Your social media presence and your PR job hunt

Image from www.wycliffecollege.ca

Ask (almost) anyone in PR these days whether you should have an active presence on social media if you're looking for a job in the industry, and they'll say "yes."

While not every PR job uses social media at this point, most employers want to hire people who keep up with advances in the ways people communicate. After all, if and when their audiences "get there," they want to be ready.

So, get online -- that's the message.

But how much does it matter what you say?

More than you might think.

I've had a couple of interesting conversations recently with people who've discussed this topic with other people, whose position is that they should be able to say whatever's on their mind on social media.

"I shouldn't have to edit myself -- social media is for expressing yourself."

"An employer has no right to hold my opinions against me if I'm otherwise qualified for a job."

Strictly speaking, that's true (within reason). But it's important to remember the importance of context.

It's a fact that we all have the right to free speech (as long as it isn't hate speech). But it's also a fact that most hiring managers do online searches of job candidates -- and that they make judgments based on what they find.

Just as an employer may decide you're not cut out for her corporate office if you show up for your interview dressed for a nightclub, she may make assumptions about your professionalism based on what she finds in your social media footprint.

The online search doesn't take much time -- and if the employer finds you posting things she feels reflect poor personal judgment (e.g. trash-talking current or former employers or clients; expressing discriminatory opinions; appearing to prioritize drinking/drug use over professionalism, etc.), she might just save herself the effort of going any further with the application.

This doesn't usually extend to expressing yourself politically: most employers (unless they are political parties or affiliated organizations) are unlikely to decide against hiring the right person because of their leanings to the right or to the left. (And if they are, you might want to consider carefully whether you want to work for them anyway.)

But if your social media "brand" communicates "I'm a loose cannon" or "I value partying over anything else" or "I discriminate against people for [insert reason here]," that says something to an employer.

It says "I'm going to be difficult to manage, and I may create problems for the organization both internally and externally."

Think before you post

Just remember: anything you post to social media is "out there" and can be found by a potential employer.

Do you have a right to express yourself? Yes, you do.

Does the employer have the right to choose job candidates based on her own judgement? You bet she does.

If you're looking for work (in PR or anywhere), what the employer perceives trumps everything else. It won't matter what the circumstances were behind that series of tweets or Facebook messages or blog posts -- you may never be given the opportunity to explain the context for a posting that casts you in an undesirable professional light.

You might send joking tweets which your friends know to be sarcastic -- but if a potential employer sees those tweets without knowing the context, they could lead to incorrect conclusions about your values and professionalism.

Those incorrect conclusions could cost you a job interview... and you might never know what put you out of the running for a job you wanted.

Tire-kicking on Google+

Late last week, I succumbed to the temptation and joined Google+, the latest shiny new thing social media has to offer.

A word of warning before I begin: I am a beginner on this platform. I haven't spent more than a few hours on Google+, and so am no expert. If I get anything wrong in this post, please do me and my readers the favour of correcting me in the comments, below - thanks!

Mashable.com has provided an overview of Google+ and what it offers compared to other social media networks like Facebook and Twitter; a more detailed review is posted here. 

My early impressions

I think Google+ has huge potential, if -- and it's a big if -- Google can get people to adopt it. 

Here's what I can already see being huge selling features.

• Easy grouping of friends/followers/people. This is one of the big ones, for me. As an instructor in a college, I have a large number of students who are active in social media, many of whom follow me on Twitter for the benefit of the links I share, and many of whom also send friend requests on Facebook. To keep things fair and ensure no-one thinks any classmates have any "inside track" information others don't, I've declined current student Facebook requests (with an explanation as to why). If they still want to be Facebook friends after they graduate, I'm happy to add them - but not before then.  With Google+, I can easily categorize people according to the kinds of information I intend to share with them. I can create a circle for current students - and once they graduate, can move them out into my custom "Communicators" circle if I want to. WIth drag-and-drop functionality, it couldn't really be easier.
• Easy selectiveness when posting to different groups of friends/followers/people. Related to my last point, if I want to post about something personal or family-related (I'm under no illusion that students who connect with me on social media for the PR-related links also want to know about all the cute things my kid says, cute as they may be), I can choose to only send it to my "Family" and "Friends" circles.  Some of my "Family" and "Friends" also qualify as "Communicators," who'd likely receive most of the links I currently send out on Twitter to PR-related content of interest, so they can be in both circles. At the other end, I have to think it would also make the experience more enjoyable for all my connections, because they're receiving less content from me that doesn't interest them.  Some of my Twitter followers would likely welcome my creation of a "Tennis" circle, saving them from having to read my cheers and rants during Grand Slam tournaments. And I could target administrative messages related to the Creative Communications program to students currently in it. Twitter's hashtag allows people to opt in to such messages today -- but it doesn't have a way for other followers to opt out, without unfollowing altogether (at least, to my knowledge).
• Potential, down the road, to streamline the number of social networks you're on (i.e. saving time). Just think: if everyone was using Google+, you could check and post to one site, and reach all the people you want to reach with the content you feel they would be interested in. This wouldn't just translate into time saved toggling back and forth between platforms -- it could also reduce time spent trying to refer back to something. "Where did I read that? On Twitter? Facebook? LinkedIn?"
• Group video chat. I watched my students this past winter tweet back and forth about school projects they were furiously working on, to deadline. I can only imagine a Google+ enabled class would have an even easier time of getting together to discuss ideas, issues, and what constitutes a typo late at night once everyone's left campus. Same goes, of course, for collaborators in the professional world, and anyone wanting to chat with others in different locations. Video chats involving parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles will be easier to manage here than getting everyone on Skype (at least, in my experience). Not having used the new Facebook video chat service yet, I can't speak to whether it's equivalent.
• Integration between social and the rest of the content Google has access to. I haven't used it enough to really experience this yet, but if I'm reading Mashable correctly, Google+ will make it easier for you to find content that interests you, from both within and outside your social networks. If it's done right, this has the potential to make a social network even more useful, as we now won't be bound by the limitations of our networks.

