There has been a lot of talk, much of it oblique, about public relations and objectivity- or the lack of it. Much of the most recent talk has stemmed from an active effort to relieve the long-time ban on corporate and agency PR agent participation in wikipedia edits, leading to a Facebook group started by Phil Gomes with much active participation from both sides. A fascinating discussion that I have been honored to be a (very) small part of and more so to simply watch it take place. Perhaps it will lead to some practical conclusions and changes.

At part of the heart of the Wikipedia matter is the notion that public relations people are not, by profession, objective, and therefore cannot be trusted to act ethically. Aside from that being a rather fantastic conclusion (lack of ethics) to draw from what is really a more mundane fact (lack of objectivity), I have always found the line of thought puzzling.

I was reminded again of this topic thanks to a discussion with CustomScoop’s Jen Zingsheim during my regular guest stint on the Media Bullseye Roundtable podcast. At the center was a post by Richard Bailey on objectivity and neutrality. Referencing the Wikipedia fight, he goes on to make a broader appeal to forgive PR’s lack of neutrality on the grounds that PR can still be objective.

I understand that thinking, if you define objectivity as the presentation of facts that cannot be denied. Certainly this is at the heart of the Wikipedia struggle- the ability of partisans who hold first-hand knowledge to be able to correct simple factual errors. However, I think we should take a step back and say: why apologize for not being neutral, for being biased?

The fact is, even journalists, as objective or neutral (I have a harder time than Bailey distinguishing between these two terms) as they try to be, always have a point of view. It can’t be helped. It behooves the audience to know what they can about the author, editor, contributor, correspondent or publisher and make determinations about the trustworthiness of content by considering the source and adjusting to that.

Public relations? No need to be neutral, objective or whatever you want to label it. PR is partisan. Ethical is good enough.

Photo Credit: joelogon (Flickr)

I am newly tempted to rename this blog “The Long View” because I find it painful to see people get whiplash as they turn to see the new shiny objects of social media whip by. I wonder if I get tagged as an angry nerd (ok, I have) for not being too quick to embrace the latest and greatest. The truth is, I am aways suspicious of new platforms being declared “The Next XXX ” before it has had a chance to mature a little and give users enough chance to figure out how the platform is going to work for them. Google Plus has been a prime example, making some folks giddy before most people – especially businesses – we’re able to use it, a direct before it was even complete. Not that I don’t think it will make a huge impact, but if the train is leaving the station, say, in eight months, don’t line us up on the platform today.

I have seen several tools vying for “next big thing” status lately, but rather than fitting these for crowns, I see them – and others – fitting into a larger trend, whether they succeed or not.

Pinterest: Wowie-wow-wow has Pinterest gotten a lot of buzz lately. It’s very compelling in that it provides a simple visual way to organize links, visuals, products, or other items. You can see my first Pinboard here (photos of my son playing sports) and there have been several wonderful examples of organizations and companies putting up some nice Pinterest pages; the most recent I caught was the Hell’s Kitchen Flea Market in New York City. Many of my friends are caught up in and addicted to various Pinterest pages. Frustratingly, many more can’t interact with Pinboards the way they ought, as Pinterest is an ivite-only beta product. That will pass, but it shows how quickly people will jump on a bandwagon – before it has all its wheels. The question is for brands is, is this something good they can’t already build easily on their existing websites and blogs? It’s worth asking.

Path: this was presented to me as a new way to separate your closer group of friends from the rabble on Facebook. But can’t you tier friends online, Facebook? Certainly you can using Circles on Google Plus. Also, it focuses on “journaling,” to my main point buried below. Yet, Path gains users, so it’s worth watching.

Instagram: As an Android user, this one mystifies me. How can an iPhone/iPad only app be haied as a next big thing? Love Apple all you want, but that app environment hardly constitutes Everyone. Sure, my making fun of Instagram photos as people purposely denigrating their photography to resemble 40-year-old Polaroids is probably missing the point. Also, the Android problem will be solved shortly. I’ll be eager to see what the fuss is about, as that fuss seems to be centered on the interactions among the network of photo sharers.

Storify: This one seems to be more of a slam-dunk. The ability to curate other sources easily and assemble them into a story is attractive. If you can insert that into your own platform, into your own site or blog, all the better. Makes sense, it’s just a matter of how many people or companies catch on.

