We welcome your thoughts on the evolving role of community managers in the comments below.

Should community managers be forward-facing managers of a company’s online customer service, or should their roles evolve into more of a strategic position? In other words, are community managers anything more than glorified customer service reps?

DB: To me, customer service is strategic positioning (or has the capacity to be as much). Your main point of contact with any business during the lifetime of any relationship is via customer service. Marketing might grab your eyeballs, and sales might turn them into fitted lenses, but it’s the customer service reps that brand your company. A consumer’s experience with them is the experience with the brand; get that wrong and you get the experience wrong. Essentially, customer service is marketing, sales, PR and community management rolled into one; without the sexy titles.

KT: This is a tough one to answer, mostly because I think in certain regards, you could say that all PR and communications professionals act as customer service professionals at some point. But, I do believe that the role of community manager needs to shift more toward one of being a strategic planner and developer of beneficial long-term relationships with brand advocates and partners for a company, rather than being a digital liaison for the brand and placating online problems.

DB: Any company that thinks their community (and therefore, their community manager) has no value is probably a crap company to begin with. Swap the word community for any part of that company—customers, clients, employees, stakeholders, shareholders, investors. Every facet of a company is essentially its community; all that’s different is the wording. If you have people that are skilled in enhancing the relationships between all facets—and that can be internal or external—then you sure as hell better start respecting them and looking after them.

KT: The evolution of the PR and communications profession has seen many offshoots (publicist, spokesperson, etc.) struggle to earn their respect as strategic planners for companies primarily because early on, these positions were viewed by many as a means to keep the public away from executives and to keep information from them (the classic “gatekeeper”). From what I have seen, most community managers do a great job of not being anything like this, but they also seem to have the reverse problem: some community managers are viewed by executives as being too cozy and too personal with customers and brand advocates, to the point where they begin to lose some objectivity about how to help a company grow. When that happens, community managers lose their strategic value to a company.

How does the communications/PR profession help to keep the community manager role from evolving into a “jack of all trades” position that is lightly regarded among upper management? In essence, how do we ensure community managers are viewed as strategic planners for a company’s online engagement, rather than the people who solely rectify users’ problems?

KT: To me, this question is at the heart of what almost every communications professional—and yes, I believe community managers fall under the umbrella of communications professionals—faces at some point in their career. For community managers to thrive and to be viewed as valuable strategic assets by a company’s executive team, the role of the manager can’t be solely placating issues people have on a company’s website, blog, message board, etc. The position has to turn into a strategic development position, one that has broad oversight over developing long-term beneficial digital/online/social media relationships with clients, brand advocates, customers and potential partners. Far more than simply keeping everyone happy, management needs to give community managers the freedom to help build the business.

DB: The first thing the industry needs to do is take community manager roles seriously. Don’t plan your strategy or campaign and then say, “Oh, we’ll use a community manager for some of the online stuff,” and then bring them in once the campaign has been planned. Start from the beginning; include your community manager from the start and use their expertise and input. They do this for a living—you don’t. You want online success? Use the folks that can actually deliver it, as opposed to fumbling along and getting excited because someone shared your news on Facebook. Whoopee-do—what next, sport? How do you turn that exposure into a return for your client? A community manager will show you, and then some. You wouldn’t ask your intern to run your $10 million Gucci account; your client is Gucci, your community manager is your $10 million superstar account director.

Do companies even need community managers, or can their customer service and PR teams combine to offer best of both worlds?

Danny Brown: It depends. Is the PR or customer service person adept at online communications? Do they have the skill sets to communicate in the language and nuances of Twitter, Facebook, blog comments, forums, etc? There’s a ton of examples available where a PR agency has taken control and completely screwed up (look at the recent Nestle/Facebook debacle). So, unless the agency and the customer service team have the skills to properly manage a community, then no. Or at least not until you’re up to speed and completely comfortable in that realm.

Keith Trivitt: Given the evolving role that public relations is taking on within many companies, as those of us in the profession continue to show our merits for truly understanding and engaging with all brand partners—customers, partners, clients, etc.—my feeling is that a truly good PR team, one that fully understands how digital communications, blogger relations and social media work, can successfully handle a company’s community engagement efforts. Of course, the flip side of this argument is what we addressed above in that some people view the role of the community manager as a jack-of-all-trades. And if that’s the case, in my opinion, PR practitioners begin to lose some of the value in the eyes of executives that we have fought so hard to retain.

