soulati.com

Digital Marketing Strategy, PR and Messaging

Soulati-'TUDE!

Should You Delete Social Media Profiles?

By

A man I respect as a peer and pal is a social media leader and A(mazing) lister who will deny that last descriptor as a slight, but he carries enough clout that he has deleted his and also his Google+ profile.

His hit my in box over the weekend, and I was fascinated with his announcement that he had deleted his and was lamenting that Google required him to re-up his profile IF he wanted to use .

So, I got to thinking about social media leaders who take proactive steps to change it up. Remember the leaders who deleted all their Twitter followers ? That was all the rage for awhile with everyone talking about what that meant, why they did it and what influence it had.

That said, I got to thinking about what it means to be in social media marketing.  Each of us engages with the next new channel. I kicked and screamed all the way to Pinterest to fall in love and then have that love wane to zero after the legal problems came to light. But, I didn’t delete my profile…yet.

is someone I fully consider a leader in this space. I feel as if I know him extremely well, yet we’ve never met IRL or via Skype. I need to change that up.  I remember when I started and I was in awe of his efforts with 12for12K.com.

And, we’ve f together, too. That makes us kindred . So, when I read yet again that Danny was justifying why he had deleted a profile after playing ball (he had met with some interesting obstacles and Wil E. Coyote shenanigans) I thought:

If you’re in social media, shouldn’t you have a Google+ profile? Then, I thought, Danny is now working for ; not driving his own company. Is that the reason he’s not as concerned with personal branding as before?

So as not to sideswipe Danny or speak on his behalf, I sent this post to him for his heads up in the hopes he would be able to shed some light on my curiosity. Let’s define what that curiosity means — it’s not gossip by any stretch; it’s learning.

Do I need to keep my Pinterest profile if I’m not going to be current or active? Do social media leaders have to engage on all the channels to show they know what’s hot? I seriously want to know the answers to these questions, and I’m hoping the king himself will help provide us with some insight…Danny?

(Thanks, Mr. Brown!) Danny Brown says:

“The way I look at it is this – does this platform really need to take up my time, and is it doing things at least in some right ways? When Klout first arrived on the scene, I was curious as I’m really interested in how messages are filtered through the channels, and what influence could mean for brands and business. Then I found out about their crappy privacy, their shady profile setting up and their inclusion of minors, and I deleted. It was simply a popularity tool as opposed to a true influence measure.

Now Google, with their Google+ platform, seems to want to follow the same path – force account creations, count “active users” as people who might click on G+ alerts in Gmail but never go through to the site, allow non-users to be emailed by their connections online to encourage sign-ups, etc. Its invasive marketing and so out of touch with Google’s lauded “don’t be evil” mantra. It may be a bit easier to take if the platform was good, but it’s such a stale experience compared to Twitter and Facebook (and, yes, you can say it’s down to the people you follow, but I followed some of the smartest folks around while their content was great, the user experience was still bland).

My time is very limited, due to professional and family commitments, so unless a platform stands out as being hugely effective, I won’t waste time on there. I’ve never felt the need to “build a personal brand,” as that always sounds forced and contrived. So not being on the “big platforms” doesn’t bother me too much. If I miss out, so be it – I’ll still prefer to be active on the platforms that matter to me, and for now that’s , Twitter and Facebook. Everything else is either a luxury I don’t need or a time suck that’s being hyped by those looking to push their own books, webinars and agendas.

My advice? Look at the platforms, evaluate your interaction and returns, and if they don’t seem to make sense, then spend your time where you’re more effective, both as a producer and a listener. That’s how you’ll get the results that matter.”

 

Lipstick, Virgin Atlantic and PR

By

Credit: Advertising Age (adage.com)

I wear lipstick every day all day long; I love it and feel naked and drab without. So, when I read that Virgin Atlantic was launching its own lipstick, made by bareMinerals (another line I love), I was intrigued enough to write a shortie.