But here's why I'm not calling the game for Google+ quite yet.

On top of Google's successful execution of this whole thing, it still relies on people to leave where they are and come to this new place -- not an easy sell.

Ask any marketer about the difference in the cost of keeping an existing customer vs. winning a new one, and you'll find out that getting people to leave things they know to try things they don't isn't easy. Add to that the "stickiness" factor inherent in Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn's existing networks, and it's even tougher.

Without the people you want to interact with on Google+, it really won't offer the value for you; it'll just be one more login to add to your social media cycle. 

With more than 750 million users worldwide, Facebook has a pretty good lock on us, at least in the short term. Here's a screen shot I grabbed earlier today from Facebook (you can find these and other stats here) that gives you a sense of the leg up Facebook currently enjoys over the new game in town (which, Mashable is reporting, at least one observer is estimating at almost 10 million users in a couple of weeks, which is nothing to sneeze at either!).

Facebook's recent launch of video chat powered by Skype is, I'm sure, meant to address the new competition, showing Facebook doesn't plan to give Google+ much slack.

But to my mind, Twitter has more to worry about than Facebook. Mathew Ingram writes a good article on gigaom.com looking at Twitter vs. Google+ (I was alerted to this article on Google+ this afternoon by blogger ChrisD) and I have to think Twitter has more to fear than Facebook because of the way we use it.

• While Snooki may be using Twitter, your grandmother is likely on Facebook. 
• I (mostly) use Twitter to share information of interest with people who share interests with me (public relations, tennis, Red River College); I (mostly) use Facebook to connect with family and friends about other stuff.

Why do I raise these points?

Your grandma, and many of my non-office-dwelling family and friends, aren't looking for all the functionality Google+ brings. They want news, and community, and photos, and Scrabble, and Farmville (yeesh). Right now, there's no reason for them to move over there.

Snooki and celebrity tweeters, on the other hand, want whatever platform will give them access to their fans. Office dwellers and digital road warriors want whatever will be most effective and efficient. Twitter's real-time, un-gated news feed has offered that until now -- and given everything else the new kid on the block is offering, I think Twitter may see the biggest migration to Google+.

It's back to experimenting for me. If you have observations to share or any corrections to make, please comment!

 

On Burson-Marsteller, Facebook, and ethics in PR

News broke this week about global PR giant Burson-Marsteller pitching untrue stories about how Google's Gmail Social Circle feature breaks FTC rules on users' privacy. 

According to various reports, two Burson-Marsteller account executives, one a former CNBC reporter and the other a former political columnist, attempted to persuade influential bloggers and mainstream media to report on (ultimately false) allegations of Google's violations of privacy rules -- and refused to name their client. (The emails between Burson-Marsteller's John Mercurio and blogger Christopher Soghoian, whom Mercurio was trying to persuade to write an Op-Ed on the topic, are posted here.)

Honesty and transparency in PR: the rules are clear

PR has been fighting its own bad PR for at least a generation. An article on the story in AdWeek included the following infuriating (to me) statement: "While sleazy PR firms trying to spread scandalous stories is old hat..."

Ethical, moral, honest practitioners of public relations face this kind of slag on a regular basis, thanks to unethical, immoral, dishonest practitioners of backroom dealings who've come before them and branded their work "PR."

I've heard it myself from former journalists, in the context of joking around. I'm in PR, so I must be all about spin, right? I'm likely a very good liar, right? I must be, I'm in PR!

No, not right. (And on my cranky days, not even funny.) But what can we do about it? It's not as though those impressions are baseless; PR has gotten that reputation because people speaking on behalf of organizations, in the role of "public relations," have taken actions that have brought that reputation on us all.

Here's what we can do: prove that reputation wrong. 

