weaponized transparency.

When I think of the future of PR, at least part of what comes to mind deals with every individual in the company being a potential representative for what they do. Information is becoming more personal, and frankly, most interested parties would rather speak to the person responsible for the subject at hand, than speak to the person responsible for speaking to interested parties.

I'm looking forward to seeing a company use transparency as a weapon, both to encourage the best from employees, and to improve image and increase engagement.

Jumping on the bandwagon of the moment, I think the easiest way to do this would be to put the entire company on Twitter. Keep a company directory of accounts (personal or individual business accounts) with people following the rest of their group/department, and the people they are connected to on the ORG chart. The big positions would get followed by everyone, and follow, at the very least, all managers and directors, but preferably the entire company. Projects and divisions would have pre-determined hashtags.

The directory would be made public, available to people outside the company. And employees would be encouraged to use the system to communicate tasks, difficulties, scheduling, ideas, questions, concepts, irritations, etc. I recently compared Twitter to telepathy - imagine knowing what the guy in the next cube is worried about, without delay. Imagine knowing that your staff is all having the same issue, at different times. Imagine knowing what your organization is thinking.

Moreover, a certain (positive) panoptic effect kicks in. People who know they are being watched police their own behaviour. I can't imagine a company that uses public tweets as a major element of internal communications going Enron. I can't imagine anyone who is aware they are representing themselves, and their company, knowingly acting like an ass.

People suck less when they know they can be held accountable for their actions. This is the real essence of transparency - knowing that you can be, and will be, held accountable for what you do. This is the magic. Accountability makes people think before they act. Accountable people try to be great, at least more often than people who feel invisible.

I haven't yet mentioned the benefit of directed, asynchronous communication in a group of people who interact mostly between tasks. Or the benefit of a clear view of communications as it happens withing a group, that you can go back and observe. Or the value of watching your employee ecosystem, and changing strategy based on the patterns that emerge. Or the opportunity that random ideas emerging from the group represents. Or...

From a PR standpoint, this is the best nightmare ever. This much accountability, on an individual level, means that everyone has to be educated on the responsibility they now bear. Everyone needs to be trained in how to conduct themselves appropriately, within reasonable guidelines. The culture needs to change, to reflect a dedication to this level of transparency.

But companies would become more real. More trusted. When the truth is visible in tiny component parts, when the sub-units of meaning and message are visible to be interacted with and dissected, companies become, perceptually, what they are in reality: collections of people, with a common purpose. Given the amount of work that is done 'humanizing' companies, or emphasizing the role of caring individuals in the process, it's clear this is a priority. Fighting against the anonymity of people is going to be the most important part of the next type of company establishing itself as vital.

Put bluntly, the future has a sign on the door that reads 'No Cogs Allowed', and demands that every individual be unique and valuable, and be treated that way.

This is not the type of business that anyone is used to, or prepared for. But it's the kind of business that would best reflect the changes in society. Each individual being a point of contact, directly engaging with the public, is the way things are going to be. For now, and for a bit longer, we can relegate that role to a specific few. That won't be the case forever. Engaging interested individuals is going to be part of everyone's job description soon enough. PR, and other communications roles, are going to be about education, strategy, and facilitation. Which, if you're doing them right, they already should be.

I could not be more excited about the potential of working for a company where EVERYONE has to think about how their actions will look to the public. Because most of us should already be thinking about that, and too few of us are.


on crowdsourcing.

I've been hearing lately that crowdsourcing is a bad word.

I think the core issue is simpler. If you are asking others to do your work for you, and considering that the magic of collaboration, you are missing the point. A contest that asks the public to create your ads isn't inherently about the audience. It's gluing a high-school essay contest to the emergence of democratized production. This isn't inherently impressive. It's a contest, and this is an old idea.

Gluing it to a multi-million dollar SuperBowl media buy only makes it a worse idea.

If you ask people to work together to create something of value to not only themselves, but to a wider community, the crowd is creating real value. If you want to attach your brand to this, without corrupting it, expect a positive reaction.

Crowdsourcing based entirely on creating value for yourself, your brand, or your client, isn't crowdsourcing. It will either die due to lack of interest, or run entirely on incentive via cash. Paying directly for attention and interaction can be done better and smarter than this.

If you want to get a crowd of people working together on something, it needs to be about that crowd of people. Frankly, everything you do should be about that crowd of people - they decide what your brand means, and exactly how much it's worth.


buying attention is not a long term plan.

I'm no longer sold on the concept of buying attention.

It makes perfect sense in a broadcast media world with few channels, the world traditional advertising was born in. It even makes sense, to an extent, is a world of hundreds of cable channels, with a few category defining hits in each major time slot. Buying attention makes sense if you can cajole a large number people to sit through something they don't really want, in order to access something else.

A short list of things that break the functionality of buying attention: pvr, p2p file sharing, content distribution across regions and markets, streaming, time shifting, format shifting, fragmented audiences. All of these things are made worse by attempts to control them, as making it harder to do each of these things individually, decreased the barriers to removing the advertising from the content at the same time as sharing, shifting, etc.