The announcement appeared in Ad Age “Creativity’s Top Five of the Week.” Here’s where I’m confused because the campaign feels more  like an excellently  creative PR campaign than a creative campaign from the ad department.

Look at all these elements:

  • Virgin Atlantic launches a new Upper Class Cabin and the inaugural flight from London to New York will be celebrated with a particular shade of red lipstick.
  • On the plane featuring the new elite lounge, female (why did the writers have to say “female”) cabin crew will sport the new “Upper Class Red” color of lipstick that matches their uniforms. The lipstick will contain “a special pearl powder to hydrate the lips of frequent flyers.”
  • Passengers on the inaugural flight get a free lipstick.
  • The lipstick will be sold on board or in stores that stock bareMinerals (I already know where I’m going to test this color!).

Now, my peers in public relations, does this campaign sound at all like an advertising campaign or should this one be owned by PR? Wait, I already know the answer; we’re integrated now and no one can take all the credit for a decent campaign, right?

But, still…

Thanks For Listening, PRSA

By

I have been a vocal blogger detractor as soon as I saw the three definitions recently revealed by PRSA as a result of its  Public Relations Defined project. I’ve not been the only one. The blogosphere has been a hotbed of dissension, and PRSA was doing its level best to disperse task force members to respond and issue on the most important blogs with the largest communities.

Blog posts have been written by Gini Dietrich, , Paul Roberts, , Anthony Rodriguez, Ken Mueller, , PR Daily and so many, many more. I never saw anyone supporting the three definitions during this process.

Today, just a bit ago (that’s the beauty of blogging!), a comment from PRSA was posted on Spin Sucks where PRSA had guest posted and the community erupted in anti-sentiment.

PRSA has read, contemplated, heard, listened, and its response is right here by Arthur Yann extracted from Spin Sucks:

We know our Public Relations Defined project has caused angst and even some indignation among communication professionals. We tried to approach the project with fresh thinking, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. But, that’s how innovation happens, and how we learn to do better in the future.

We’ve read the articles, blog posts and comments like these, which have made it clear to us the discussion mustn’t stop with the vote on three candidate definitions that currently exist. PRSA is going to keep its Public Relations Defined blog up after the winning definition is announced, with the hope that we can continue to engage professionals, including those who’ve commented in this forum and elsewhere, in a discussion about the definition of public relations.

Consider this your invitation and your opportunity to come up with something better. We’ll provide any and all data from the first go-round. Our minds are open. If we can collectively move closer to a consensus definition of public relations, PRSA will support it. You can read more about our plans for moving forward here: https://bit.ly/xKiHhd.

I’ve already voiced my support at Spin Sucks in comments, as this comment from Arthur Yann was directed at me and my peers. I support this effort to keep the conversation going. I encourage each of us who expressed anti-remarks to keep this project front and center and participate.

Because of the collective voices  and on all our blogs and comments, we have been heard. This is the fix that will hopefully lead to furthered discussion with everyone participating to reach better consensus on  how we define PR.

Thanks for listening, PRSA. I applaud.

We Cannot Define PR

By

I am pretty much over this topic of redefining public relations, my core profession. Last year on this blog, we set out to do that very thing and engaged the globe in the best crowd-sourcing activity I’ve ever facilitated. It was high energy, awesome to have people on board, it was heady, and it was the coolest spur-of-the-moment thing I’ve ever done on my blog.

The outcome was a definition that came to be from a variety of sources, words, disciplines, expertise, practitioners seasoned and newbie, and those not in public relations.

“Public relations helps people say the right things to the right audiences at the right time and in the right way.”

Simple; no jargon; acceptable to a variety of professionals working in a variety of ways and with a variety of clients and industries. Perfect? Nope, not at all, and there was no expectation it would be.

We did this on a blog; no one spoke or researched or sat around the table debating words; this was done over four or five weeks of blogging on this topic and this topic alone. It was challenging and tedious, and I had to find an end so it didn’t drag on.

