Digital Influence Mapping Project

The New Social Media & WOMM Ethics Challenges #3 - Fake Social Media

This post is part of a series exploring new issues of social media and word of mouth marketing ethics driven by WOMMA's Living Ethics Project stewarded by Paul Rand. The goal is to end up with the best, most up-to-date ethics guidelines for word of mouth marketers - the next iteration of WOMMA's Ethics Code.

Fake product reviews? Not so good. This past week, the computer products company, Belkin, was revealed to have solicited positive reviews for $.65 a pop via  Amazon's Mechanical Turk marketplace ("access to an on-demand, scalable workforce!"). Apparently this was the work of an overzealous and poorly-trained individual. As social media and word of mouth practices gain momentum within cmpanies, there will be new ethics transgressions that can really hurt the brand and their customers.

Things have changed in the world of "fakeness" in social media. At one time creating a brand page in Myspace or a character blog was consdiered heinously "fake" and impliictly against the unwritten code of soical media. Now everybody and his brother has brand pages all over MySpace, Facebook or thinks twice about having David Ogilvy Twitter care of the creatives behind the TV show "MadMen."

Why is "Fake" even relevant?
There are two big reasons in my book why we even use the word "fake": disclosure and authenticity. I suspect one is an ethical issue  and the other is more about best practices.

Disclosure
There are very few marketers (I am hoping) who would consciously create a blog where the author was not who they say they are unless it was done as a crystal clear parody or character blog. Although there are surprises every day like TV Asahi out of Japan. On a recent quiz show: 

"The anchorperson introduced six blog websites as examples of information collected via the Internet, which were presented as possible clues to the questions in the show.TV-Asahi acknowledged the suspicion that the blog sites introduced in the program were fake, and it apologized for the fraud."

Most of the doozies in this category like the All I Want For Xmas fake blog, are from 2006 or before. It would take a particularly clueless or poorly advised brand a lot to make that mistake in 2009.

So when marketers pose as average citizens or are a little muddy about their connection to a brand when they comment on blogs or YouTube videos or in message boards - that, my friends, does not live up to the promise of "discloure" in WOMMA's Honesty ROI. I continue to see marketers do this. I have seen ad agencies (in 2008!) follow an ill-advised attempt at creating a viral video - itself disclosed as from the brand or an obvious marketing effort  - with comments applauding the video that obviously came from the creators themselves eager to slap themsleves secretly  on the back. They are attempting to make outsiders think that other people like them think the video is "cool." That is not proper disclosure and is unethical. These are the easy calls.
 

So what if a brand wants to make a video whose source is mysterious? Their strategy is to create some mystery around who created the video. They plan on coming clean somewhere down the road. Maybe when they declare themselves the source in phase 2 of their master plan to apply advertising to the social media "channel" (not the most effective use of social media) or when the crowd of millions of forensice scientists "out them." For those days or weeks when people will think that the video is authentically from someone like them, there is deception. The marketer would say its all in good fun and that people enjoy the mystery and entertainment of the deception. Like a rollercoaster, people will not really be hurled into space and will always return to the coaster shed to wobble off, satisfied with their ride.

What about the brand that leaves the mystery and deception hanging like Australian menswear company, The Witchery, did with this Naked Communications-created video? Paul Rand posted about this last week on the WOMMA ethics blog. They mimicked a consumer generated video (too slickly yet plenty will be duped). they added fake response videos, and God knows how many of the 1000+ responses came form the marketers.

They even have the character, Heidi, commenting in the initial string of comments - about the product! No discloure to this day although there is some speculation online that the brand has walked away from the campaign due to the anger it incited (browse through the comments). Is this ethical? It seems to not come close to the disclosure mark. And they have left it hanging far too long for the "it was all in good fun" excuse.

Authenticity
In the case of the fake videos intended to be revealed in the course of the campaign, they may not be clear cases of ethics lapses so much as ignoring one of the great attributes of social media - athenticity. Are customers served best via social media by the brands they enjoy through branded entertainment or open discussion, utility, or some other more interaction where everyone knows who everyone is and we are building real relationships?

When marketers do not embrace the benefits of authenticity - which can be interpreted in so many productive ways - they are leaving tremendous opportunity and value on the table.I am not sure this is a question of ethics as much as it is best-practices. My strong suggestion to brands is to train for both within your organization.   
 