Overall, what I do see? Storytelling is the new focus of social media apps. We see this in Facebook’s new Timeline. We saw it in Gowalla attempt to differentiate as a location-based service before it got sold. We saw it in the much-hyped Color (is that one still happening?). Social tools are moving beyond status updates, what we are doing, and towards telling stories, filling get in the gaps of what we have done, what we are doing, and what we want to do. My main question is, did social network users ask for this? As for the overall community, I’m not sure. Facebook seems to have forced Timeline on us rather than asking. This change to “stories” rather than “status” is far from complete, but has been openly attempted numerous times. It’s where we’re going right now, like it or not.

OK, so here’s what’s happening:

We hear noises, and it sounds like a mouse, but I don’t want it to be a mouse. I want it to be the fridge, even though that would be much more expensive. Actually, it sounds like a mouse that has gained the ability to use tiny tools, like a saw or nail gun.

So the cat comes in, which is very good of him. It’s late, and he has a busy Monday lined up. But he hears the sound too, and knows it’s a mouse. I trust him with these things. So, there must be a mouse under or in the center cupboard where we store cooking implements (note: rinse the frying pan before use).

The cat (Whoopie, a name that strikes fear in the local rodents by the way) camps out near the furniture. He’s a great hunter, but I can’t help thinking I can be of assistance. My contribution? The cheese. I saw it work in a movie once.

I say to the cat, “The cheese is for the mouse. I’ll put it here, and when the mouse comes for the cheese…BAM! you hit him on the head.”

I know he won’t hit the mouse on the head, but I thought that sounded better.

The stakeout begins. I’m off to bed.

(Yeah, catblogging. One way to get unstuck)

Podcamp Boston 6 is in the can- I can’t believe there have been 6 (the first occurring on the fall of 2006). As someone involved in each of these PodCamps in some form (I’m going to be like one of those old guys who has been to every SuperBowl) I have been fascinated watching the event mature from “Hey, let’s put on a (really big, with lots of people travelling to get here) show!” to a more consistent gathering of people who want to learn and converse about social media.

For my part, I decided to lead a session this year, “Culture Clash of Personal & Professional Brands, and Why It’s Necessary.” What I meant by that terribly convoluted title was that the public questioning and criticism among members of the social media community is a good thing, and discussed some of the things I make such back-and-forth valuable, such as the addition of constructive arguments coupled with the lack of intimidation against questioning someone who is popular, vs those things that aren’t, such as out and out trolling, the unexplained “Great Post!” comments, and ultra-defensiveness by those being “attacked” (and since one of my tenets is it’s ok to name names, tag Chris Brogan, you’re it).

What was awesome, is that at least one person came to the session thinking it would be more about mixing your personal and professional life online, said, so, and helped start a good discussion on that topic. Somehow, that tied in the spirit of my original topic. Bravo!

I don’t necessarily follow my own advice to the letter, but I lean toward all of us having frank and open discussions about what’s good and bad in what we are doing in our profession. So next time you see a practice or idea, say so publicly– same if you really like something. Just bring something to the table.

Now if we could only get social media d*****bags to stop posting photos of themselves speaking on their blogs. That is such obnoxious egotism. Look at that self-satisfied grin. Have at it in comments if you like.

(photo by Wayne Kurtzman on Flickr)

Flickr photo by Bert23

I’m trying not to write “just another blog post about Google Plus,” as there has been a lot of crap and good stuff on this here Internet that is hard to ignore. However, I have had some time to think about it, and would like to place it in context of “other networks.” Most of us active social media users have focused our daily time on Facebook and Twitter for talking with people, along with our blogs, YouTube and similar scattered platforms for our content.

It is way to early to judge whether Google Plus will even have long-term traction, let alone unseat Facebook, Twitter and blogs (as I wrote on the Voce Nation blog; patience, people). As for Google plus for business, they haven’t opened business accounts as of this writing so my counsel has been to wait until there is something to hang on to before putting any resources into Google Plus education– outside of trying it yourself. Still, there have been many interesting things around it– thus my Google-Plussy Social Media Top 5:

1. Google Plus is intriguing because it is tied to other Google products many of us use

If you use Gmail, there’s Plus, right there. Google Reader? Right there. Google Buzz? (Shut up, I use it and I know at least two other people do). There it is again. Google starts with an advantage because they have a built-in audience who all of a sudden have a toolbar on all their Google pages that shows their Google Plus notifications and other account information. It’s easy, in that case, to incorporate it into that part of your online life. Heck, even when you get in to the Google Plus web interface, there is Google Buzz right there– maybe people will use that too. Maybe.