At what point does community management separate from brand advocacy? Does it, or should your community manager be your loudest voice?

KT: From my perspective and experience, the person who should be the loudest voice for your company and brand is your CEO, or whomever is truly leading the company. From a public-awareness perspective, the CEO/company leader sets the tone for everything that the brand emulates, including the brand’s online community. Having a community manager serve as the loudest or most public voice only serves to muddle the company’s message, as it appears that the company is being led by a traditional executive team on the non-digital side, and then when it comes to what takes place within the company’s online efforts, consumers may be confused that the brand is being led by someone else. That can be taken care of, however, if it is explicitly clear throughout all communications that the community manager is serving as a liaison for the brand. But I’m not sure I’m seeing enough of that explicit differentiation, which I think leads to issues down the line.

DB: I’d disagree on the CEO being your loudest voice. Just because they lead the firm doesn’t mean they’re right for leading the public face (think back to BP). And many CEO’s have absolutely no idea how to deal with this “new world” of communication—you’re really going to trust them to not screw up and make the brand look like an idiot? Even the best PR briefing can’t silence an ill-advised comment from a CEO. To me, brand advocacy and community management are two very different beasts. Brand advocacy is purely dealing with the positives, and can be employees, customers, clients or simply folks that like your brand. Community management is dealing with both positive and negative, and turning into a positive (or at least neutral and showing your side). That doesn’t necessarily mean that a community manager needs to be your loudest voice—but they will be the ones dealing with all the other voices, while the CEO goes fishing. So, who would you trust?

KT: Great point re: BP. I’ll be curious to see how this issue plays out in the years to come as more CEOs and key company executives continue to become more social media and digitally savvy, and some may even come from the digital PR/community manager side. I think we’re going to see a better blending of community management, brand advocacy and CEO/executive communications in the future where the ‘loudest voice’ becomes a blending of several voices, all on-message with each other, and all acting as broad brand advocates.

Sign up for the daily PRBC mailing here

• 3 September 2010 : Industry Debate: The Value of Community Managers
• 2 September 2010 : Dreaded Auto-DM #Fails
• 2 September 2010 : Walk the Line
• 1 September 2010 : Anecdotal Evidence Suggests PR On the Right Path
• 31 August 2010 : The Reality of Being a Publicist

Yet, no matter how much we all complain about them they seem inescapable.  Hoping to cast a spotlight on this wretched behaviour I’ve compiled, with the help of some friends, some of the most rude, bizarre, and simply unexplainable auto-dms we’ve received — all neatly categorized for your reading pleasure…with the occasional editorial comment from me…

Sales or Traffic

• Thanks for the follow! I provide widgets for businesses of all kinds. I’m looking forward to your tweets! – Ummm, Thanks…I’ve never needed this kind of product and probably never will, but good call!
• Thanks for following a widget maker, I will follow you too {Link to widget site (not PR related)} – I actually followed for some other reason…though it truly escapes me now – unfollow post haste.
• Hey you – thanks thanks for following! For inspiration check out my tickler file of case studies – {Link} – Hey you, just because I’m following you on Twitter doesn’t mean I trust you with…well, anything…
• Thanks for following Widget Co. — “Where Widgets & Tidgets Come To Meet” – info & upcoming events at {Link} – I happened to be interested in neither Widgets nor Tidgets.  Oh well, it was short, and not so  fun while it lasted…
• Thanks for following! Widget Co. is the local expert for coupons and deals in the New York area. You will now receive our coupon – Not that I’m torn up about it, but the I never received the coupon – shucks.  #Fail and #DoubleFail
• Twitter is great! 10 Tips to build brand excitement {Link} – Yes, you’re right on the first part, but keep your 10 tips to yourself.

Simply Unusual

• Encantada!!! Gracias por el follow, yo tambien seguire tus tweets. Thanks for follow, i will follow you too – Thanks. Dos looks at my profile and you’d see I don’t speak Spanish. Adios.
• Thanks for the follow. I look forward to listening to all you have to say. Have a great day, and blessing to all. – You look forward to listening to all I’ve got to say.  Have a seat, we’ll be here a while…
• Tweet that you’re #NowPlaying “Widget Song” by Wi Dget and you’ll get featured on {Link to a site I’d never want to be on} – wtf?  No really – wtf?
• Wid Get is a social media rock star who values engagement. Thanks for following. - Comment from the submitter on this one – “Really? You value engagement so much, you send an auto DM? Bye.”  Well said submitter.