As always, the fight to enforce the rules of the past just broke the present a little bit faster. Ask the music industry, they seem to have figured it out, now that it's too late for them to go back.

You can no longer reliably buy attention. You can, however, create something that is worthy of attention. You can create associations with a personality, or outlet, or with content that people would like to pay attention to. You can sponsor things worthy of attention, without interfering. You can earn attention, or positive associations, in any of a million ways.

But none of them are the strict exchange of money for attention that traditional advertising is based on. That deal is no longer as effective as it once was. What's left is earning attention, or supporting others as they earn attention.

The major difference is, before you could get away with piggybacking on the value created by others. If you expect people to watch your messages as the price for watching 'Lost', you aren't earning attention, you are interested in buying it.

If you asked someone to care about you, as a cost for caring about someone, or something else, they would laugh at you. I would laugh at you.

You don't force people to care. You don't ask nicely for them to care. You offer them a reason to care, and you hope that the reason is good enough that they do.

You can't buy attention. But I can give you a long list of ways to earn it, if you're interested.



Twitter, hashtags, and mobile devices more or less equate to telepathy. No, seriously, hear me out on this.

This is something I realized at PodCamp Toronto. Searching tweets by hashtag or by location let me know what people were thinking in the sessions I was in, sessions across the venue, and the thoughts of people who couldn't make it to the site.

Twitter enforces brevity, sure. But it's also just about the right size to encapsulate a single thought. I find I only clash with the limit when I actually have several related thoughts that I want to express.

Most people think telepathy would be a curse. I've always disagreed, assuming that we could develop a half-decent filtering mechanism. Twitter deals with a few of those problems naturally; people don't tweet things they are uncomfortable with sharing, and you are only exposed to that you opt in to / search for. Telepathy via Twitter is easily sorted, and more noise only equates to more potential signal.

Telepathy would me mostly mundane. People's thoughts aren't always useful. But this is how we understand people - through the collection of their inanities. Sound familiar?

The big lesson regarding telepathy that I've gleaned from Twitter is just that - there's no such thing as noise, as long as it's coherent. People aren't being inane. They are giving you context and backstory. You don't learn anything about people from seeing them in their edited, presentable best. You learn about them when they are being stream of consciousness, being unedited.

Being people.

Enjoy your faux-telepathy while it lasts. I know I will.


post-scarcity communication.

[My understanding of the relationship between scarcity and conflict has always been fairly straight forward. Conflict occurs when scarcity necessitates competition for a resource. This happens with land, with food, with money, significant others, etc. If there is one of something, and two people want it, conflict ensues. As such, I've always idealized the concept of a post-scarcity reality. While there are a bunch of ideas associated with the concept of the singularity, the hope of living in a post-scarcity society is the one that interests me the most.]

I recently started flirting with the idea that we have reached a post-scarcity state in the western world, in regards to human-to-human communication. (I'm intentionally not getting into advertising messages, here.)

With email, text messaging, twitter, facebook, blogs, phones, voicemail, call waiting, snail mail, email, instant messaging, skype, MMS, and so on, there are so many means of communication, instant or asynchronous, visual or auditory or both, tied to no specific location, that often the only justifications for not contacting someone are forgetfulness, avoidance or time-scarcity, which is more or less ranking other activities above communicating with the person in question.

This becomes clear when asked why you didn't invite someone along, or ask their opinion before making a choice - when pressed, often the only answer is 'I didn't think to' or 'I didn't want to', very rarely can one honestly respond that it was impossible.

Reaching a post-scarcity state in communication has the effect of intensifying conflict in relation to time-scarcity. By making a decision to not contact someone, you are in essence making the decision that other activities outrank communication with that individual.

This means that failing to respond, react, reach out and share concepts, thoughts and ideas is no longer excusable. If something is important, and not addressed, it is because you have chosen other tasks above addressing it, or you have simply chosen not to.

Post-scarcity communication means you aren't allowed to be too busy, or distracted, or out of reach when opportunity or crisis appears.

No one is going to believe "couldn't be reached for comment" unless you have a very unusual situation that can be clearly demonstrated.

Keep that in mind as you go about your business.


tv and music don't have the same problem.

Filesharing has complicated things immensely for the music industry, and everyone knows this.  The core issue is that money used to be made selling CDs (or records, or tapes...) and now the industry needs to develop new revenue streams to solve that problem.

TV never made money selling TV.  The money comes from advertising aired during the programs.  Again, this is obvious.

The thing is, making it dead easy to access something means more people do it, and that people do more of it.  The average music collection size has skyrocketed due to filesharing.  The average amount of TV that people watch is likely similarly impacted by illegal downloads.

If what you sell is eyeballs aimed at a screen, and more eyeballs are watching your content for longer, this is a good thing.  If you can't find a way to make money from these added eyes and hours, you have forgotten what your business it.