All this is significant to me, because Google has a history of having disparate products that should be integrated tightly but aren’t. Anybody who uses Feedburner and Google analytics (still) knows that. Even here, I don’t see a Google Plus bar on top of my YouTube (a Google property, remember?) page. Why not? Perhaps that will come.

2. Google Plus is frustrating because it is not integrated into the established routine we have already assigned to other social networks

In Google Plus, I have no easy way to publish to Twitter and Facebook also. I think it’s important for some early adopters, unless Google is simply convinced they will all dump Facebook and/orTwitter and embrace Google Plus full-time. Again, it’s way too early for anyone to be doing that, because not nearly enough people are on Plus yet. Perhaps that could change, but it will likely be quicker to find a way to add multi-platform posting functionality. As for those saying “I have left Facebook and am now on Google Plus,” that’s great if you have the kind of following who is a) largely part of that early adopter crowd who has access and b) willing to flock over there with you. It reminds me of a few years back, when Jeff Pulver abandoned LinkedIn for Facebook. Great for him, but I couldn’t have pulled it off. No way am I doing it here, or recommending that to any colleagues or clients.

And while you’re at it? I’m sure (Google property) Picasa is fine, but I have a lot of time, money and resources invested in Flickr. Would love to be able to post my pictures there with a click.

(And while I’ m at it: The notion that Google Plus should replace your blog is not necessarily the best idea (or a good idea) for anyone who actually wants to own their content vs having it controlled by a company that could take it down, make it disappear or otherwise mishandle it. I prefer to mishandle my own content first before handing it over to the professionals

3. Google Plus is about “you” while Facebook et al are about “other people” (Maybe?)

This article has an unfortunate title about Google Plus being doomed to fail- just as silly as saying it’s the new shiny before it has even launched. but it did make me think about the difference in approach. In my initial experiments, Google Plus seems to be about “me” (or to you, “you). My Circles, my organization of friends. I have no idea what Circles other people have put me into, just that they have put me in some. I don’t think the reason for that is privacy, as there are some scary potential privacy pitfalls in Plus (check the settings on your Android Google Plus app to see if your cellphone photos are automatically being posted to your Plus profile. Really, check right now). I just think the design ethic doesn’t account for finding other people and groups of interest- it’s just about you talking to people you already know. I suspect that will change. I would love to have more discovery options (a “Red Sox” public circle? cool!), and perhaps we shall see some as Plus develops.

4. Interesting Google Plus experiments have been popping up

This one, in which a press conference was held on Google Plus, is interesting. The hangout tool is still a bit klugey for some folks, and again, not everyone is on Plus, but as an experiment (important word), this makes sense and is interesting- and is not a bad PR stunt either.

5. Quora (ha! curveball!) – don’t forget tools that may have been dismissed by the early adopter/short attention-span crowd.

I know. Not Google Plus. Also, I was largely absent from the Quora hype when it launched. However, it’s a specific tool that does a particular thing well- provide a forum for experts to answer questions- and if it provides a place for established experts (like New York Times reporters) to embed the Quora Q&A format on their own sites, there may be life in that old dog yet. Just a caution not to over-hype a new service or complete ignore its utility when it’s down.

So let’s see what happens with Google Plus, shall we? I think there will be a lot more to watch, rendering this post and all the musings, rants, webinars and complaints irrelevant. That’s the exciting part.

I always found that obnoxious and unnecessary.

Have a great 4th of July weekend everyone

One: OK, You’re Awesome- Now Get to Work

OK, you’re awesome, I’m awesome- stop talking about it now and get to work and show your employers and clients that awesomeness.

Three: Someone Cares About Your Post– Don’t Listen to the Haters.

I have recently seen posts by people (I’m not even going to link because we all post silly one-off rants that may or may not represent our overall social media personae) looking down on what I call “mundane” checkins. For example, if you use Foursquare, Gowalla or Facebook Places to check in to your daily Starbucks visit, well, that’s just a waste of space and nobody’s interested (bevause, perhaps, there are no celebrities, natural or man-made disasters, or free schwag involved).

Wrong.

Noone should be telling you what is interesting or what is not when it comes to personal posting. I publish my checkins at the YMCA because people frequently comment on or like them, whether as inspiration to work out themselves, or to encourage me. Often I don’t even know, but appreciate it.

Brands certainly like it when you mention them. People near you may be interested, and the more context you add the better, but even the fact you are at a place or doing a certain thing is a signal to people you  know. People who don’t care are wasting time asking you not to bother– they need to filter better.