What do you think about these issues? Join in here or at the WOMMA Ethics blog. By the end of January, WOMMA plans to review all conversations about the issues and update the WOMMA ethics policies for today's marketing challenges. This will give brands a firm foundation for their own ethics guidelines in 2009.

The New Social Media & WOMM Ethics Challenges #2 - Comment Spam

This post is part of a series exploring new issues of Word of Mouth Marketing ethics driven by WOMMA's Living Ethics Project stewarded by Paul Rand. The goal is to end up with the best, most up-to-date ethics guidelines for word of mouth marketers - the next iteration of WOMMA's Ethics Code.

As social media-based word of mouth marketing grows due to its efficiency and the trifecta of the recession economy, trends in trust, and new ways to measure WOMM, there are new "opportunities" for marketers to mess up on ethics. If you think of the three conditions that make WOMM particularly relevant, one should not be undervalued - trust. We all look for POVs and opinions from sources we can trust. Increasingly peers, people-like-us, and "strangers with expertise" (people we don't know such as bloggers who seem to have valuable information) rise to the top.

As a marketer, if you do anything to put that trust at risk, you are at best neutralizing the value of your word of mouth programs and at worst, you are putting your brand and the discipline of WOMM at risk.

Comment Spam

Which brings us to comment spam. On my own blog, I get plenty of one-line comments on posts with either a blatant sales pitch for some ridiculous medical product or a pointless "this is interesting" comment from spammers trying to fulfill on their linking strategy for some near-criminal client. Wikipedia describes the motive as:

"Adding links that point to the spammer's web site artificially increases the site's search engine ranking. An increased ranking often results in the spammer's commercial site being listed ahead of other sites for certain searches, increasing the number of potential visitors and paying customers"

That is unethical. Period.

This is an actual image grab of a shady marketers site. I will not give them the satisfaction of a link.

When are comments "spam?"
Most descriptions of blog or comment spam describe some form of automation where shady marketers use software to place comments and links indescriminantly on blogs, YouTube videos, message boards and more. Comments are meant to be our opportuntiy to start or become part of a topical conversation around a social object - blog post, video, image. Anything that isn't meant to productively further that conversation is unwelcome.

Is large-scale commenting - by people, not machines - where the behavior is to post comments that are similar across those topically relevant social media sites, ethical? The intent is apparently to introduce a product or brand mention in many places, not genuinely join the conversation for the benefit of the participants.  The goal is not to drive links per se. The behavior seems to be to place a product mention in a place where it may be relevant to the audience. Let's assume that all of the comments are clearly disclosed as coming from the brand or an agent of the brand. Disclosure is an easy red flag. (except in some cases - next post). Does this meet the ethical mark?

When does commenting become spam or unethical? Is automation the true benchmark? Is it when the motive is to "product place" or link farm? And how do you absolutely demonstrate "motive?" 

What do you think about these issues? Join in here or at the WOMMA Ethics blog. By the end of January, WOMMA plans to review all conversations about the issues and update the WOMMA ethics policies for today's marketing challenges. This will give brands a firm foundation for their own ethics guidelines in 2009.

Social Media Books: A Strong Guide for Today's Communicators

I read a lot. Who doesn't these days. I read pretty much every book on social media out there (I read many other things as well - Design, Branding, Strategy, Business Innvovation, Fiction, Comic Books (re-reading Watchmen now). I periodically update my Amazon Reading List. I teach graduate school and routinely pick out the most useful books for class.

Anyhow, many of the social media books are not useful. Perhaps they are written quickly with little research or insight in order to get their authors into the speaking circuit and hopefully to more lucrative consulting careers. (If you are a great speaker with a great topic I am guessing that doing 30 speeches a year at $10K is a bit rough, and much harder to do today).

I read Tactical Transparency over the holiday break by Shel Holtz and John C. Havens. I was expecting another unoriginal speech-justifier (not due to any reputation issues, just a fatalist attitude I had at the time). What I got was a great synopsis of the significance and opportunities of social media for "business communicators" or corporate communications PR specialists.

I am not sure if there are new insights in the book beyond the umbrella proposition that "transparency" is a "critical business issue." This is certainly ground many, including Shel, have been talking about for years. But nowhere has anyone pulled the argument together so clearly and comprehensively as Tactical Transparency (here's their book site). Where Groundswell summarized again the phenomena that is social media marketing and became the replacement "textbook" for those who wanted to catch up quickly, Tactical Transparency does the same for corporate PR.

