2010.02.26

Social media releases: five harsh thoughts

Despite their growing popularity, I’ve never been much of a fan of Social Media Releases (SMRs). In case you’re unfamiliar with the term, a SMR is the new-age cousin of the Media Release (MR), a traditional communication tool whose purpose is to draw media attention to information that (theoretically) has value for target audiences.

Some of my colleagues were surprised to learn that I’ve discouraged organizations from using a SMR as part of their communication plan. So, I connected with Dave Hicks, Director of Sales for Canadian News Wire (one of a handful of popular Canadian companies that exist to help distribute MRs to the media) to talk about their relatively young SMR service. Just talking to Dave helped me realize what it is about SMRs that caused me to stay away from them — it’s not the communication vehicle itself, it’s the execution of the campaign on it. I’ve avoided using this channel because it’s being misused in a way that I feel devalues it.

Many organizations are using SMRs in a way that makes their message unappealing for both the mainstream media and social media audiences. Which means organizations that religiously look at ROI on all of their communication campaigns are putting out more I with no way of recognizing any R.

It seems to me there are some basic misunderstandings about SMRs so I thought I’d share five harsh thoughts for organizations thinking of using SMRs as part of their communication plan.

1) Social media audiences are NOT traditional audiences

Social media audiences don’t care how pleased an organization is about itself, its products or  events, or how the announcement affects the organization. If your announcement has no value or relevance to the social media audience, your SMR will have no value to your organization. And don’t forget that media organizations are looking for your wire copy, not your SMR.

2) Think engaging content NOT message delivery

The popularity of social media has grown out of the desire of people to engage with others. Tools have been created to facilitate participation and content redistribution. Messages intended for consuming-audiences and content intended for participating-audiences are very different and require different approaches and (in many cases) different creative. This also means changing the voice that engages the audience.

3) More value, less branding

In one particular SMR Dave and I looked at, the organization front loaded a 110-second video with 17 seconds of visual branding. That means from the moment the video began it seemingly took forever before the organization even started talking to its audience. In all, branding accounted for 20% of the video. Put another way, the organization stole 20% of its audience’s time. If it weren’t for the fact that Dave and I were evaluating the video, I would have given up before the 10 second mark.

4) A SMR doesn’t put your organization in the centre of social media

Organizations that haven’t embraced social media as part of their ongoing engagement with the public do not magically become social media organizations through their SMR. In fact, a SMR should augment a larger social media effort, not act in its place. At the very least, the SMR should be integrated with the campaign, not just be another channel for it. If the public doesn’t know about or can’t find your SMR, it serves as nothing more than an isolated outpost on the Internet.

5) Invest people NOT only money

One thing in common among all SMRs Dave and I looked at was the absence of the organization that released it. While this ties into number 4, what I’m really referring to here is the participation of the organization. Standing up a SMR and merely monitoring what’s being said without becoming active in the dialog makes the conversation about you, not with you. People can talk about you anywhere. If you’re going to invite the public to a gathering place, be a good host and participate. Assigning the right people to engage with others and respond to their comments, compliments and concerns, and act as a connector between the organization and its public is where organizations will recognize the value of their SMR.

Photo: Devin Castle Outpost posted to Flickr by xlibber.

2010.02.25

Twitter and the House of Commons

If our Government was determined by the distribution of actively Twittering MPs, the House of Commons would be a very different place. The Liberals would have a very tenuous minority, a small group of MPs would be engaged in the debate while others called out every now and then, and one would be repeating a lot of what was being said.

That’s a fun way of summarizing the findings in my white paper, House of Tweets: Twitter and the House of Commons, a research project I undertook as part of my work in digital public affairs at Fleishman-Hillard.

The report examines the make up of the House of Commons based on active use of Twitter by MPs, which MPs are applying their innate network building skills to social networks and what our federal politicians can do to become more engaged with their constituents.

You can read more and download a copy of the report at PoliticalView.ca.

2010.01.17

What can Kiva learn from Quechup?

Remember in 2007 when Quechup deceptively harvested and spammed the contact lists of thousands of unwitting people in an effort to promote its social network? It learned the hard way about abusing trust. Kiva.org may be learning the same hard lesson.

It came to my attention when I received an email from Kiva.org via Dave Delaney earlier today. That was about the only connection the message had to Dave.

The letter opens with two salutations:

Hello!

Hi!

Dave knows the importance of addressing people by name and he’s more of a “hey” person than a stiff “Hello!” or “Hi!” and definitely not in any combination in the same letter.

I just made a loan to someone in Bolivia using a revolutionary new website called Kiva (www.kiva.org).

This is how I knew Dave hadn’t written the note. He doesn’t use the phrase “revolutionary new website” to describe sites that have been around for several years and definitely not for one that he’s been talking about for at least two years. In fact, I can’t think of a time when Dave has or would ever refer to any website as “revolutionary”.

As far as white-labeled pitches are concerned, the letter only gets worse from there. It’s very impersonal; it sounds like someone regurgitated a marketing brochure.

Even Quechup knew the importance of making messages sound believable. Despite the believability of the messages, Quechup also learned that abusing trust and exploiting social networks rather than partnering with them can bring a brand to the brink of destruction; and possibly bring other brands down with it. That’s a reality Kiva should not be flirting with.

Recognizing the potential damage this incident can have on his brand, Dave issued an apology on his blog. Yes, Dave. We can still be buds.

© 2005 - 2010 Mark Blevis. Design by SnowyDay