in conjunction with traditional communications tools. Each company's audience is unique and needs to be assessed as such. Every communicator should know what social tools are available -- knowing how to use them is equally as important as assessing whether to use them.

Right now, so many executives and companies are hearing social media buzz words and rushing to hire social media mangers that will take their companies to this new Promised Land. An executive hears something like "Pinning with a purpose," and starts to freak-out because their company doesn't have a presence on Pinterest (and he's not even sure what Pinterest is). Before you know it, a newly hired social media manager is tasked to Tweet and Pin content about motor oil (maybe not to the extreme, but you get the point).

For ordinary communicators promoting ordinary products and services, the "coolest" thing they can bring to the table should always be crafting the message and knowing their audience. That is far cooler than the ability to orchestrate content pushes on your social media dashboard in a single click, even if you're someday able to do it hands-free on a smartphone.

This is how I'll answer the question if I'm ever asked on a job interview.