Dear TV,

You create filmed content, and then sell advertising based on the data you can collect for who is watching individual shows.

None of this has to be tied to cable distribution, or TV screens, time slots, limited availability, production realities, or what came before.

You attract eyeballs, and then sell them based on demographic information.  Focus on doing that, rather than doing the specific version that worked perfectly, before everything changed.




the short version (again).

Social media means anyone can publish.

Twitter, etc, mean people can publish as a reaction, with minimal effort, minimal forethought, at will, and connect to other people.

One aspect of this is that everything is now 'on the record', so we have two choices:

1) Freak out about anything that is remotely insulting, insensitive, or inaccurate; or
2) Accept that 'publishing' as an act has changed, and stop pretending a facebook status is remotely the same the New York Times, because both involve published text.

If we choose option one, which many people seem to think is the only option, people stop using social media to communicate, and start treating it as a form of resume.  This kinda ruins things.

If we choose option two, we have to do what we've done with file-sharing.  Ignore the law and established order, hoping that eventually it will become common enough that change will be forced upon society.  This is based on the idea that law should reflect the standards of society, not the other way around.

Note that I don't think accountability should be reduced.  I just think we all need to accept that publishing is not what it once was.  We've created a massive system of laws, rule, social behaviours and authorities attached to the act of publishing, all based on it being something only a chosen, dedicated few can do.

Reading was like that once, too.  I think we can all agree moving on from that was a good call.


question four: truncated vs full RSS feeds.

What are the benefits between full RSS feeds, and truncated feeds that link back to the original content?

Full RSS feeds indicate that you actually want people to read what you are writing. That you value the ease of your readership, and you want them to have at least some control over the information you've decided to create and share with them. Full RSS feeds lower the barrier to read content, because no clicking is necessary. Full RSS feeds are generally less of a hassle on mobile devices, because they don't require opening a new page.

Full RSS feeds are an indication that you are creating content because you want people to see it, not because you want to sell ad space on your page. And given the relatively low levels of RSS adoption, and the ability to include ads in RSS, it's not a huge sacrifice.

The benefits of truncated RSS feeds, linking back to the original site, include bringing more visitors to the original site, which may drive traffic to other content located there. The original formatting and design, as well as the framing that the page layout provides, is left intact (this is one of the reasons I was a latecomer to RSS, I like seeing different designs). This might result in more ad revenue. Maybe. Truncated RSS is great, if you see feeds as a kind of bait, and your site as a kind of trap.

My recommendations, in order: Have a full RSS feed. Failing that, offer an ad-supported full feed, or an ad-free truncated feed. Failing that, have a truncated feed, and be amazed at how little of your content actually gets read by RSS users, because you seem to have missed the point.

[This is the last in a series of my answering my own questions, which I think would help a few people when it comes to interviewing potential media hires. I am glad that this is over with, and apologize for how whiny I got at the end there.]

the age of accountability.

Many moons ago, I wrote a post about something I called the Paparazzi Panopticon. I'm fairly sure I forgot to attribute the original idea to Bentham, focusing entirely on Foucault, but the core idea, a democratized version of the all-seeing eye, has never stopped being interesting to me.

I've been having several conversations in this vein lately, focused on accountability. People are accountable for each word of every email they send, anything they post online, comments and images published through social media sites, anything that happens on video, audio, or print. And nothing ever goes away, because we aren't dealing with one outlet that can be 'reasoned with' or 'bullied', we're dealing with reality.

The reality is, the internet has made us all accountable for anything we do, either as a means of recording our actions, or as a means of publishing them.

And this is a Very. Good. Thing.

If the method of surveillance is in the hands of the government, I'd be terrified, and suggest that you adopt a similar course of action. This is because I rarely feel as though the government has similar values to mine. And improper action only gains awareness online when it becomes a cause pushed by a passionate community. Short version: in our democratized panopticon, cops shooting a restrained youth will be made public. My use of orphan works to illuminate a point in a presentation? If no one is impacted negatively, there isn't an uprising.

Accountability isn't a bad thing. Ideally, it just means that we all do as few things we aren't proud of as possible. The counter argument is that people will be punished for anything they do that doesn't toe a company or government line.

My counter argument for that? It won't be too long before companies and governments demanding total control and limitation of employee's private expression becomes the latest infraction to spark a collaborative response. The internet made Tropicana change its logo in a few weeks. I think we can get people to care about corporate attacks of the freedom of expression that private citizens have.

Will people get fired for telling off clients, even indirectly, over social media? Yes. And they should. Because the most important lesson yet to be learned by most of us is that THIS IS REAL LIFE TOO. It's not a hiding place where you can act in ways that would shame you in real life. It's not a playground anymore, not entirely. It's another facet of real life. The separation many of us hide behind is flimsy at best.

This is real life. Real life means accountability, which means better actions, and better people. We just can't let ourselves get caught in the trap of spending out time policing the minor issues, rather than uniting to deal with the major ones.