The Opportunity with Internal Communications

One of the richest parts of the book is their thinking and coverage of social media's impact and opportunity for employee relations and communications. Each of us works inside businesses comprised of a potential army of brand ambassadors or a silent population, or worse, grumbling legion of detractors. Too little attention is given to the potential of social media to unlock the potential of employees. I suspect that may be due in part to the lingering leadership of "traditional" communications experts in and around the C-suite who see employee communications as the least they can do to "control" messages.

The "One Book" for Business Communicators

Tactical Transparency is a great, catch-up guide to how social media impacts communications. If there was only one book you could read to learn (as you also apply social media to your life, of course), this is it. It is also perfect for the current generation of corporate comms PR person. As for the PR Professional of the Future you can see the ingredients I feel they will need going forward here. You can also get introduced to their boss, The Chief Marcom Customer Service Officer here.     

Three Social Media Updates from the Inauguration

Been on Twitter all morning with millions of others following along with the inaguration via the hashtag #inaug09. A great way to be involved. Meanwhile I wanted to post an update regarding three interesting digital & social media experiences:

1. Check out Wordle.net's view of the President's Inauguration speech (first time I wrote, "the President" meaning President Obama). Great visual way to form a text cloud.

2. Check out the new Whitehouse Web site. It just launched complete with a blog, a Contact Us page and a call to "participate" from the Office of Public Liason. A great bridge between "brand Obama" as expressed in the campaign and, later, Change.gov, and the official Presidency. 

3. Check out CNN's "the Moment" in a day or so. Using Microsoft's Photosynth and everyone's pictures snapped at 12:00 PM (or whenever the new presdient actually took oath), CNN will stitch together a crowdsourced photo experience. This takes the "Day in the LIfe..." photo projects to a new level.   

A Social Media Inauguration

Today's concert at the Lincoln Memorial was moving. President elect Obama's speech inspiring. I watched it on a free glimpse of HBO (since revoked back to paying subscribers only). The excitement is rising. I attended a friend's party last night filled with out of town revelers who are planning to attend the frigid swearing in and a few Inauguration Balls to top it off. The energy at the party was high. At the Ward 4 house in Shepherd Park, they played Dr. King's "I Have a Dream Speech" on a loop into the street to greet all of us who came. The party went till 4am and the police came when they forgot to turn "off" Dr. King.

There are many ways to participate in the Inauguration via social media:

1. Use the hashtag #inaug09 on all of your tweets. I am certian that there will be others. This one comes from Kenneth Yeung who gives credit back to NPR's Andy Carvin (in our fair city).

2. You can see this  hashtag feed via this Tweetscan

3. You can jump in with CNN via their Facebook partnership. It will lead you to an "event page" within Facebook which is essentially a promotion for the live coverage site found here. Sounds like they are planning on displaying the Facebook news feed (user's updates) adjacent to the video stream. Not sure this adds up to more than a "subscribe" outpost in Facebook but we'll. After all, CNN got an awesome write up for their digital leadership in news via the Sunday NYTimes today. 

4. You can contribute to NPR's coverage of the event at their"Inauguration Hub". The idea there does seem to be to integrate your texts, tweets, videos and images via tags and the hastag mentioned above. They also seem to have an iPhone and Android app:

Download the iPhone app from the social networking section of the iPhone app store. For the Google phone, go to the Android Market and search for "IR09."

And a shortcode for texting:

Send a text message to 66937. Begin the message with the phrase #inaug09 or #dctrip09. You can include a ZIP code or one of the location tags in the sidebar.

You can follow along in their aggregate feed widget located here. Not sure how to download or embed it which is strange since it is formatted to look like an embeddable widget.

5. You can follow PBS's NewsHour Twitter updates here. While not strickly social, they also have a handy inauguration map here.

6. Or you can simply follow Obamathon Man's blog where he promises to attend and cover the Inauguration so you don't have to.

photo: thanks to earmuffboy of Flickr and his groovy CC license.

 

Word of Mouth Marketing Expands: New Ethics Challenges #1

The recession will fuel the growth of social media-based word of mouth marketing (WOMM) programs. It is a more efficient form of marketing. It improves the performance of most traditional marketing - when it is done right (that goes for the WOMM portion and the advertising portions).

