Digital Influence Mapping Project

Closing Communities: Is There a Better Way?

I was drawn in by Ben McConnell's post about the closing of Disney's Virtual Magic Kingdom (VMK). The virtual community fueled by Sulake closed one week ago. Lots of coverage from CNN to WSJ. Fans have gone the Jehrico route and set up protest sites. But it's not fair to compare the closing of a community that had been live and active for a couple of years with a passive TV show. Community mmbers feel abaonded, let down or down-right disrespected. Disney claims that the community was part of a limited time celebration of their 50th anniversary and the current message on the url is fairly ubrupt.

John Frost over at the Disney Blog (unofficial) had a terrific post last month about the closing. He considers many angles of the business drivers inside Disney from the decentralized buisness unit structure to the rigorous margin goals shared across the enterprise. Ben takes teh claim that the community was intended for a short term campaign. We wrestle with campaign-mentality in marcom all the time. Only difference is that our campaigns are often a few monmths long whereas this community was up for more than two years. Ben goes on in his post to set up the business rationale for a community to begin with:

"Campaign thinking is a byproduct of the last 25 years of business school education. The formula has been to create a short-term project using established metrics, execute, then start over with a new idea. Move the needle quickly.

The formula for evangelism thinking is: Create a project where the community of users become part of the process and most importantly, are considered a tangible asset. The needle may not move as fast because the investment is for the long term, but it's less likely to have wild, up-and-down swings."

Both authors have hit on something important: communities can serve the business goals of a company and their value and the actual value of the community members should be weighed with a business eye. 

Sometimes you have to close

If you valuate the community, you may find it is not a sustainable enterprise. As business people (and community enthusiasts) we cannot say that a business must keep a community going or make any other business decision not in line with their fiscal responsibilities.  I completely respect the investment of the VMK community members.

But it's how you do it that shows what you are made of

As usual, I think the real missed opportuntiy is how they did it. Communities are co-created experiences no matter who licensed the software or created the bitmaps. Inviting members of the community in to discuss what could happen next - where could the community be directed to to reform, how could they stay connected or how they could participate in the next Disney creation - all of these discussions might have helped the community transition. It would certianly telegraph that Disney respects its community members. Still people would be angry. But some would understand. Just look at John Frost's business-like assessment.

So sites like Savevmk crop up and gather petitions. they also collect comments - almost 5000 comments that show the emtional connection as well as the disappointment:

"Flower_KId
What cruel heartless person would want to close vmk. If anyone ever trys to close vmk i will hurt to a point were they can't even breath! If you close vmk then you shut off the love I have for Disney. I will never watch Disney channel again if vmk closes. vmk staff wise up and keep vmk for all the children to enjoy. VMK, VMK, WHAT'S THE NAME IT'S VMK, HOORAY!! "

Would it be a huge risk for someone from Disney to participate in that comment string?

Will EA Do It Better? 

Now SIMS Online from EA is closing. From the sounds of it, they do not have the vibrant community that VMK had. Still, it looks like they may also be tumbling forward in a less than ideal way. They changed the name of the community to EAOnline and then immediately announced it's closure. Someone asked if they did that just so they wouldn't have to say that one of their most prized assets didn't hit a home run. Undoubtedly, they are closing for business reasons - for one reason or another it doesn't make business sense for them to keep going with it. I only hope they are reaching out to their community - what little there may be - and having them contribute to next steps for that community.

If more companies went the extra mile to demonstrate their respect for and their value of their community members (read: customers, evangelists, potential customers), they could make business decisions like closing a community and maintain many of their strong positive relationships with community members.  

The Best Advertising Education From the Adcenter (and Oscar)

Yesterday, I had a great opportunity to speak to the current classes at VCU's Adcenter. 150 graduate students in the #1 advertising school in the country. It was atypical for me as the head of a digital influence business within a public relations agency to be addressing these students who are all immersed in the lessons of Bill Bernbach, David Ogilvy and their descendants.

The session focused on the great opportunity we all have as communicators because of the confluence of social media, peer-to-peer word of mouth and technology. We can move beyond considering how to "reach" consumers or "target audiences" to how to "engage" this new wave of content creators. Engagement has been a foundation of our 360° Digital Influence team since the beginning. And I was just talking with Pete Blackshaw about his own initiative to define how to quantify and define "engagement".

Many thanks to Peter C. (great lunch, thank you), Karen, Ashley and Rick B. I had a terrific time. Your students are way sharp.

In the middle of the presentation, someone asked a hypothetical question about a dog named Oscar.