Somewhat Rude

• Thanks for following me-hope you find my Tweets useful + entertaining. If I dig what your Tweeting, I’ll follow back – Wow, or you could just take a look now and not bother with this dm.  You’ll get my hopes up you that you’ll follow me if you dig my stuff you horrible horrible person. :~( Pshh.  And no, your smiley does not make it all better.  And yes, your use of the wrong form of your/you’re makes it worse.
• Thanks for the follow. Yes, this is a automated message, in case you were curious! I look forward to connecting w/you live.  See you online. – Uhhhh.  Thanks.  I feel so…special you’d trust me with that info…I think..
• Thanks for following my up-and-coming career. I plan on being a star and you’re along for the ride.- Comment again included by submitter – “I immediately unfollowed, then threw up in my mouth a little.”  Bravo submitter, the air sickness bags are in the pouches in the seat rear immediately in front of you.
• Widget uses TrueTwit validation service. Please follow this link to validate your profile. {Link} Thanks. – Wow, Widget apparently thinks they’re waaaaay more important than they are.  G’night Widget.

Pull over: Moving too fast

• Thanks for the follow. Look forward to sharing PR insights. I’d value your critique of the new Widget website {Link} – You’ve never met me, I could mix stripes and polka dots and you want me opinion on your site?  Well golly Mister, glad you’ve got such high standards.
• Are you on Facebook? I’d like the opportunity to connect with you on there as well. – Hey now, I think you’re taking things a little quickly there buddy.  Just because I’ll listen to your 140 character rants doesn’t really mean I need to see your baby pics, baby’s pics or want you looking at mine.  You do top the creepy scale with a solid 9.7 out of 10.

And this one, while not a dm, does top the list of odd bots on Twitter – from a recent #beer-tagged tweet of a peer, this reply was received within minutes..

• Do you know @Widget that you can rate beers on hashtag #Widget? Check out {Link} – Wow, really just wow..

Special Thanks to Lauren Tate Snyder, Jason Mollica, Mariam Shahab, and Chris Stearns for their submissions and assistance.

Sign up for the daily PRBC mailing here

• 3 September 2010 : Industry Debate: The Value of Community Managers
• 2 September 2010 : Dreaded Auto-DM #Fails
• 2 September 2010 : Walk the Line
• 1 September 2010 : Anecdotal Evidence Suggests PR On the Right Path
• 31 August 2010 : The Reality of Being a Publicist

There is no question that social media is the hotness for the 2010-2011 fiscal years for companies. Communications and customer service folks have been utilizing tools and building communities and brand awareness while driving revenue as a secondary benefit. The dollars brought in from people who are generally not seen as revenue drivers has given marketers a set of green blinders. You know the ones, where money clouds one’s thoughts, especially when the entry point into a medium is virtually free and is a direct outlet to customers.

Common Misconceptions

When many marketers look at social media platforms, they are immediately drawn towards the audience of the site. Facebook for example, has over 500 million users on the site. These users can be targeted with pay per click ads and if a person becomes a fan you can directly market to them without fear of the CAN-SPAM act.

As Fleet mentions in his article many companies are also making one time use accounts for specific campaigns. The thought process is that fan page for product X can be tested against product Z as to who generated more fans or followers. The sheer focus of these campaigns is acquisition and does not factor in the long-term connection with these people or other areas of the customer lifecycle.

How do we fix this?

In general social media is a lot like public relations and customer service – a support for the business channel. Much like the previously mentioned established mediums, social media touches every nook and cranny of the business.

So with that in mind, companies should aim to build a lasting impact and relationship with customers using social media. Instead of looking at the shot-term wins, the focus should be on building lifetime value and keeping customers in the company’s loop.

Doing so takes everyone’s help starting with the initial transaction or contact with the company. After the sale, offer customers ways to keep in touch with the company that they are comfortable with – email, blog, text, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.  From there it is about keeping lines of communication open and pumping out great content.

Sounds easy right?