Many marketers are getting smart fast about WOMM by coming to WOMMA events or bringing WOMMA events to their campus. And while WOMMA (I am a member and board member) is the best source of best practice, measurement and ethics guidance, there are a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon as "experts." So, as more brands jump in, there will inevitably be more ethics 'challenges" as brands strive to get it right and/or listen to some less-than-expert experts. On top of all this, WOMM is a constantly evolving and innovating field. That's why many of us initially joined WOMMA - to engage with a community of believers willing to be in a constant state of learning.

The WOMMA Living Ethics Project
Right now a bunch of us are discussing and framing up the best and most useful revisions to WOMMA's already substantial ethics policies (Honesty ROI and Ethical Blogger Outreach Guidelines). Paul Rand is driving that forward through the WOMMA Living Ethics Project.

How do you even have a discussion about ethics without inhibiting people who don't want to call out a practice/company they suspect isn't so ethical or the opposite, triggering a bunch of folks who want to trash others?

I am soooo tempted to try and frame up a way for me to share my POV directly as the Ogilvy guy separate from my WOMMA role but that is just not realistic. The point of the WOMMA Ethics guidelines is to protect our members, many of them brands, and their end customers. I think there is a way to talk about this that is very constructive and doesn't put any of us at risk for being too judgemental too quickly. At the same time, our goal is to refine our guidelines very clearly for today's WOMM world.

Let's Talk:

What do you see happening in marketing, specifically WOMM, that you have questions or ideas about? What developments in social media and Web2.0 are happening or on the horizon that may present new ethics challenges? What are your ideas for solutions?

Paul Rand summarized some of our discussions at the WOMMA Summit within the Ethics Blog:

• Is it ethical to target WOM marketing to minors?

• Is it ok to pay bloggers to write about your or your client’s brand?

• Is it ethical to create and maintain multiple online identities when engaging in digital word of mouth marketing?

I am going to share about the things that I see happening out there and where I have honest questions. To try an trim the lengths of my posts (I tend to go on) I am limiting myself to one issue per post so look for a series here and on the Ogilvy blog.

#1: Is Fully Transparent Cash Payment to Bloggers 'Ethical' Marketing?

Does paying bloggers to write a review cross a line even if you are not making any demands of the content to be positive or negative and full transparency is practiced by all (everyone knows that brand X paid them to write a unbiased review of a brand x product)?

POV #1: This is interesting as I want bloggers to have more income opportunties. I also tend to want to let the people decide where to put their trust once given all the information. One train of thought says as long as the payment and parties are completely transparent, let the audience decide if the review was useful and/or biased.

POV #2: Another POV tries to connect back to established rules of traditional journalism which would preclude payment under any circumstances. We could have a long discussion about how advertising influences editorial, but personally, I think trying to frame against traditional journalism is a waste of time. Consumers are not thinking about whether the author of content online is a journlist or not. They are using more immediate cues as to whether to trust that source or not.

POV #3: A third train of thought says that activating, amplifying or "energizing," in Groundswell terms,   word of mouth must be done without cash payment to get the true power of WOM - someone caring enough about a product or service to talk about it without a cash incentive. Payment ensures that they must take an action - writing a positive, negative or neutral "review" or other type of coverage. Not writing something is not an option.

This gets really interesting when you think of "soft incentives."   I think the idea there is about giving bloggers product samples to review and keep (one thing if it is a box or even carton of soap - different if it is a digital camera. Where's the break point there?). Other soft incentives might be travel costs to a brand experience (air, ground & hotel?). Is there a difference between giving an influencer a product experience (i.e. the camera, the soap) and giving them cash? Remember - all scenarios here include full and transparent disclosure.

Is this about ethics? Is it about best practices in regards to the benefit delivered to the brand?

My team does outreach to bloggers and other digital influencers all the time. We always want to provide some type of experience or engagement they will find relevant and valuable. We may provide products - ALWAYS fully transparent to the person reading their blog/watching their videos. We love helping bloggers with product to giveaway to their readers (we collaborate with bloggers to hold "micro-contest" on their own properties) and engage them in something interesting. We may bring them into our "Brands for a Weekend" experience. But we won't pay cash.  It's a line we draw. I am not even certain if we believe it is an ethics or an efficacy issue. It may also just be 'not our job.' Our job is to create effective word of mouth programs. What goes into that is another post but you can imagine it has a lot do to with activating and amplifying "organic" WOM. When you are artificially starting something through cash payment, then I think you are trying to create "content." Now content is useful - both to brands and potentially to end users or consumers. But is that WOM?

