What are the biggest challenges for PR in social media?

What are the biggest challenges for PR in social media? That's the question Jamie Burke, founder of the P2PR Ning Community put to me last week.
The video below has my off-the-cuff response.
Love to hear yours.


For the sake of transparency, Jamie and I work together at Brando-Digital, where we talk about this kind of stuff all day...

The more you control, the less you control

I've been thinking about how messages are spread in the networked world, how our connectivity, our group-forming nature, finds ways around control and mediation of all forms. And how going with this flow rather than working against it is more likely to result in 'your' message (it becomes theirs the moment you let go) being passed on.

Much of that is illustrated in this post, and in this slidedeck.

This doesn't just apply to messages, of course, but to anything that becomes over processed. Where the intention is control, the result is often the opposite. (image via flickr by Mike McHolm)

Those who feel confined, restricted, halted by those controls and structures simply work around them. There are lessons for companies, government, education and more in this.

Anyone who has adapted to living in the network won't stop doing what they want to do, they just won't do it with you.

Should bands sue record labels over threat to ban fans?

This is such typical centralised, broadcast thinking. Just exactly what do they think they can control?
The record industry has struck a deal with the six major UK ISPs and the Government to 'deal with' people who illegally share music*.

Deluded fools.

So the second mass media (recordings) is trying to exert control over the sixth (the internet) and the eighth (us)? (image by digitalbear)

How do they propose to do this? Well, they'll send us a stern letter (anyone else see the irony in choosing the post as a delivery mechanism rather than an IM or an email?). Er....and then they'll think about what to do next... Right.

There are a few problems here. I don't have enough life to detail them all, but let's describe the biggies.

1. Nobody owns the internet - least of all the six major UK ISPs. They have no control over what is done on it or by whom or how one node or person connects to another. Their only control is to charge admission. They aren't the only ones to supply access. Others will see a competitive advantage in refusing an invite to this Government-hosted record industry party. Beware the backlash big fellas!

2. Haven't the record companies heard of the because effect? Prince has, Radiohead have, NineInchNails have, and recently (free cd on the Mail on Sunday just before the release of a not free CD) David Bowie has. If you can't make money with content, you can because of it (eg google vs yahoo!). Is the Guardian about to send me a letter insisting I cease and desist from linking to its website because of the link I shared at the top of this post? No it expects the attention I have given it to create value (see also point 4!). Get it?

3. This is a slippery slope. If the Government is so keen to encourage complicity with national laws in respect of music downloads, why not on porn? What if it gets a taste for this control lark? Would anyone use the Government-approved internet?

4. *Thou shalt not promote/recommend to your friends (leveraging your own social graph as the perfect distribution method) or otherwise solicit the sales of our product... is not something I would expect the promoters of artists (that's you, record companies) to demand of my fans.

If I was in a band I'd seriously consider sueing!

The internet changes everything. You cannot expect to impose old ideas of business as usual.
As Clay explains (via Alan) below. Buy Clay's book. It's great. Mind you, so is Alan's.

Centre giving you a tough time? Just add a connection

Via Twitter... stoweboyd "When you are a software guy in a hardware company, you are like a second class citizen in a third world country.' - John Paul

Quite. And my response? When you are an edgling and you have to confront any centralised edifice, you can experience similar frustrations.

But, you know, there's really no need to worry. The open network will always prevail. If (and according to Reed's Law, or Group Forming Network Theory, this is true) the value of the network doubles with each additional node, then just by making one connection you've doubled the value of your contributions and of everyone else's in your network.

So if/when you're battering your head against the proverbial brick wall - if you fail today don't lose heart, don't give in. Respond the way an edgling must.

Add another connection. Then go back and try again. Literally: your efforts redoubled.

And so the arms race begins

The empire strikes back: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7293988.stm

Pakistan Government blocks YOUR access to Youtube

One man's reasonable force is another man's sledgehammer to crack a nut, I guess?

Go on then - delete this!

I've just had a post deleted from a graduate job site's forum. It was a post which offered undergrads or new grads - or you, if you like - a bit of work experience with a media company (emap's specialist media business, based in Peterborough, Cambs, because that's where I work).