Like all forms of communication, social media requires a two-way conversation to be sustainable and mutually beneficial for customers and brands. This is a shift away from the old guard of positioning offers through tried and true marketing efforts and passing news via press release, which was the classics one-way street. Brands should not abandon these methods, but will need to evolve and create a more holistic customer cycle to thrive in the social Web that we currently live and play in.

Instead of treating customers like an anonymous mass that are bulk marketed to, companies need to look at customers in a different light and segment them by their preferred platform.

For example, CoTweet recently put out a research report, Twitter X-Factors, which showed some pretty interesting numbers when comparing regular Twitters users to all other consumers. Seventy-two percent of Twitter users blog compared to 14 percent of the rest of consumers and 61 percent of these users comment on blogs forty points higher than the rest of consumers.

Given the audience’s pension to blog and to rate and review companies and products, this is a perfect group to pool for product reviews or a refer-a-friend or loyalty program. On the flip side, if you anger this group be ready to hear about it in your Google Alerts.

Tapping into these active users on your social accounts also builds a personal connection with the brand along with offering your company real-time insight into customer behavior, likes, dislikes and potential customer issues. The only commitment is committing time to building the bridges.

But then again you can stay the status quo with a bridge to nowhere.

Sign up for the daily PRBC mailing here

• 3 September 2010 : Industry Debate: The Value of Community Managers
• 2 September 2010 : Dreaded Auto-DM #Fails
• 2 September 2010 : Walk the Line
• 1 September 2010 : Anecdotal Evidence Suggests PR On the Right Path
• 31 August 2010 : The Reality of Being a Publicist

Through all of these changes, I’m still very optimistic that the profession is progressing along the right path; that we’re taking strides toward becoming more transparent, more focused on helping companies build their businesses (rather than building our own egos) and more in line with the goals of our clients and their key audiences and constituents.

My optimism is enhanced by recent anecdotal evidence noting how others, many of whom were once staunch opponents of the value of PR, view the strategic value of retaining PR counsel. Specifically, a post on blogger relations by Gizmodo UK editor Kat Hannaford, and another post by Jennifer Walzer of Backup My Info! leave me with the impression that our profession, as a whole, is beginning to learn from its mistakes. And while we certainly have many areas in need of improvement (media relations, agency turnover rates, mentorship, etc.), I feel we are beginning to see the hard work of many to reshape the public’s perception of the value of public relations taking hold.

It’s through reading articles and first-hand accounts of PR/blogger and PR/executive relationships, like those mentioned above, that I find the most valuable insight when building my own case for the strategic value of PR. Ms. Walzer’s post in The New York Times offered some invaluable insights into how small business executives may be viewing our profession. A key point included:

You may remember one of my posts from last year in which I talked about not needing a public relations firm because we were getting plenty of media coverage organically. Well, as I looked back on that coverage recently, I realized that it was more focused on me as a business owner than on the company and the team. And right now, I’m so busy building the company, training new employees, and managing my pregnancy that I haven’t had time to seek speaking and interview opportunities.

To me, this is indicative of two things: 1) That PR professionals are doing a far better job extolling the value of their strategic, long-term work for clients, rather than throwing out every old trick in the name of quick media placements because that’s what they think clients want to hear (it isn’t); and 2) The ongoing recession is beginning to help SMB executives realize the DIY approach to PR and brand building can only go so far. Communications and PR professionals who have experience, contacts and strategic insight into building businesses can do far more than merely get an article for a company. They can actually help a business grow and expand.

Like any profession, there are areas of improvement we all know we need to focus on, but some of the anecdotal evidence I, and others, have seen recently suggests we’re on the right path.

Where do you see the PR profession making good strides, and where do we still need to improve to fully extoll the strategic value of PR?

Sign up for the daily PRBC mailing here

• 3 September 2010 : Industry Debate: The Value of Community Managers
• 2 September 2010 : Dreaded Auto-DM #Fails
• 2 September 2010 : Walk the Line
• 1 September 2010 : Anecdotal Evidence Suggests PR On the Right Path
• 31 August 2010 : The Reality of Being a Publicist

What was my calling? Powergirls. Remember that show? The show of a small PR Firm in NYC run by Lizzie Grubman? What a cool job they had. Planning events, hanging out with celebrities, always around pretty people…I would fit in so well. I was too short to be a model, so I decided to become a publicist and declared my major.