The best thing PR people can do to combat PR's bad rep is to work honestly and ethically. Nothing is more persuasive than personal experience: most journalists, whether or not they buy into the "PR people are liars" storyline overall, have worked with PR people who deal in good faith, and whom they trust. The more above-board PR people they deal with, the less they'll be inclined to believe the old story.

Many PR professionals like me join professional associations like the Canadian Public Relations Society, the International Association of Business Communicators, and the Public Relations Society of America, among others. Each of these associations has a code of ethics or of professional business conduct that details the requirements for its members to conduct business ethically, honestly and transparently.  You don't need to belong to one of these associations to perform ethically, of course -- but by actively participating in them, you make a commitment to your clients that your work will follow their publicly-stated standards.

The more real PR people consistently deal openly and ethically with their audiences, the less that "sleazy PR firm" image will endure.

At least, I hope.

A point worth making

As I followed this story on Twitter yesterday, I saw a Tweet from British PR educator Heather Yaxley that said something I had been thinking.

(Thank you to @jgombita for re-tweeting it to her followers, including me.)

It's not lost on me that the PR practitioners in question are both former journalists. I wonder whether they also joked about how sleazy PR people are, in their journalism days. 

Even the big guys have to follow the rules.

Here is Burson-Marsteller's statement, posted earlier today on its website.

"Now that Facebook has come forward, we can confirm that we undertook an assignment for that client.

The client requested that its name be withheld on the grounds that it was merely asking to bring publicly available information to light and such information could then be independently and easily replicated by any media.  Any information brought to media attention raised fair questions, was in the public domain, and was in any event for the media to verify through independent sources.

Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined. When talking to the media, we need to adhere to strict standards of transparency about clients, and this incident underscores the absolute importance of that principle."

Without its reputation, the product of integrity and ethical dealings, a PR firm can't be successful in building relationships with any of its audiences. Professional PR people almost have to be more honest than everyone else -- or they'll be out of work.

Burson-Marsteller has a big job to do. 

The Lo Pub: how small businesses can use Facebook in crisis management

A widely-reported brawl broke out on a downtown Winnipeg street outside The Lo Pub late Monday night. At least one of the participants reportedly had been in the bar earlier in the evening, but the altercation itself took place outside The Lo Pub's property.

Winnipeg media on Tuesday were all over the story, each time identifying the brawl with The Lo Pub.

For any of my readers unfamiliar with Winnipeg, stories of senseless violence and alcohol-fuelled acts of idiocy in our downtown are, unfortunately, not that unusual. So when people hear “stabbing,” “downtown,” and “The Lo Pub” together in a story, there's an assumed association between the three. The Lo Pub, the unaware reader might assume, must be another one of those violent places you’re not smart to choose if you’re just looking for good music without the thrill of danger.

The thing is, from what I’m told by my students and others who've been in recent years, it's not. I'm told The Lo Pub is a friendly, safe, comfortable place where young musicians are welcome to find an audience.

The Lo Pub's owner Jack Jonasson may not be a PR guy, but he has the right instincts when it comes to dealing with a potentially business-threatening situation like this one. Through his interviews with the local media he communicated key messages including the fact that the brawl didn't happen at The Lo Pub, that he hasn't seen a violent incident like this in the entire time he has owned it, and that he and his establishment don't tolerate violence. He also makes it clear that, despite all that, he will do whatever he can to prevent something similar from happening again.

So Jonasson deserves a tip of the hat for speaking to local media and getting his messages out there, rather than letting the headlines tell his story. But he didn’t stop there; yesterday, he backed up his messages in the media with a letter to the members of The Lo Pub’s Facebook group (at this writing, more than 1600 people), in which he reiterated his key messages and underscored his personal position against violence.

Here’s the message:

"Hey Folks,

As I'm sure most of you have heard, there was an incident outside the bar and off the property yesterday that culminated in 20 people fighting and 4 people being taken to hospital with non-life threatening injuries. I thought it prudent to start a dialogue with you all about it so that you can hear the facts from my mouth instead of some of the factually inaccurate reporting that has occurred today.

These people were patrons of the bar earlier in the night, but were not regulars or people that any of us have ever seen here before. They were here for a performance for an out of town hip hop act that was performing as a part of Mass Appeal Mondays, which is a weekly event that has been occurring here since December without incident.

Let me be clear that this unfortunate and horrible incident is unrelated to Mass Appeal, the promoters or performers of the evening. This was (from what I understand) a beef between two individuals that escalated to two groups of friends fighting OFF THE PROPERTY - an isolated incident. There was no indication inside the bar that anything was amiss - In fact, up until 3 minutes before the fight started, everything inside the bar was shaping up to be a great night - the atmosphere was light, people were having fun, and the music was great.

To say that what happened has deeply affected me would be a gross understatement. I'm not a violent person, and don't understand what brings people to the place where these kinds of actions are their only recourse for solving conflict. Why can't we talk about our problems and come up with a solution instead of resorting to violence?