The Dog Controversy

Turns out it isn't hypothetical. While I know the Adcenter wants the story to go away, I see this as a valuable "teachable moment." But probably not for the obvious reasons. Here's the short story as documented in the press:

"It all began last week when Mike Lear, an adjunct professor at the Adcenter, gave his creative-thinking class an assignment involving his dog.

"Your assignment is to make my 6-year-old pug, Oscar, famous," Lear said, as part of written instructions to his class.

Then things exploded.

A user of MySpace, a social-networking Web site, made a blog posting that said he was going to kill Oscar online this week.

The user identified himself as Jason, a 19-year-old male _ a swinger _ from Richmond.

Around the globe, through the reach of the Internet, people began expressing concern and outrage about the possible online slaughter of Oscar.

The Adcenter began receiving calls from animal activists and others expressing alarm, administrators said.

Richmond police were contacted, and dispatched officers to the Adcenter.

Police subsequently issued a media alert saying it had been determined that "this threat is the result of a VCU student's assignment that went awry. We want to stress that at no time was any animal in danger."

So 38,000 Google search results later, the word has spread. The teachers instructions were clear:

""You cannot harm my dog in any way. You cannot kill my dog. And your idea cannot hinge on either," he said, in a written memo."

So, the student may be expelled. Everyone is outraged at the false threat - it smacks of yelling "fire" in the crowded theater.

A Great Lesson

But there is a better lesson here and one that the student should not be expelled for. I spoke to the students about honesty and authenticity in social media. And while I do not believe social media is inherently either one of these, it is those bloggers and vloggers whom I read and watch who do share something authentic and often from the heart that excites me most about this new wave in communications. We have a great opportunity to engage people online and respect their trust. Any kind of hoax whether it be LonelyGirl15 or Oscar tricks people when they are vulnerable. Any advertiser trying to build brand loyalty (unless the brand is "Punk'd") through these means may achieve awareness but they will never reach brand loyalty.

So, who cares what the smart aleck kid said. The fact that we are not talking about how to engage people honestly and authentically is the bigger crime. And I know the Adcenter, for one is very interested in doing just that. They have built a formidable training ground for the agency of today and are poised to make those additions that will train students for a different agency landscape in the future. That agency requires students smart in many disciplines: advertising, digital, PR, CRM, etc...

So, cut the student a break. Let's invest in more dialogue about how to marry the tremendous storytelling capabilities of advertising  with the new demand for openness and transparency towards the goal of engaging people.

"Engagment" cannot be defined by how long I look at an advert. To me, it includes involvement (like conversation), time spent, relevancy and personal investment. Brands that engage me matter more.

I know lots of folks who would volunteer to lead this discussion.

Ads Won't Solve Sleep Crisis

Ad Age reported the launching of a new ad campaign from the makers of Ambien to combat negative press coverage of cases of patients who sleepwalk or sleep-binge (binge eating while asleep).

1. If the Sanofi-Aventis strategy for combatting these stories relies on advertising, they are heading down a dangerous path.

2. If this is a simple case of Advertising Age only telling their part (e.g. advertising) then they are putting themselves in a box.

Here's how Ad Age describes the ad:

"Sanofi-Aventis' new full-page ads in national newspapers and magazines show a picture of a woman sleeping, with text underneath that reads, "The real Ambien story: It shouldn't keep you up at night." The ad addresses recent news reports that "have focused on rare occurrences of sleepwalking and sleep-eating in patients who may also be taking Ambien. But it's important to know the facts."

True crisis management includes outreach to key influencers, third-party supporters, as well as, true engagement with consumers about their concerns. Public distrust in pharma companies is not helped in any way by more advertising - unless that advertising is part of a bigger strategy.

While they are running more ads, here's what folks are saying in the personal media space about Ambien:

• RXList
• The Feel Good Girl
• BlogPulse

Consumer Generated Anti-ads

We have seen a wave of consumer created advertising opportunities from MasterCard to Firefox to Chevy Tahoe. But it's the latter that has gone awry. The NYTimes reports the story. At Chevy Apprentice, users can assemble footage of Tahoe and publish their own spot. The anti-SUVers are mashing up with their own storylines and distributing via YouTube and others.

This never was a great example of user-generated content. More of an game or advertainment application, really. And now it's not working out so well. Will Chevy ever be able to pull these videos back?

AdRants credits Chevy with getting it (i.e. understanding the risks of inviting consumers to monkey with their messages). I doubt they expected the one-two punch of negative mash-ups and You Tube distribution.