Well as I entered the industry, one week after graduation, I realized that Powergirls was way off. Maybe that’s why it got canceled. Regardless, I dove into the industry with what was given to me and have become very successful in what I have been exposed to. Looking back on the show, obviously I thought that being a publicist was all fun and games, but there is way more.

It’s now 2010, and it’s back. The misinterpretation of a publicist…The Spin Crowd. Maybe the worst show known to man, The Spin Crowd chronicles the Napoleon Dynamite twin, Jonathan Cheban and his company Command PR West. As a publicist I know this show is whack and such a misinterpretation of what we do…but this show is “supposedly” the epitome of a publicist, and to the recent graduates that read PRBreakfastClub, do NOT use it as a guide.

Jonathan Cheban is a party planning/promoter and celebrity seeker…not a publicist. He makes people think that all PR is celeb-driven parties. Kids, it’s not. He makes us look dumb, because he is dumb. His show is called “The Spin Crowd” for god’s sake; how much more negative can you get?

In the first episode we were forced to watch his latest associate, get lip injections because she wasn’t up to his aesthetic standards. Hello Jonathan, you need to touch base with Heidi Montag cause she can probably help you get your face transformed, or not . Thanks for making us look like we are all stereotypical shallow people. In addition, his other “associate” is 19. Why is he hiring 19 year olds? College education anyone?

My favorite part of the episode was when Jonathan planned a celebrity party for some “self tanner made for men” and it was hosted by Mario Lopez. All of a sudden, one of his ladies (again stereotype) goes, “OMG, I have the best idea! I was thinking, like, Mario Lopez is the host of Extra, maybe we can, like, get Extra there to cover the party, OMG!” Jonathan then goes…”I LOVE THAT! That’s a great idea!”

Are your kidding me? OF COURSE EXTRA WAS GOING TO SHOW UP. Mario Lopez is the host of the show, obviously they are going to show up – it was probably in his contract. If they were such good “Spin” masters they would have gotten a few other outlets there because, umm, Extra would have done it anyway. Come on people, let’s use our brains today and think outside the box (like a real publicist).

There is no doubt that a reality show about a PR firm can be successful, i.e. Kell on Earth, and informative. My advice to newbies, don’t use The Spin Masters as a basis for a career choice, you’ll end up failing and washed up. Also, I would like to address Kim Kardashian. If you want to produce a good show, with hot people, that are not nit-wits, know what they’re doing and are not ruled by Napolean Dynamite, get in touch with me.

Love,
CT

Sign up for the daily PRBC mailing here

• 3 September 2010 : Industry Debate: The Value of Community Managers
• 2 September 2010 : Dreaded Auto-DM #Fails
• 2 September 2010 : Walk the Line
• 1 September 2010 : Anecdotal Evidence Suggests PR On the Right Path
• 31 August 2010 : The Reality of Being a Publicist

The settlement brings to a close the Commission’s first case under its revised “Guidelines on the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,” which took effect Dec. 1, 2009.

Those guidelines state, in part, that advertisers (in this case Reverb) are subject to liability for failing to disclose material connections between themselves and their endorsers. In a section entitled, “Disclosure of Material Connections,” the guidelines state that:

“When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.”

It seems pretty clear that Reverb’s actions violate the spirit, if not the letter, of these guidelines. An ordinary consumer who read a review written by a Reverb employee would, in all likelihood, believe that the review had been written by an ordinary consumer, not a paid advocate.

By way of example, ask yourself which one of these two product reviews might lead you to conduct a little more research:

•“I just bought Roller Coaster Tycoon, and I highly recommend it. The game is addicting and the graphics are awesome.”

•“I just bought Roller Coaster Tycoon, and I highly recommend it. The game is addicting and the graphics are awesome. (PAID ENDORSER.)”

Reverb, however, seemed to disagree.

“Rather than continuing to spend time and money arguing, and laying off employees to fight what we believed was a frivolous matter, we settled this case and ended the discussion,” Reverb executive Tracie Snitker was quoted as saying in The New York Times. Snitker hastened to add that the settlement did not involve any admission of lawbreaking.

But whether or not there was an “admission of lawbreaking” misses the point entirely. Legal or not (and that still seems to be something that could be debated), Reverb’s actions were unethical.