For the two and a half years that I've been running this place, I've worked long and difficult hours helping to develop our downtown and this place into a safe, comfortable and inviting community for everyone that walks in the door, and I think we've done a great job. We've had two and a half years with no major problems, all while helping to support the music and arts community in Winnipeg in a way that few others are or can.

Unfortunately, for the time being we will be stopping Mass Appeal Mondays. As well, we will be assessing how we operate to ensure that this kind of incident or anything remotely close to it will never happen again.

I implore you all not to let the actions of a few troubled individuals change your perceptions of what we do here. We are committed to seeing the blood, sweat, love and tears that we've poured into this place through. This place has developed into a community, and I consider all of you my family, so when something like this occurs, it hurts.

This Thursday at 4:30, we're inviting all of you down here to show your support for this place. Come have a drink. Enjoy some of the delicious vegetarian and vegan food we have on our new menu. Meet with friends. Create some memories. Show those who fight violence with violence that there is a better way.

Jack Jonasson, Publican"

Jonasson knows that he can speak directly to many of the people who support his and his employees’ livelihoods through his Facebook group. While interviews given to mainstream media may or may not reach the people who actually frequent The Lo Pub, Facebook offers a direct link to 1600 people who have volunteered to receive information from him.

Are they an interested audience? Yes.
Are they an easy-to-reach audience? Thanks to Facebook, yes.
Are they an audience that matters to his business? Absolutely.

If you look at the Wall for The Lo Pub's Facebook group, you’ll see comment after comment praising Jonasson for what he’s done with the establishment, and showing continued support for it despite the events of Monday night. In an email today, Jonasson told me he has received more than 200 emails of support from his community of customers since the incident.

I’ll be interested to hear how many people come to The Lo Pub on Thursday to show their support and their stance against violence; I have a feeling it’ll be a great turnout.

Facebook is making us the gatekeepers

In PR, we have traditionally referred to the mainstream media as "gatekeepers;" since they controlled the most credible mass media, they decided which information was communicated to mass audiences, and in what way.

Now, Brand Republic is reporting this week, Facebook may be turning the tables.

Research by Hitwise suggests that Facebook has become the fourth-largest distributor of online news content, behind Google, Yahoo! and MSN.

That means that, increasingly, we are deciding what news to read online based on what our friends recommend. Our friends -- and we, to our own followers -- are becoming the gatekeepers who determine which news outlets get the audience.

Given the competition mainstream media are facing from online sources, they need readers/listeners/viewers now more than ever; and, if Hitwise's findings suggest a trend that will keep growing, social media users will play a major role in determining which ones survive.

Feeling empowered?

Think mainstream media is dead?

Think again.

Yesterday morning, many Winnipeggers (myself included) started the day with a bit of a challenge: how to get ready for work/school/whatever with low (and in some cases, no) water pressure. According to this morning’s Winnipeg Free Press, at around 7:30 a.m. a power outage affected three of the city’s water pumping stations, which caused the problem.

In my house, our first instinct was to check our own pipes (no problems). Second: check the street to see whether there’d been a water main break (no apparent problems). Third: call 311 (busy signal: uh oh, this must be a big problem – it’s not just us if 311 is overloaded). Wait it out, and rinse off.

But others had different ideas.

Call CJOB!

As I drove in to work listening to local radio station CJOB, I heard morning show host Richard Cloutier (who’d been at work long before the water problem) say that at the station, they’d noticed a momentary problem with the power, then their email system went dead, then the phones lit up with calls from listeners with shampoo in their hair – I’m sure both wanting to know what was going on, and wanting to complain about it.

Don’t discount mainstream media

These days, social media is the darling of PR conferences, webinars and professional development meetings; it’s our shiny new toy. There are people in our industry quickly re-branding themselves as social media experts, ringing the death knell for mainstream media, and recommending all-social media communication strategies to their clients.

For some clients, whose audiences exist uniquely in the online and social media space, that might make sense. But for the rest (who, I’d suggest, constitute the majority out there), it’s important not to ignore the power mainstream media continue to have to communicate with our audiences.

Don’t get me wrong: I am a social media evangelist, and I firmly believe that its tools give us unprecedented access to certain segments of our audiences – both for sharing information, and for building relationships. From my perspective, social media opens the door for PR to do what it has always strived to do: to establish and nurture two-way relationships with its audiences (at varying levels, of course).

But social media isn’t the be-all and end-all for strategic mass communication – at least, not yet. Many of our audiences are not using Twitter, and aren’t influenced by those who do. Many (it seems, more and more every day) distrust Facebook. Many don’t read blogs, or spend much time online at all. Many others do participate in social media, but aren’t able to determine whom to trust – and turn to mainstream media to make sense of it all.

