Digital Influence Mapping Project

Wki Scanner: How can you put the genie back in the bottle?

Ever since Virgil Griffith released his Wiki Scanner utility, the genie has been let out of the bottle and there is no way to get it back.

If you haven't been following the story, it's simple. His utility will reveal all of the edits to particular wikipedia pages including reporting who made those edits. I am not capable of analyzing his software and the accuracy of the results. Here is how Wired describes some of the voodoo behind what he has done:

"Griffith thus downloaded the entire encyclopedia, isolating the XML-based records of anonymous changes and IP addresses. He then correlated those IP addresses with public net-address lookup services such as ARIN, as well as private domain-name data provided by IP2Location.com.

The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organization's net address has made. "

Wiki scanner results pages like this one are showing up in search results. I am not sure that that is all that significant but it does make me wonder if there will be some unintended consequences of this tool (Virgil did intend to reveal controversies).

Taking the system at it's word, there will be a series of interesting reveals over the next few months. As Wiki Scanner is applied to corporate, government and hot topic issue entries, we will see how some organizations have been editing these entries to their advantage - beyond all reason. I am guessing that there will be lots of entries like this which may soften the blow for any one company.

It is already happening. The Australian Government is accused of making changes of critical content. From Yahoo News:

"A spokesman for the prime minister said Howard had never asked staff to remove unfavourable comments from the website, which allows anyone to make contributions.

But according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald, scores of edits were made by employees at the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet -- including the removal of a reference to Treasurer Peter Costello as "Captain Smirk"."

6 Suggestions for the best defense:

1. Don't delete content in entries
2. Don't add anything but facts and whenever possible make third-party reference links
3. If you have found yourself caught up in this then stop immediately (I know - that's a lame way of saying that if your organization was malicisouly changing information - stop doing that.)
4. Don't deny that your group did it
5. Create a "Wikipedia Best-Practice Guidelines" and release it organization-wide like you did a few years ago with your blogging guidelines.
6. If you add content, have an academic guide you - not to hide where the entry came from but to guide you to write for an encyclopedia.

Notice I did not say - "never contribute to your own Wikipedia entry". I believe that would be Jimmy Wales' suggestion. I think that's nuts. Who knows more about a subject than those who live and breathe it everyday. If you can just stick to the facts, shut off your 'spin' gene, allow for disagreement and dialogue, you will end up stronger for it.

My colleague, Michael Darragh, out of our Shanghai office has a very thoughtful post including 5 Tips. 

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

Wiki Guidelines

Wikis. What are they good for? Absoultely something.

Everyone knows Wikipedia, a brand in the making. Most people know Channel 9, Microsoft's forum for "niners" and the developers who love them complete with their own wiki. Some folks know about industry or topic-specific wikis that I have mentioned before.

What is Wiki?

Here is the fundamental description:

"Wiki is a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser. Wiki supports hyperlinks and has a simple text syntax for creating new pages and crosslinks between internal pages on the fly.

Wiki is unusual among group communication mechanisms in that it allows the organization of contributions to be edited in addition to the content itself.

Like many simple concepts, "open editing" has some profound and subtle effects on Wiki usage. Allowing everyday users to create and edit any page in a Web site is exciting in that it encourages democratic use of the Web and promotes content composition by nontechnical users."

When is a wiki a good idea as a tool for a company trying to engage their customers/constituents? Why choose a wiki over a group blog, a multi-featured extranet, or even a message board forum? In some ways, wikis are an alternative to formal, highly structured extranets. The basic premise beneath the wiki is that community members (can be defined by both shared affinity and explicit permissions) can publish and organize content and resources.  So for a B2B world where a software company wants to maintain strong relationships with developers, it seems like a great platform.

Could a consumer food company create a foodwiki? Probably easier to see it happening with the Food Network or Whole Foods than with a specific food manufacturer like Unilever or Perdue. Most examples of wikis are not put out there by big brands. Rather they are topic or affinity sites put together by users. But brands could sponsor a brand-relevant wiki.

Here are the 7 simple suggestions to consider as you employ Wikis:

1. Wikis work when there is a large group of enthusiast or highly-motivated users such as an industry or professional group who are brought together around a focused, shared interest. e.g. Industry pros, academics, fans.

2. Wikis can serve as an alternative knowledge base-style intranet/extranet for a smaller working team. It is a great platform to accrue documents and build a shared knowledge base over a long period of time for a distributed team. However, the lack of structure doesn't really help project-based workflow.

3. Wikis benefit from some type of "stewardship" - some dedicated entity (person) who tries to clean up after users/post-ers and make sure the resource maintains some type of integrity. Some type of clear "rules of the road" help other users understand what motivates this type of oversight.

4. Having a group of stewards or moderators helps not just to straighten up but to jump start content creation.

5. You may need to qualify contributors to help drive relevant and quality content. You can "qualify" contributors before offering access so long as these qualifications are clear and fair (e.g. a wiki on law may require contributors to be lawyers)

6. Don't expect to exert too much control on a public wiki. I noticed on newPRWiki, a contributor tried to restrict edit capabilities for some select pages to an ill-defined subgroup. The larger community rebelled and the edit function was re-opened to all.

7. The technology of  a wiki doesn't define the community. You can build it and "they" - whomever they are - may not come. So just because PBwiki makes it this simple to set up a wiki, doesn't mean you should.

Wiki watch going on now:

The eastwikkers are in the middle (literally) of their 33 wikis in 33 days reviews. Here are some of the more interesting selections so far:

• Library Success - a wiki of best practices for librarians
• Science of Spectroscopy wiki - an offshoot of a NASA-sponsored site on the study of spectroscopy: the use of light to study matter.
• The New PRWiki - I use this one.
• This Might Be A Wiki: a spectacular approach to fan sites, this time for They Might Be Giants - a band with enthusaist followers that walked the Earth ever since I patrolled the Lower East Side in NYC.
• Wikilaw: exactly what it sounds like but check out the cool infographic "how it works" on the main page.

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.