Walmart Redux

Constantin Bastuera has a solid summary of what went on this past week on his blog. He tracks some fo the key issues that surfaced regarding Walmart's outreach and use of conservative bloggers:

Is this anything other than PR 101? Do the political tactics belong here?

Were the bloggers in question doing anything that journalists themselves haven't done yet perhaps in a more naive way?

How do we in the personal media space feel about "feeding" stories versus starting conversations. This was clearly the former.

Would Walmart have done better for themselves avoiding these non-transparent and somewhat sneaky tactics?

Whose responsibility is full disclosure? Potentially naive blogger or Public affairs-trained PR practitioner?

Crisis in Transparent Times

We are beginning our 3rd week of discussion at the We Media Blog - Morph under the We Influence banner. Challenged by the 'We Lead' folks, we are talking about how can brands (or people) best handle crisis in a landscape filled with citizen journalists, real journalists, angry bloggers and so forth.

You can join the conversation here.

Here is the first blog post of the series:

"When big (and sometimes bad) things happen inside government, companies and brands what do you do in a time when their are 28 million blogs, countless "citizen journalists", and shifting of who we trust? Brian Reich, who is leading the We Lead conversation, has posed these questions and more in the wake of the VP crisis. They (the VP and the White House) kept the story to themselves until it was broken by a local journalist (14 hours later?).

This is not Public Affairs 101. Things have changed. The price of not taking responsibility fast is too high. The likelihood that you can keep something from people is too low. The affect on trust is tremendous. What should brands do in crisis? Brian asks if tragic news should be "spun". My answer is a firm "no." I work in a PR firm and we never use that word. Not because we don't tell our client's side of the story. But just telling that side through the media is so...1999. We need to engage in conversation. We need to be willing to host dissenting views. We have to walk-the-walk of openness and have faith that we will earn trust with our customers and constituents that will have a lasting positive effect on the brand.

What should Kelloggs be doing? Will some food brands become the next tobacco? The Center for Science in the Public Interest is threatening a lawsuit against Kelloggs and Viacom (Nickelodeon) for marketing sugary bad stuff to kids. This is the latest expression of industry crisis involving soda machines in schools, the affects of fast foods and more. Kellogg's has been on the offensive about their commitment to nutrition for years. They have a special site dedicated to the issue. But could they host and engage in a discussion with people and experts concerned with nutrition? Sounds good but is it even practical? Would it disintegrate like the Washington post blog "shutdown."

Let's talk about crisis and brands (and governement, if you like) in this new age where transparency and openness appear highly valued. What is possible now that wasn't before. How can a brand trun a crisis into a path towards a better, long-term relationship with customers? How do we, as customers, want our brands and leaders to act in a moment of crisis?"

This is not Public Affairs 101. Things have changed. The price of not taking responsibility fast is too high. The likelihood that you can keep something from people is too low. The affect on trust is tremendous. What should brands do in crisis? Brian asks if tragic news should be "spun". My answer is a firm "no." I work in a PR firm and we never use that word. Not because we don't tell our client's side of the story. But just telling that side through the media is so...1999. We need to engage in conversation. We need to be willing to host dissenting views. We have to walk-the-walk of openness and have faith that we will earn trust with our customers and constituents that will have a lasting positive effect on the brand.

What should Kelloggs be doing? Will some food brands become the next tobacco? The Center for Science in the Public Interest is threatening a lawsuit against Kelloggs and Viacom (Nickelodeon) for marketing sugary bad stuff to kids. This is the latest expression of industry crisis involving soda machines in schools, the affects of fast foods and more. Kellogg's has been on the offensive about their commitment to nutrition for years. They have a special site dedicated to the issue. But could they host and engage in a discussion with people and experts concerned with nutrition? Sounds good but is it even practical? Would it disintegrate like the Washington post blog "shutdown."

Let's talk about crisis and brands (and governement, if you like) in this new age where transparency and openness appear highly valued. What is possible now that wasn't before. How can a brand trun a crisis into a path towards a better, long-term relationship with customers? How do we, as customers, want our brands and leaders to act in a moment of crisis?"

Commercial Alert on Drug Ads

The folks at Commercial Alert have launched a digital advocacy function on their site to drive people to tell the FDA to stop pharmaceutical ads.  Stop Drug Ads has a real bone to pick with the industry:

"Pharmaceutical companies exist to make a profit.  That is their duty under the law – to yield a maximum return for their shareholders.  In order to do that they have to sell drugs.  The more drugs they sell, the better their shareholders will do.  Every piece of information that the company sends out must be geared to this end.