The PRSA Code of Ethics, to which all PRSA members pledge, calls for truthful, accurate and transparent communications. What could possibly be truthful, accurate or transparent about posting positive reviews of a client’s product, without disclosing that you’ve been paid to do so?

PRSA addressed this issue specifically in a Professional Standards Advisory — a periodic update to the PRSA Code, based on evolving technology and changing social and professional mores — that was issued in October 2008. The advisory states that:

“Misrepresentation by organizations and individuals using blogs, viral marketing, and anonymous Internet postings with undisclosed sponsorships and/or deceptive or misleading identities or descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants,” is improper under the PRSA Code of Ethics. The advisory also reminds practitioners that “open communication is essential for informed decision-making in a democratic society.”

The FTC seems to agree. Stacey Ferguson, a lawyer for the FTC, was quoted in The New York Times as saying, “We hope that this case will show advertisers that they have to be transparent in their practices and help guide other ad agencies.”

The same ethics that apply to off-line communications also must be applied to social media conversations and other forms of online communications. Consumers have a right to know that the information they read online is accurate and truthful. They also have a right to know if a product “reviewer” has been paid to offer a positive opinion of a product or service.

Illegal or not, it’s the ethical thing to do.

Gary McCormick, APR, Fellow PRSA, is chair and CEO of the Public Relations Society of America.

Sign up for the daily PRBC mailing here

• 3 September 2010 : Industry Debate: The Value of Community Managers
• 2 September 2010 : Dreaded Auto-DM #Fails
• 2 September 2010 : Walk the Line
• 1 September 2010 : Anecdotal Evidence Suggests PR On the Right Path
• 31 August 2010 : The Reality of Being a Publicist

Once you’ve come to terms with the idea that you absolutely must be measuring, where do you start? One of the first questions you should answer is whether you want to measure in real-time or whether you want to focus on measuring against a benchmark. Both satisfy rather different needs, but they could be paired to create a more robust measurement program as well. There is also some unavoidable overlap because, after all, measurement is measurement.

Real-time measurement

First of all, real-time is more aptly described as monitoring, though there can be some more quantitative aspects involved. The focus here is to gain an understanding of what is being said, where and about what right now.

Advantages:

• Immediacy. Especially with social media, time is of the essence. If someone is bashing your brand or singing your praises anywhere online, there is a greater opportunity to quell concerns or leverage the enthusiasm if you can reach out to the speaker immediately.
• Detailed insights. When you monitor in real-time, you have a greater opportunity to see incredibly detailed insights. You can watch tweets and Facebook posts go by in real-time, and there is no better way to understand exactly what consumers are saying and how they are talking about you or your brand.
• Engagement. Obviously one of the biggest advantages to real-time monitoring is being able to respond in real-time as well. Waiting until the end of the month to analyze social media coverage can leave you in the dust because many conversations will already be long dead and forgotten.

Disadvantages:

• Insights in a vacuum. If you’re tracking conversations in real-time, it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. It may seem great that your tweet got retweeted 35 times today, but in the grand scheme of things, would that even be a blip on the radar? Putting metrics and numbers in perspective can be incredibly important.
• Time suck. I don’t know about you, but I have a tendency to get addicted to things like Twitter, Facebook and Radian6. If I can keep hitting refresh to see new content, I have a tendency to get sucked in, and after a certain point, spending more time on monitoring may not be worth your while.

Benchmark measurement

Measuring against a benchmark can be far less time-consuming since you only have to do it once every month or so, but it can still provide some incredibly valuable and actionable insights. The goal of benchmarking is to gain an understanding of how conservations are changing over time.

Advantages:

• Trends over time. The obvious and biggest advantage to benchmarking is to be able to understand how conversations fit into context. You can not only track topics and messages discussed over time, but you can monitor sentiment month-over-month or year-over-year.
• Possible correlations. When you have the opportunity to look at a month’s worth of social media data in combination with sales data or Web analytics, there is an ability to find correlations that can then drive future business decisions or strategy.
• Time savings. Analyzing a lot of data at once may seem daunting, but using sample sets and other statistical methods can help save you time without affecting the accuracy of your insights. If you’re strapped for time or resources, this may be one way to cut down on monitoring costs.