There is a vibrant discussion around some of these issues in regards to a KMart/Chris Brogan program late last year. The best "launchpad" into the discussion is on Jeremiah Owyang's blog post.  

What do you think about these issues? Is it about ethics, best practices or both? Join in here or at the WOMMA Ethics blog. By the end of January, WOMMA plans to review all conversations about the issues and update the WOMMA ethics policies for today's marketing challenges. This will give brands a firm foundation for their own ethics guidelines in 2009.

11Moms (or 21 ) Matter More for Walmart

Walmart shares some abstract similarities with Dell in relation to their experience with social media. The particulars are different but I would argue that the road they have traveled has been from negative to positive, from un-engaged, to engaged, and from displaying littel interest in their customers' POV to an authentic interest. Remember I said "displaying" that interest. I am sure both organizations would argue they have been customer-centric forever. Social media requires a more open display of that to succeed.

Jeremiah Owyang at Forrester posted on his visit with the Walmart social media gang and all they are doing.This includes their "11Moms" group blog/magazine-like platform .They are not paid only offered "soft incentives" which is probably like travel expenses for meetings and product promotions and the like - nothing that would pay off that mortgage or anything. 

Ultimately, it is one of the "11moms" comment to his post that really reveals the strength of what they are doing. Lucretia Pruitt - Geek Mommy posted her comment (un-filtered by Walmart which may sound trivial to those of us who spend a lot of time in social media but is, itself, a strong indicator of who deeply they are committed to getting it right. Here's what she said:

"Chad & Rob - there are ’soft’ incentives as Jeremiah pointed out - but the main reason that the program has succeeded in retaining our interest and involvement is Walmart itself and the people who work there and believe in it.

The day after Josh visited Walmart’s HQ in Bentonville, we were there as well. Thanks to the efforts of John Andrews and his team, we met with an amazing assortment of people all the way up to sitting in a room talking with Eduardo Castro-Wright and other executives discussing how Walmart can engage its customers - in particular, Moms - in a genuine and authentic way.

The day after that, we were privileged to attend the famous “Saturday Morning Meeting” and to meet Lee Scott - who even escorted us out to our departure shuttle and talked with us as well.

The people at Walmart are what make the difference and why we stay engaged. They’re families and real, working, concerned, invested folks just like we are and they believe in the changes Walmart is making. You can’t fake that.

Lots of bloggers get “soft” incentives from companies - but the passion we have to see Walmart succeed in this Social Media space comes from our own belief that they earnestly care about what their customers think. If they didn’t? No amount of goods could sway us.
Because honestly? Jeremiah’s ’skepticism’ is commonly expressed to us as down-right shock that we would work with them. Until someone talks to us for awhile and then understanding happens.

We, the ElevenMoms, believe in what Walmart is trying to do. That’s what makes it work"

This is similar to the type of brand engagement with new influencers that we have done with LG, TJMaxx, Louis Vuitton and others. Inviting new influencers in to spend time with the brand and serve as a type of "kitchen cabinet." It is a great way to change your organization as well into one that truly has empathy for customers and influencers.

Those brands that remain in social media - trying new things, changing their own organization to be successful - will be those that reap the benefit of a more effective marketing - authentic word of mouth. I admire both Walmart and Dell for enduring beyond their original hotwater and becoming leaders in thi space. I just wish the 11 moms experience wasn't so embedded in their web site template. It may just be a design issue for me or it might be the belief that 11 moms might work even harder as its own url with its own Web 2.0 simplicity. But that is a minor complaint towards all that they are doing right with it.

Food, Music & Shopping: Three Digital Services that Stick

 

As our use of Yammer dies down, Twitter accelerates and I continue to wonder if Dopplr is worth the effort, there are three digital services that I have come to deeply appreciate. Each has become a staple of my life to the point where I almost take them for granted. One of them I will kick myself for telling you about.

OpenTable
I have been an OpenTable user for years. I think most newspaper restaurant listings are either poorly organized or perform so slowly due to the heavy architecture of most newspaper sites to b of much real use. I hate calling around to find & make dinner reservations. I find that too many restaurants have not learned the fundamentals of word of mouth marketing and provide a lousy phone experience.

OpenTable simplifies everything. It actually lives by the mantra of AOF Method from Joshua Porter (basically a singular focus on Activity, Objects and Features to get that simple, Web2.0 experience). It's purpose or the activity it focuses on is making restaurant reservations. By being so simple, friendly and effective, OpenTable creates a halo of good will for all of the restaurants who participate. And I have never had a problem - no dropped reservations, no mixups,nothing. They have become reliable in a world of beta breakdowns.