All along I encouraged PRSA to redefine public relations and delete its 1982 archaic definition.  They weighed in on my blog, and I’d like to say I affected their decision to pursue this further. At Thanksgiving 2011, PRSA embarked on a poll to submit ideas for definitions. Even the New York Times ran an article on the process. Yippee! (Voting is open until Feb. 26; you can find the link in this paragraph.)

There were snags along the way and extensions and who knows what else. Then, three definitions appeared on @SpinSucks, and Gini’s community erupted. PRSA wrote a rebuttal in a guest post and the dissension was even louder; kinda like screaming.

I politely provided our collective definition above and was also politely shut down by the PRSA dude who said he didn’t like it. Who am I? A 27-year public relations practitioner who has seen the changes in this profession since before the fax machine. I’m no one special, but I am darn certain I know that his three definitions we’re supposed to vote on do nothing to define public relations.

To paraphrase Gini exactly, “the definitions suck.”

  1. Public relations is the management function of researching, communicating and collaborating with publics to build mutually beneficial relationships.
  2. Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.
  3. Public relations is the strategic process of engagement between organizations and publics to achieve mutual understanding and realize goals.

I am so disappointed. The jargon provided here does nothing to energize a profession that is part of the backbone of organizations’ strategic positioning to external audiences and one that influences sales while working in tandem with marketing and advertising.

Pfffhhhhfttht.

That’s the wind that died from the sails. I’m not the only person thinking this way, and the emotions are strong. Please do read all the comments at Spin Sucks if you’re interested in this debacle.

When an entire profession cannot agree on what it does, then how shall companies and clients regard our credibility?

I don’t believe there will ever be consensus on a definition for public relations. I tried in my little corner to tackle a beast. An 80-year-old+ professional accrediting body and organization ought to be the one to generate agreement and consensus nationally because it means that much.

This is not a four-month project that ends in a vote for three same-sounding definitions; this should take at least 15 months to vet definitions chapter by chapter across the country.

This is not about me; this is about the respect for my profession. When the discontent in the profession speaks louder than the cooperation among its practitioners, then there is a PR crisis in the PR profession. Who’s going to fix that?

 

 

Bloggers Have Influence

By

Breasts Are Not Partisan

Whether you blog for business, personal, or just to rid your head of too much chatter (as I do), bloggers have influence. The influence I speak of is not based on Klout score or being paid to endorse a product. This type of influence is about words online with communities commenting and furthering debate.

Late last week, the nation watched the Susan G. Komen public relations debacle unfold. Bloggers I know held back before writing; others decided not to write at all. As the situation became stickier, it was the responsibility of bloggers to dive in and report, communicate, address the problem, and suggest solutions. Communities responded in droves.

Never mind how you felt about the decision. What I’m pointing out here is the age we’re in when people the likes of you and me have the opportunity and the power to reverse poorly made business decisions, that reek of inside politics aired on the national stage.

This case is a text-book example of social media marketing at its finest. It’s also an example of an organization that misunderstood the power of constituents and bloggers (as one of the primary factions) with other social media channels to influence a reversal in business that will affect (not impact…wrong word) Komen’s brand long term.

Just how many bloggers elected to write about this issue last week? Google search for “blogs” with keywords “Susan G. Komen, Planned Parenthood” delivered some 63 million sources (from all types of media). Regardless of the accuracy of this number and whether it is skewed to bloggers alone, the nation was abuzz.

The voices rang on all social media channels pushing at Susan G. Komen and Nancy Brinker (its founder). Facebook got slammed; Twitter streams and Google+ were all abuzz with this news of the day. Bloggers cannot take total credit for the change up by Komen. But, they should be proud of their interest, reporting, sharing, and the cascade of news delivered across multiple networks within communities.

Whenever you ask yourself, “Why am I blogging?”  Think of this situation and know your words are important ones for your community. At a time when the light bulb is blinking for many an organization, heed this – do not shy away from sharing your twist on today’s news. Many people rely on information from their channels. Bloggers have influence and credibility, especially when they have built a reputation for solid and factual reporting of the angles.