Disadvantages:

• Time delay. If all you do is benchmark at the end of the month, there is a big risk that you will miss key opportunities to engage and possibly correct misinformation. High-level insights can only give you so much if you’ve missed all the best chances to engage.
• Loss of detail. While benchmarking can provide a wealth of information, often the details are lost. You may know that folks are saying positive things about you, but what language are they using? What else do they talk about when they talk about you or your brand?

Overall, real-time monitoring and benchmarking are best when combined or used in tandem. What are you thoughts? Do you prefer one to the other? Why?

Sign up for the daily PRBC mailing here

• 3 September 2010 : Industry Debate: The Value of Community Managers
• 2 September 2010 : Dreaded Auto-DM #Fails
• 2 September 2010 : Walk the Line
• 1 September 2010 : Anecdotal Evidence Suggests PR On the Right Path
• 31 August 2010 : The Reality of Being a Publicist

So, for those of you paying really close attention, you already know we’re approaching our 1 year anniversary.  Our first post was published (for the business day of) August 30th.

In that time we’ve had 505 posts (including this one), over 3,200 comments, hits from all of North America (YES, we got Greenland!), a decent set of pageviews as well as some speaking gigs and other great opportunities.

*Whew*

And so it is that we’re going to take our vacation week starting….now .  We’ll be tweaking some of the behind the scenes stuff, redoing the storefront (if you’re lucky and keep on checking the site you may get a glimpse of some new stuff) and coming back (with a tan) the week of August 30th.

Try to stay out of trouble while we’re on hiatus

While the investigation determined that Hurd did not violate HP’s sexual harassment policy, it nevertheless uncovered a related offense, which ultimately prompted his dismissal. Hurd, according to HP, breached the company’s Standards of Business Conduct by making inappropriate payments to the contractor and charging personal expenses to his corporate expense account.

Even though HP determined that Hurd had committed no sexual improprieties, the company reportedly acted on the advice of APCO Worldwide, a well-respected, global communication consultancy based in Washington, and publicly disclosed the allegations against Hurd in a press release announcing his departure.

APCO is thought to have reasoned that, given the nature of the allegations, HP would endure months of embarrassment if the news became public through a source other than the company itself. And considering that Hurd’s accuser had engaged celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who gained a measure of fame representing two of the women with whom Tiger Woods was rumored to have had extra-marital affairs, APCO no doubt feared that a full-blown and, quite possibly, salacious media frenzy could result.

Despite having acted on the counsel APCO is believed to have given, HP was criticized for its candor. Implying that HP’s board may have used the sexual harassment allegations as an excuse to rid itself of Hurd, who was said to be negotiating a lucrative new contract, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison took HP to task over its admission.

“Publishing known false sexual harassment claims is not good corporate governance, it’s cowardly corporate political correctness,” Ellison wrote in an e-mail to The New York Times.

Good Advice?

The criticism of HP’s public disclosures concerning the allegations against Hurd prompted speculation that APCO may have steered its client wrong. We will never know all the various considerations that could have led APCO to such a recommendation, such as what HP’s investigations did or did not find, or whether HP was completely forthcoming with details of the situation. Still, there is good reason to believe that HP’s public admission will serve the company’s interests well in the long run.

Corporate America has a much stronger appreciation today for the value of reputation, and companies increasingly find that behaving “in the way the public expects” can be a critically important asset

Mark Weiner, a frequent speaker and writer on public relations measurement, cites the example of a large utility that was about to miss its earnings forecast.  The company’s legal team recommended remaining quiet about the issue, while the public relations team urged full disclosure. An analysis of the ensuing media  coverage — which reported on a total of six utilities, all of which missed their earnings target — found that the stock prices of those companies that did not divulge their earnings shortfalls steadily declined, shrinking their market capitalization by up to 50 percent. Conversely, the utilities that were transparent in describing their underperformance saw only short-term declines in their stock prices, which not only rebounded to their previous levels, but ultimately realized average incremental gains of 12 percent within a year’s time.

Of course, there’s also the case of Woods, whose initial defiance and vague statements allowed speculation, innuendo and perhaps even lies about his infidelities to go unchallenged. Gatorade, Accenture and AT&T dropped Woods as a spokesperson, while Tag Heuer and Gillette removed him from their ads. Industry experts estimate that Woods’ transgressions and subsequent media isolation will cost him $25 to $30 million per year, while some put the damage at closer to $50 million annually.

If that is the price of a damaged reputation to a $1 billion athlete, what might the cost to a $100 billion company, such as HP, be?