Ideeli
This is the one I hate to mention. The more people who discover this 'gem' the more likely it will sink under the weight. Simply put Ideeli is a shopping "club" that presents special items every day or so that I and other members can purchase at a much reduced price. It's mostly items like bags, jewelery, and woman's clothing or accessories. So, I am buying stuff for my wife. But the model is superb.

They only carry quality goods. The prices feel very special. And the notifications via email and mobile are very enough to keep me aware without being intrusive. They notify you in advance of the "sale." If you are a premium member, you can purchase an hour ahead of others. The products always sell out (or so the interface says) or the sale closes within a day or two.

like a lot of folks, I am spending less and only looking for those great "values." I don't want to buy crap just to have more stuff. I would rather wait for that great find. Now, Ideeli 'pings' me with that find.

Pandora
I remain loyal to Pandora because without them I wouldn't have Beast, Bettie Serveert or The Ramones, "She Talks to Rainbows" (their most wonderful song). I have built a dozen or so channels and often listen to the "Quick Mix" of them all. The relational database that they have built will actually play music that is related to Jon Dee Graham (Austin-based gravely voiced ex-True Believer). The fact that I can access it anywhere is a big plus.

The only monkeywrench is Apple's Genuis feature. I have only had it on my iTunes for 3-4 months but it has proved useful towards introducing me to new music. Still, I like the 'culture' of Pandora - Tim Westergren's 'listening tours' across the country to hear what customers think, the continuous improvements and updates to the system (perpetual beta done right), and their 'underdog' status as they battle government and business against crippling fees.

What will stick in 2009?

Visualizations: The Personal Message Shield

(special thanks to Kaitlyn Wilkins aka Catchup Lady who thought of this term and described the Personal Message Shield)

Subject to as much as 5000 commercial messages a day, each of us has erected our own personal message shield. We block out messages flung at us from traditional media. Traditional media rarely has our attention anymore as we jump from activity to activity.  Consumers shift their attention seamlessly to avoid downtime and follow their interests. That might be flipping channels. It might also be carrying on a Twitter “multilogue” while watching the game on TV (Twitter allows us all to broadcast our 140 character thoughts to hundreds of followers elevating this platform to a notch above simple dialogue to a multilogue).

“…the interruption-disruption model is dying out, thanks to shifting consumer trends…”    
Geoff Ramsey eMarketer

We surround ourselves with our own social graph – our family, friends, Facebook groups, Blog and Twitter followers. They become our filter for relevance. Brands that provide engagement value and connect via our social graph earn our attention. It is not as simple as delivering advertising within social networks to reach us. In fact, marketers are quickly learning that pumping traditional online advertising into Facebook and My Space is a losing proposition. 

“Online social network users were three times more likely to trust their peers’ opinions over advertising when making purchase decisions.” (“Social Networking Sites: Defining Advertising Opportunities in a Competitive Landscape,” JupiterResearch, March 2007)   

Marketing must rethink how we develop engaging experiences for users in these environments to earn users attention. Recession marketing demands that we do this now to build relationships with customers today. We shouldn't be waiting for the economic  'cycle' to come around (2 years? 5 years?). We need effective marketing today.

Brands that use social media well and provide "engagement value" can connect at the inner ring. Brands that keep trying to Head-on assault won't make it through our shield.

The PR Professional of the Future: 2009 Edition

The Public Relations profession has been facing transformation well before the introduction of  social media. As traditional media splintered at the magazine stands, through hundreds of TV channels, and yes, the arrival of the “interwebs,” the role of the communications expert has gotten more complex and less connected to the C-suite.

If I were a CEO, I would want people who understood these changes at my side. I would want to know how communications works today and how it is likely to work tomorrow. I would want folks who could deploy programs quickly and remain nimble in their response to the marketplace.

We have been building a vision for what the skills and expertise of the PR pro of the future must be. At PR Week’s excellent Next Conference, we debuted a video that captures the thinking from some of the current leaders in communications. There are some excellent POVs here about the fundamental attitudes and expertise. Still, these are missing some new skills that will become essential for PR to play that trusted advisor role going into the future.

For an alternate view, check out this growing list of actual skills and expertise: The 13 Skills of the Public Relations Professional of the Future