These audiences rely on mainstream media, among other more traditional communication channels (e.g. calling customer help lines), to inform themselves about the issues that interest them. And as long as they do, good strategic PR will continue to take advantage of those means of reaching them.

As more amazing and revolutionary technologies come along, smart PR people will engage with them, will investigate them, will understand their strengths and weaknesses, and will figure out how to employ them to help clients reach their communication objectives.

But the really smart PR people will always remember to go where their audiences are.

Say please!

One of the many things I love about PR is the way it can undergo sea-changes on the surface, without ever changing the fundamentals at its heart.

Public relations is about making connections with audiences, and building actual relationships. That doesn't mean finding the best soapbox from which to deliver loud speeches about your own qualities; it's about listening as well as talking, finding out what your audiences need and want, and then tailoring your offerings accordingly.

I tell my students to think of good PR like a marriage; extolling your own virtues will only help you for so long if you refuse to pick up your socks. It's an actual give-and-take, not just the illusion of one.

A decade ago, there was a translator in the middle of most PR "marriages." PR practitioners spent much of their time strategizing how to get through the "gatekeepers;" or, the people who stood between an organization and its audiences (most often, the mainstream media). The "gatekeepers" decided who the people got to listen to, and organizations' (and their PR folks') own abilities to reach their audiences directly were relatively limited, especially when those audiences were geographically diverse.

Today, the web 2.0 world has given PR and its clients the ability to talk to our own audiences. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter. YouTube and blogs, which allow organizations to interact directly with the people who make up their audiences (with and without everyone else listening in), give us unprecedented reach -- and a PR model much more faithful to the fundamentals of relationship-building than what we've been seeing since the rise of mainstream media in the 20th century.

Today's PR: just like Grandma's?

No... but kinda, yes.

While technology makes us more efficient at finding, understanding, and reaching our audiences, and the tools and techniques of our profession are undergoing enormous change, the fundamentals of good PR remain constant.

Be honest.
Be nice.
Be fair.
Be thoughtful.
Listen.
Anticipate others' needs and try to address them.
Make it easy for people to have a relationship with you.

In a discussion about persuasive brochures in the PR major class this week, Sarah Lund shared the fact that her mother had once completed a 40-minute opinion research survey which she had planned not to complete, once she noticed that the survey brochure said "please" when it asked for her participation.

She wasn't going to, and then she did. Just because the copy said "please."

Now, while Sarah's Mum may not be part of the Twitter generation, I'd bet that her instincts are shared by members of all demographics. While the more selfish among us might not be persuaded by one word to give up a chunk of valuable time, most do respond positively to simple respect and consideration.

Twenty-first century technology gives us powerful tools to help us build relationships with our audiences, but people are still people. The technology and tools have changed; the fundamentals of enduring relationships have not.

With all the potential of 21st century technology at our fingertips, it's worth remembering that manners can be powerful persuaders.

Behave online, redux

Today I saw a news release from CareerBuilder, a human resources company, providing research that supports what I've said in a number of blog posts and Tweets about how important it is to maintain a professional brand online. Click here for the full release and survey methodology -- but here are some key findings of their survey of 2600 hiring managers, conducted this June:

- 45% of employers use social networking sites to research job candidates (up from 22% last year); a further 11% have plans to begin using social networking sites to screen future employees.

- the most popular online research tool identified by hiring managers was Facebook (29%), followed by LinkedIn (26%), MySpace (21%); managers also search blogs (11%) and Twitter (7%).

From the release:

Why Employers Disregarded Candidates After Screening Online

Job seekers are cautioned to be mindful of the information they post online and how they communicate directly with employers. Thirty-five percent of employers reported they have found content on social networking sites that caused them not to hire the candidate. The top examples cited include:

Candidate posted provocative or inappropriate photographs or information - 53 percent

Candidate posted content about them drinking or using drugs - 44 percent

Candidate bad-mouthed their previous employer, co-workers or clients - 35 percent

Candidate showed poor communication skills - 29 percent

Candidate made discriminatory comments - 26 percent

Candidate lied about qualifications - 24 percent

Candidate shared confidential information from previous employer - 20 percent

Fourteen percent of employers have disregarded a candidate because the candidate sent a message using an emoticon such as a smiley face while 16 percent dismissed a candidate for using text language such as GR8 (great) in an e-mail or job application.

Why Employers Hired Candidates After Screening Online

Job seekers are also encouraged to leverage social media whenadvertising their skills and experience.Eighteen percent of employers reported they have found content on social networking sites that caused them to hire the candidate. The top examples include:

Profile provided a good feel for the candidate’s personality and fit - 50 percent

Profile supported candidate’s professional qualifications - 39 percent

Candidate was creative - 38 percent

Candidate showed solid communication skills - 35 percent

Candidate was well-rounded - 33 percent

Other people posted good references about the candidate - 19 percent

Candidate received awards and accolades - 15 percent

"Social networking is a great way to make connections with potential job opportunities and promote your personal brand across the Internet," said Rosemary Haefner, Vice President of Human Resources at CareerBuilder. "Make sure you are using this resource to your advantage by conveying a professional image and underscoring your qualifications."