This is why pharmaceutical companies are not a good source of information about their own prescription medicines.  Their financial interests directly conflict with any intention to provide unbiased information about their products.  Because of their financial conflicts-of-interest, pharmaceutical companies are perhaps the least trustworthy sources for information about their own drugs.  By their very nature, drug companies hype the benefits – or alleged benefits – of their drugs and downplay the negatives. They encourage people to see their problems as diseases that require medication. The result is a public that is increasingly pathologized and drugged."

They are equally ticked off at the advertising agencies:

"Ad agencies exist to sell products.  That is their function, and reason for being.  An ad agency that handles a drug company account is hired to help that company sell more drugs and boost profits.  But a persuasive pitch for the severity of a drug’s side effects will not sell more drugs.  This conflict-of-interest makes advertising agencies institutionally incapable of fairly presenting the risks and benefits of their clients’ drugs.  Corporations do not pay millions of dollars to these agencies to sell fewer products, whether of drugs or anything else."

Who is Commercial Alert? A broad child/family focused advocacy group spearheaded by Gary Ruskin. Their advisors include teachers, doctors, Raffi (yes, that Raffi) nand Ralph Nader.

Will pharma embrace the BP strategy of acknowledging the paradox of their business (drugs save lives, the "pure" business ethic of pursuing short-term profit threatens health and safety). Or will they hide like - eek - tobacco until it's too late? Plenty of businesses exist within a paradox. Those that openly discuss it and genuinely search for solutions tend to do better in the publics' eye.

Burger King Perv

There 's a story in AdAge this am about a viral video on Heavy.com that is picking up lots of downloads - 4.1 million (and one, after me). What i find interesting is not the hijacking of the ugly plastic Burger King "King" mask but the cool and calm response from the agency - VML. Here are the points:

• BK is advertising elsewhere on Heavy
• Heavy is a site targeting young male adults with the usual sexy, game-focused, funny videos and other content (lots and lots of movie and game ads, oh yeah and Target and BK)
• VML gave heavy the masks
• Someone in the Heavy "community" created a bawdy, suggestive video featuring a guy in the mask
• Agency (VML) tells trade pub (AdAge) essentially, "it's no big deal." Basically, they feel the King is in the popular vernacular and open to this type of interpretation.

Look for a story later on when the client gets involved and pulls its ads from BK.

Best Crisis Blogs

I am riveted to what is happening in and around New Orleans as is much of the nation (I hope). There are some very interesting and in some cases terrific blog resources springing up:

I'm OK - where people can post their status and search for others

FirstGov's Index of list sites - more lists of names (could be better if everyone agreed to use one or two?)

Hurricane Housing - MoveOn.orgs terrific service where people can offer housing to the refugees. There seem to be thousands of humble offers on the site.

Metblogs - some strong stories from New Orleans' natives struggling with what to do next.

360 Degree Digital Influence

We have finally announced what we have actually been doing for the past year or more even. Ogilvy PR's 360 Degree Digital Influence offering has finally been announced. We have been working with personal media - blogs, wikis, microcasting - for the past year and a half. It started in two places: As any PR firm would, we had an interest in blogs and crisis management. You know, Kryptonite - that kind of story. It also took off amongst those of us who had been in interactive for a long time and saw blogs as more of a continuum of personal media and part of a larger landscape.

Here's how we describe the offering:

"Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide (Ogilvy PR) has launched a new, comprehensive digital marketing offering, 360 Degree Digital Influence, that helps clients navigate an increasingly complex digital environment.

Ogilvy PR's 360 Degree Digital Influence program offers clients a clear understanding of how their brand or issue is perceived in the digital world and provides the "road maps" needed to engage and influence key audiences. The program is comprised of two parts, Digital Influence Mapping and Digital Influence Engagement. The mapping component illustrates how a client is viewed across the digital space while simultaneously uncovering new opportunities to influence target audiences. Engagement provides the strategies and solutions necessary to connect with customers and constituencies across the digital spectrum. This digital space includes not only personal media such as blogs and wikis, but also search marketing, content syndication, Web site design, online contests and more."

Ogilvy's specialty is Brand Stewardship (aka 360 Degree Brand Stewardship) and managing large, complex "projects". The digital world is bigger and more complex not just out of natural growth but the collective "hop" forward that blogs, microcastimg (podcasts, vblogs, etc...), social computing behaviors, the rise of MySpace, the purchase of About.com, the arrival of appreciable text messaging in the US, and more.

Then:

Our digital lives used to look like this. We got our information from CNN.com, we found stuff via Yahoo, we used IM to connect with friends and colleagues.

Now:

Now it looks a lot more like this. It's exciting but its messy.