APCO, for its part, appears to have given HP advice in keeping with the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)’s Code of Ethics, which advocates for honesty, accuracy and transparency in all communications. The agency also may have recognized the benefit of getting ahead of the story, ensuring that HP’s version of events would be reported first, as opposed to waiting for the negative coverage that ultimately was sure to appear.

As public relations pioneer Arthur W. Page once noted, performance is the determinant of reputation. Viewed in this context, APCO no doubt felt it would be better for HP to be transparent and cede short-term profits for the long-term reputational — and quite possibly financial — benefits of behaving in a way the public expected.

Because, as Page also reminded us, “all business in a democratic country begins with public permission and exists by public approval.”

Gary McCormick, APR, Fellow PRSA, is the 2010 Chair of the Public Relations Society of America.

Sign up for the daily PRBC mailing here

• 3 September 2010 : Industry Debate: The Value of Community Managers
• 2 September 2010 : Dreaded Auto-DM #Fails
• 2 September 2010 : Walk the Line
• 1 September 2010 : Anecdotal Evidence Suggests PR On the Right Path
• 31 August 2010 : The Reality of Being a Publicist

Here’s the thought: Beware the identity “lockdown” in your social media identity.

In my undergrad I was subjected to lecture after lecture about the social media “lockdown” I must partake in or risk being ostracized from the job market for a pic of me with a beer, or *gasp* the fact that I have opinions.  I, like many of my young impressionable counterparts, cowered and said – okay  – immediately playing damage control. 

By no means am I condoning the escapades of college freshpeople (being politically correct the way my lib arts school taught me, they’d be proud) but I am saying slow the purge a bit.

Here’s my thoughts based on experiences in nonprofit, broadcast (on-air and off), enterprise and small business ownership. Social media today is a reflection of your personal brand. Your personal brand should be a reflection of you. Not a canned, expected duplicate of the same folks going for the same jobs, interviews, and clients as you.

*Break*

If I was on-air right nowI’d hit a button to start playing Malvina Reynolds in an attempt to drive home my point.

This will have to suffice… go check it out on  YouTube… search “Malvina Reynolds Little Boxes”…I’m particularly interested in verse 2 . . . go on. .  .Control “new tab”… I’ll wait.

*Resume*

Okay, point?

Social media is changing the game. We can’t be put in boxes and expected to participate in the many-to-many communication revolution.

Whether you are a doctor, a lawyer or a business executive (if you actually listened to the song, the repetition was intended) no one wants to do business with a wall, if you lockdown your identity, thats what you become.

I’ve found on-air that when I allow my personality to duplicate across social media, I have a better reaction and more opportunities for brand interactivity. I have also found that people buy into the brand of me in entrepeneurship, not my business brand, additionally in a public relations function, it’s all about building a relationship. I don’t know ANYONE who counts a “wall” as part of their following or as the person to give a tip to, a great story to, a sales lead, well you get the idea, this applies across industries.

Of course, I’m leaving a huge gap in my theory. There must exist a balance in your identity between what your colleagues see of you and what your grandma sees of you. Find that and you’ve found the sweet spot. Three quick thoughts:

1.) Don’t avoid polarizing discussions, everyone has opinions and we aren’t mindless creatures. I’m reminded of a quote from George Burton Adams

“There is no such thing as a “self-made” man. We are made up of thousands of others. Everyone who has ever done a kind deed for us, or spoken one word of encouragement to us, has entered into the make-up of our character and of our thoughts, as well as our success.”

We are as diverse in our views as we are in our friendships and acquaintances. When I lecture to college students, I remind them that employers aren’t just buying into them, if they’re in the mass communications or marketing field, employers are buying into their “stock” and the many pieces that make up their identity.

2.) Candid photos are great. They show your human-side, but use common sense. The pic from your pledge days at delta delta whatever should probably be on the purge list.

3.) Be prepared to justify your likes and interests (especially to an employer). You don’t have to hide it all, just be ready to answer to it if you need to. I do encourage journalism students to avoid political and religious affiliations for obvious reasons, but don’t feel like you have to hide your love for Drew Barrymore movies.

My closing thoughts? Just in person-to-person networking, your personal stock is what will sell you across social media. Take the words of Oscar Wilde and run free friends.

“Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken.”

-Oscar Wilde