Haefner recommends the following DOs and DON’Ts to keep a positive image online:

1)DO clean up digital dirt BEFORE you begin your job search. Remove any photos, content and links that can work against you in an employer’s eyes.

2)DO consider creating your own professional group on sites like Facebook or BrightFuse.com to establish relationships with thought leaders, recruiters and potential referrals.

3)DO keep gripes offline. Keep the content focused on the positive, whether that relates to professional or personal information. Makes sure to highlight specific accomplishments inside and outside of work.

4)DON’T forget others can see your friends, so be selective about who you accept as friends. Monitor comments made by others. Consider using the "block comments" feature or setting your profile to "private" so only designated friends can view it.

5)DON’T mention your job search if you’re still employed.

What not to tweet

I am a Twitter evangelist. I love the social networking site for many reasons: its forced message efficiency (140 characters and you’re done); the way it gives you the opportunity to connect with people from all over the globe, whether you’ve ever met them or not; the way it fosters the development of communities of interest; and, most importantly, the way it has widened my horizons on all things PR.

I’m not talking about just the impact of Twitter and all social media (a favourite topic on Twitter, at least among the people I follow) on PR; I’m also talking about the vast resources brought to my attention by the PR people I follow. I firmly believe that, through the connections I’ve made on the site, Twitter has made me a more effective PR counselor and teacher.

PR people should use Twitter – but use it wisely

While my use of Twitter has mostly been to share PR-related links and resources with colleagues, students and others interested in the field, Twitter also provides an outstanding platform for publicity and relationship-building between organizations and the people they serve. For a great (free) primer on Twitter, check out Mashable.com's The Twitter Guide Book.

Whether you think of it that way or not, Twitter also helps its users build a public online presence and “persona.”

One of the fundamental differences between Twitter and Facebook is that, unless you proactively "lock" or restrict access to your messages, everything you post on Twitter (i.e., everything you “tweet”) is public. And because your (unlocked) Twitter profile can be accessed publicly by anyone using the www.twitter.com/yourtwitterid pattern, your tweets are available for anyone (not just your friends, but also your boss, parents, prospective employers) to read – and are easy to find if you use your name as your user id (e.g. www.twitter.com/melanieleelockhart).

What you tweet doesn't only communicate what interests you – but also how you see the world, your work ethic, your discretion, and your professionalism. So before you tweet, think: “would this tweet reflect well on me if my boss, or a future employer, were to read it?”

I've read tweets from aspiring communicators that wouldn't. So I offer for your consideration:

Tweet no-nos

- anything offensive or discriminatory
- your drunken escapades/how late you stayed out last night (especially if you are working today)
- how you’d rather be partying than working
- how you’re less than committed to your work (either on the job or in school)
- your boss’ or colleagues' personal or professional deficiencies
- negative comments about your employer's product or service or operations
- how your employer’s customers are idiots
- inside jokes, more than occasionally – if you’re tweeting publicly, you’re saying “I’m sending this because I think you’d enjoy reading it.” If you widely distribute messages intended for narrow audiences on a regular basis, you’re saying “I'm happy to waste your time; look how witty I think I am; and by the way, you’re an outsider.”

You may have your friends in mind when you write your tweets – just remember that anyone can read them. What sounds hilarious to you in the bar on Friday night may not come off as brilliantly in the office on Monday morning.

If you wouldn't want to see it attributed to you on the front page of the local paper, don't tweet it.

Nursing moms vs. Facebook

Starting August 1st, the “Mother’s International Lactation Campaign” (MILC) is having a virtual “nurse-in” to protest Facebook’s removal of certain users’ breastfeeding photos from its site. The week-long “nurse-in” will run until August 7th, in conjunction with World Breastfeeding Week.

This won’t be the first time online “lactivists” use Facebook’s social media platform to protest the site’s own Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

In response to growing anger over Facebook’s selective deletion of breastfeeding photos due to “nudity,” MILC organized the first Facebook “nurse-in” in late December 2008. It was easy to participate: all participants had to do was change their Facebook profile picture to one of a baby or an animal being breast-fed, and change their status update to “Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!” for one day (December 27, 2008).

The campaign got people talking. According to MILC’s Facebook page, more than 11,500 people participated, and the event drew media attention from outlets ranging from Time to CNN.



Since then, membership in the “Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!” group has grown to nearly a quarter of a million members.

For next week’s “nurse-in,” supporters are again being asked to change their profile pictures and status updates, to send a collective message to Facebook management that breastfeeding pictures should not be considered obscene – and should all be allowed to be posted on Facebook.

