September 2009 Archive

[Also published on Social Media Today]

Social Media “frenzies” are over-analyzed as they are happening but are then inadequately remembered after they pass, making their true impact hard to understand.  For example, I would really like to know what was the true impact of the so-called “Motrin Moms” incident?  Did it affect sales, reputation, favorability?

The Skittles experiment in March was hugely effective in generating buzz and traffic but what effect did that truly have and was it sustainable? In these cases it really is just conjecture.  Sales and other brand metrics are not readily available as they are just products within larger organizations, and after initial interest wanes these “social media frenzies” are somewhat forgotten and do not get re-examined.  As this practice area develops, I do believe that Social Media professionals should develop a habit of re-examining these examples as case studies in order to better understand their impact.

One recent example that is interesting to re-examine with having the benefit of time is the Domino’s social media scandal from March 2009 (initially discussed here).  The fact that it is a public company and the top level brand at the company makes it easier to go back and understand the impact of that crisis.  This was actually a frequent discussion point on the company earning’s conference call for that quarter (transcript at Seeking Alpha).  Apparently, the company will not suffer long-term losses, but did suffer sales 1%-2% in that quarter (WSJ article).  So it seems that the damage was pretty heavy, yet limited since that truly was the worst case scenario of a social media crisis.  Domino’s will obviously survive this.

I am not questioning the importance of social media to today’s business. I’m simply suggesting that we should remember to re-examine these events long after they take place as that will give us a clearer understanding about their the long-term significance.

RFI Studios has launched the new digital presence of the International Peace Institute, an independent global not-for-profit think tank dedicated to promoting the prevention and settlement of conflicts between and within states by strengthening international peace and security institutions.

In replacing IPI’s antiquated website with a more robust digital platform, RFI Studios took into account the Institute’s goals of increasing their profile in the foreign policy set and generating buzz among future policy leaders. RFI developed a user-centric application allowing visitors access to content that suits their needs.

To view the new site, visit www.ipinst.org.

Public relations pros often come into contact with sensitive information, be it a draft press release on a public acquisition, the launch plans for the season’s hottest tech gadget, or the contents of an internal blog. How can PR companies keep this information private in Web 2.0?

As the Wall Street Journal recently explored, this can be especially vexing for layoff announcements in a world of blogs, citing a Yahoo case where “its instructions to managers conducting layoffs — ’15 minutes maximum,’ ‘don’t engage in small talk’ — were published by the blog Valleywag.com.”

Sites like Overheard in the Office offer an anonymous outlet for harmless (usually) office gossip, but how should companies prepare for the eventuality of a leak that could lead to legal action?

It can be somewhat of a paradox. Building trust with employees and fostering open lines of communication are strong tools for developing a relationship where those with access to sensitive information will honor its sensitivity. Some employees just won’t have that capacity – particularly those who are on their way out or know they will be soon.

So, another approach might be to limit employee access to private information to reduce the possibility of leaks a priori. However, this disintigrates trust, and can lead to cumbersome bureaucracy, censorship, and spying.

Some advocate for companies to act completely openly, as if there is no filter between their email screen and the front page of Gawker. From the PR perspective, this translates as “there is no such thing as off-the-record.”

To complicate matters – in PR, sometimes we walk a fine line of “leaking” information by soft-sounding reporters. It can be appropriate to build a reporter’s interest in a story by sharing some enticing details of a story without providing client identifiers.

And sometimes PR pros purposely and openly “leak” information in the form of an embargoed press release. But as we’ve seen recently, the practice of ignoring embargoes has been catching on, as TechCrunch recently announced they will ignore embargoes and WSJ partially adopted a no embargoes policy.

Have you ever leaked sensitive information?

Maybe don’t answer that on this blog.