We talk to our friends a lot, and some of the messages are subtle and passive. That’s OK. To the haters, well, ignore and move on — but don’t tell us what’s worthy– we, in turn, should ignore you. Yeah, I posted the following photo of my lunch to Twitter.

"My lunch IS a celebrity"

Five: I Got Nothing Else– I Hope You All Had a Great Father’s Day.

The Social Media Equivalent of Picking Rotten Food Off the Ground and Eating It in Front of Your Friends

Recently on Facebook, friends have tagged me in a “Friendmatrix” photo. FM is an app that takes photos of your Facebook friends and makes a collage out of them. My first question, as someone who is always looking for useful Facebook applications, is “Is that all this does? So what?” (technically 2 question, I know).  The answer, as far as a I can tell, is, “Yes.” It does nothing else besides having a new cute way to linkbait your friends on Facebook. If I wanted to do something that useful and ego-stroking, I would go to the much nicer-looking Intel “Museum of Me.” I have no time to pursue empty apps, though a few people in my industry apparently do.

Next, I was slightly alarmed at reports that FM may be a phishing scam. This link shows the site and app have a “poor reputation,” for security and privacy, though with 2 million users. Is it a scam? I don’t know, but I’m staying away until I know it isn’t it.

Back to the people in my industry- did they vet the site or application before trying it? I would shudder to think what my colleagues at Voce Communications or worse, my clients, would think if I were publicly trying out apps that could potentially be malware or phishing scams. It’s the social media equivalent of picking up rotten food from the ground and eating it for everyone to see. Who would want to do that and be taken seriously?

They’re Here, They’re QR Codes, Get Used to Them

I’m not sure Dave Wieneke, author of this Ad Age piece on QR Codes really means they are “Dead” (such a pet peeve of mine) but he does refer to them as a “dead-end technology.” OK, so I am angry to be deprived of the opportunity to rant against a “this technology is dead before anyone got a chance to use it”  post.  While I do agree that not everyone with a smartphone magically know what a QR Code is, and also agree that a thoughtless campaign based on an unexplained QR code display just because QR’s are “cool” are themselves dead-ends.

I fear that people will take pieces like this and declare the technology dead before they got really interesting. This isn’t RSS- a back-end technology that has no real business trying to explain itself to the average consumer- it’s an evolution of something very familiar- the bar code, that people have already been trained to scan on their own in supermarkets. The familiarity is not far off, and the adoption is already there- even by small businesses- I was in a party store the other day to buy cupcakes, and by the register was a small sign with a QR code and the simple note “scan this” promising more information on the store and its products.

Patience, people.

Twitter, Facebook, Social Media and Measurement

I’m sorry I had to miss Tom Webster’s presentation at Blogworld, and this post urging people to rethink how people consider brand effectiveness on social media is why. No one should be surprised that Facebook is more popular than Twitter, and I’m certainly not surprised that people engage with brands on Facebook more than Twitter, but the magnitude in Tom’s research is a bit surprising. It merits further consideration, at the least. I would like to see if this information is repeated in other studies.

Dunbar Strikes (Feebly) Again

“Dunbar’s Number,” usually quoted as 150, is the standard for the maximum number of relationships one’s brain can hold. A new study, detailed in this post, shows that limit again. I understand that, and always have. What I expect is that a new round of people is running around trying to shame and shush those who would dare to follow more than 150 people on any given social network. Rubbish. I still stand by my contention that attention can be compartmentalized and that my notion of “baby dunbars” applies to the ability to focus on a certain number of relationships under a given context or time, and another set of relationships under another.

Do I follow thousands at once? Not all at once, silly.

Call Yourself a Guru, Get Followed by 100 More… What, Exactly?

I enjoy Dan Zarrella’s metrics-driven studies on social media, calling out, for example, that saying “please gets more responses on Twitter, or what day or  time of day is the best to post to get Retweets on Twitter or Likes on Facebook. His latest was a head-scratcher for me: those adding “guru” to their Twitter profiles have 100 more followers on average. My question is “what kind of followers would those be?” Bots, spammers, the gullible. Further study on the kinds of followers “gurus” get would be interesting (no, I’m not volunteering to do it).

By the way- Dan, in his post, refers to “don’t call yourself a guru” as a “unicorn” myth. I still stand behind it, because applying any high-falutin’ title to yourself and asking people to believe it is high-level ass-clownery (Dan’s “social media scientist” is an exception in my book., by the way)

Photo Credits:

1. Rotten To The Core by pupski, on Flickr

2. QR Code Cupcake by clevercupcakes on Flickr