For Facebook, a complicated issue

As this story has gained momentum, Facebook has remained consistent in its position: the company publicly endorses breastfeeding, and allows thousands of breastfeeding photos which conform to its rules for photography (specifically, photos showing women’s breasts on the site cannot show the nipple or areola, according to MSNBC). But it reserves the right to remove photos which don’t follow its terms, in the interests of keeping the site a “safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children (over the age of 13) who use the site,” according to Facebook spokesman Simon Axten in an interview with the St. Petersburg Times.

Frankly, Facebook is in a tough spot here. If Facebook’s position is that full breast shots are inappropriate for teenagers who are allowed to use the site, the context of the shot is arguably irrelevant. Nursing Moms aren't Facebook's only stakeholder audience, and the company has to balance competing interests as best it can.

There’s a valid case to be made about the difference between a pornographic image and a picture of a baby whose head doesn’t completely cover his mother’s nipple – but I can also see why Facebook might be wary of allowing interpretation of its rules. In addition to undermining its position on what constitutes "nudity," opening the door on something like this can open other cans of worms; it's much easier to identify "nipple" than it is to identify "pornography." If you ban the first, you automatically catch the second (in breast shots, at least). If you don't, there are lots of people out there who'll be ready to argue "pornography" vs. "art" – a debate I'm sure Facebook would rather avoid.

Given the power of the Facebook platform to bring thousands of people together and mobilize them to act, there would seem to be a good fit for working together toward a larger objective, rather than arguing over something as relatively small as a handful of deleted pictures. In the PR game, we strive for two-way symmetrical communication – when two sides listen to each other, and make decisions that will be mutually beneficial. But while two-way symmetrical communication is the ideal, it’s not always easy to achieve: both sides have to be willing to compromise, and make concessions for the greater good.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out next week.

“Twitter and Facebook are both fads”

Social media: the next Rubik's Cube?

Martin Cash has a story in this morning’s Winnipeg Free Press about how businesses like Inn at the Forks are using social media (e.g. Facebook and Twitter) to market their products online. In the article, “Social networking = successful marketing,” Cash also quotes Kyle Romaniuk, Creative Director and Principal at Winnipeg’s Cocoon Branding and Neil Patel from Webidiotz, a Winnipeg web design and marketing firm, on the value – and necessity – of a social media component in any marketing campaign today.

I thought Cash did a great job of explaining the phenomenon for small business owners who still might not see social media's potential to help connect sellers with buyers. What I found just as interesting, though, was a comment a reader had posted at the bottom of the article on the Free Press website:

Twitter and Facebook are both fads and by the time businesses get on board there will be replacements. Ask anyone how their MySpace advertising is going. MySpace started in Aug 03, became the most popular social networking website in 06, in 08 Facebook became the most popular (and MySpace had to lay off 30% of their workforce).

This commenter echoes opinions I’ve often heard from people who don’t use social media sites. While I suspect this opinion comes from not understanding how these technologies work, it continues to surprise me – and more so as these tools become ubiquitous.

Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook (and yes, MySpace) allow organizations to connect with people “out there” who share interests. Their value for marketers is that they can identify potential customers or supporters in the noisy marketplace based on what they say and do online, and target messages containing information likely to be of interest to those potential "leads".

As we discussed in first-year PR this past year, if you wanted to market a new brand of knitting needles before social media, you pitched your story to “hobby” media, and there were relatively few options for targeted advertising. I mean, you could buy an ad in a knitting magazine – but what percentage of knitters buys knitting magazines? And of those who do, how many buy every issue, and are likely to see the ad you paid good money for?

Of course, there were other things you could do to market your new knitting needles, from running contests for knitters to sponsoring knitting events to putting up posters in community centres where knitting clubs meet. But these were all relatively time-intensive, expensive endeavours, especially if your tarket market was geographically dispersed.

Social media tools like Facebook and Twitter allow you to find your target markets where they like to hang out online, and just as importantly from a marketing perspective, where they like to share information with each other – for example, in Facebook groups and using Twitter hashtags (e.g. #knitting). As Cash’s article points out, it’s a relatively inexpensive endeavour, it doesn’t necessarily require a major time investment – and it delivers audiences who might never have heard your messages otherwise. Getting “on board” takes very little time or investment; all it requires is an Internet connection (or even proximity to a library offering public Internet access!) and some strategic thought.

Are Twitter and Facebook likely to be replaced by some shiny new thing down the line? Of course. Some might argue that the same thing has already happened to a degree to radio and many print newspapers. But as long as they have audiences, they continue to play a valuable role in marketing initiatives.

Marketing is about showing real, live people how your product will help them live better lives, in one way or another; social media give us the ability to zero in on the right people with the right messages.

While the platform may change as technology improves, the fundamental shift toward increasingly personalized marketing is no fad. Smart businesses will get on board before their competitors have made Facebook “friends” or Twitter “followers” of all their customers, leaving them wondering where everyone went.

Social media can help build businesses – and pro athletes’ fan bases

Yesterday’s men’s Wimbledon final was a great, emotional, frustrating, roller-coaster of a match to watch. After five grueling sets, Roger Federer won his record-breaking 15th Grand Slam tournament, having beaten Andy Roddick in the longest final in Wimbledon history.

But this blog isn’t about tennis, it’s about PR.

I’ve been a fan of both Federer and Roddick for years now, so have always had an emotional investment in seeing them win. While they are both brilliant tennis players, I like them for completely different (and contradictory) reasons: Federer for his on-court class and grace, and Roddick for his brash, no-holds-barred approach to… well… everything. But more on that later.

Professional athletes’ personalities are part of what makes us want to root for them and follow their careers (and, in so doing, to be exposed to their sponsors’ logos). And while mainstream media coverage of sports has traditionally given us brief glimpses into athletes’ lives and personalities (allowing us to build the affinities that make us attractive to sports advertisers), many pro athletes are now using Web 2.0 tools to share more of their thoughts and lives with fans – building stronger personal bonds that lead to heightened “brand” loyalty.

Roger Federer

Roger Federer has a website with more than 250,000 registered users, and Facebook fan page that currently has more than two-and-a-quarter million fans.

The website offers everything you’d expect, from media releases and a tour schedule to information about his charitable foundation and, of course, an online store. But it also builds community with his fans through user-generated content (UGC) features including a “Fan Zone” with a fan-submitted photo gallery, discussion forums, and an “Ask Roger” feature that invites questions from ordinary people without ESPN press passes – and provides (some) answers. (A read-through of the posted questions reminds us why we also want to hear interviews conducted by journalists with ESPN press passes: for example, “Do you like tennis, or do you love tennis?” Ugh.) The UGC features appear to be popular with Federer’s fans; his stock rises a bit with each time a member of his fan base participates in the online conversation.

Federer also makes good use of his Facebook fan page. Whereas some celebrities use their pages simply to “have a presence” on the site, he posts short videos in which he speaks directly into the camera about what he’s up to, how he’s feeling about the tournament he’s playing, etc. Each time, the video is posted to his millions of Facebook fans’ walls – a proactive message from Roger Federer, making each of them feel (just a little) like they’re behind the scenes with him. Just before Wimbledon started, he sent his fans a picture of himself on Centre Court under the new roof – something tennis fans everywhere would be interested in – and a sneak preview of his much-discussed Wimbledon court attire. Just as he does on his website, Federer takes fan questions on his Facebook page. Oh, and he shares his newest commercials for a fleet of advertisers...

As a whole, Federer’s Web 2.0 presence is well in line with his overall brand: he appears classy, friendly, and accessible despite being, many feel, the greatest tennis player of all time. Whereas most fans could only know greats like Rod Laver and Arthur Ashe to the extent they received coverage in the mainstream media, Federer’s fans feel like they really know him, and like he takes the time to engage them. As a result, I’d wager their emotional buy-in is that much greater every time he steps on court.

Andy Roddick

Andy Roddick is the kind of guy you feel you know a bit just from listening to his post-match news conferences.



While most players on the pro tennis tour come into news conference after news conference with the same platitudes about sportsmanship and compliments for their opponents, Andy Roddick has always, refreshingly, called it like he saw it. (I can’t imagine Roger Federer responding to how a loss felt with “it sucked” – but I appreciate Andy Roddick for saying it.)

But Roddick is making great use of the web to make stronger connections with his fans, too. His website isn’t as slick as Federer’s (it isn’t updated as frequently, for one thing), but it does allow fans to feel more like “insiders” by providing information about his activities and news. It also has its own UGC features that allow fans to interact with Roddick and each other – for example, an “I Was There” section in which fans tell their stories (and share their photos) of having met Roddick in places across the globe, as well as fan contests and a “Fan of the Month” profile (though there isn’t one listed every month).

Roddick also has a Facebook profile, but it seems his Web 2.0 tool of choice is Twitter (username @andyroddick). With more than 68,000 followers, Roddick updates his Twitter profile regularly (during tournaments, often multiple times a day), with tweets that tell us a little more about how he sees his own game, his opponents, and the tennis world in general… as well as tidbits about his taste in pop culture and other assorted details of his life. Like Federer, Roddick’s online personality is consistent with what we know of him from mainstream media: he is funny, and unafraid to say what’s on his mind. He also sends messages of support to his friends on the tour, and comments on how pro tennis works behind the scenes… again, letting his fans in on the conversation and making them feel like insiders in his world.

Does it matter?

I think so. Using social media tools to give their fans better access and the ability to interact with them, both players are letting tennis fans get to know them better. While it may not be a genuine “relationship,” the fan certainly feels like the icon on the court is more a human being than a two-dimensional character – and is far more likely to “buy in”.

As a longtime devotee of both pro tennis and PR – and a relatively more recent fan of Federer, Roddick, Facebook and Twitter – I like it.