I thought it might be the kind of thing that was useful for people trying to work out what they want to do in the world of work. And, of course, the learning experience can and should be a two-way thing.

My post (and at least they emailed me to explain) was being removed because: "...The Forum is a place for discussion and advice - it's not a place to advertise positions I'm afraid. This is a rule we employ across the board. That is why we have a proper, regulated jobs board on the site.

"Unfortunately, we are going to delete your post from the Forum for the above reason. If you are interested in officially advertising your positions with us then please do get back in touch with me and I'll pass your details along to the sales team, who can help you out. Media positions and work experience are hard to come by and I know that our huge user base would love to see you advertising your positions with us in the proper fashion."

Er, we haven't got a position to advertise - and aren't advertising it. I'm offering an open door to someone wanting to learn a little about life in media. Isn't that advice/information that might be of some use to the people the forum is meant to be for - we could discuss it if you like?

The moment you start deleting from forums (unless there's something really offensive going on - and then I'm right there with you) you are defining the forum as yours, rather than ours. Communities don't like that. The last post before mine on the forum in question was in October...

You can't control the conversation. It'll go on with or without your involvement. It'll go on elsewhere.

I haven't named them because I'm choosing to be kind today. I can't promise I'll always be this nice.

Is it just me - or is there a certain irony in the sign-off line of the email signature for the company in question:

"Helping people... make more informed and successful decisions about their future"

Where were the brackets saying (provided there's a buck in it for us)?

So, if you'd like to have some work experience somewhere, here's a tip. Contact someone who works for the company you're interested in - perhaps through a blog one of them is writing. There's a fair chance you'll get in touch with a human being and one who'll be chuffed you're interested in them.

Start with me if you like: david(dot)cushman(at)emap(dot)com

Go on - delete that.

It was 20 years ago today...

Can't let it pass without comment - I've worked for the same media company - emap - for 20 years. It's official.
I passed this landmark on Sunday, December 2. This marked 20 years since I've been on the official payroll.
Actually, I started a little earlier on my training course.

20 years ago I was a trainee local newspaper journalist. We used type-writers. We made carbon copies of everything we typed. We faxed in copy from field offices. We corrected by XXXXXXing out or ripping out and throwing away. We joined unions. We drank together. We printed in the same building we wrote. We owned the printing press. We had a huge physical archive - two librarians.

We had defined roles. Photographers frowned if we took a snap. We took those pics in black and white. We called into the office from payphones. We did research by looking in books or ringing and asking a human being - usually one as fallable as we were. We answered all the questions we raised.

We subbed using emms and picas. We had 'headline counts'. We sized (and cropped) pictures with mystical wheels. We layed out pages on paper. We printed all the news that fit.
We edited. We controlled the horizontal, we controlled the vertical...

20 years ago today.

Imagine 20 years ahead.

Is one-person-one-vote redundant in a networked world?

I'm not proud. I admit it. I was watching the X-Factor on Saturday evening. It made me sad and angry. And not just because I know there are millions of things that I should have been doing that would have been of greater value to me and humanity in general. Like staring into space, for example. Forgive me.

Two things stood out.

1. This show (and those of its ilk) has been lauded as a vanguard of co-created media, two-way flows - the viewers as participants rather than simple broadcast-as consumers. (for those unaware, you text to vote for your favourites - so the audience acts as mass collaborative judge on the singing talents of those paraded before you). (There, I knew I had an excuse to watch it)

But it strikes me that all those ideals of mass collaboration, of edge taking control of centre, work at their best in unfettered networks. And these are not unfettered networks.
While the X-factor may create the illusion of handing control to its voters, they only have one option - to create a hit.

They aren't allowed to say - hey actually we want to form our own global niche of supporters for this artist here (who the 'masses' are kicking out in week six of the show, for example). And, you know what, we're going to set up our own show - or tour or whatever. No, all they can do is join the relentless pursuit of creating the next, one, single, hit.

Seems a bit of a miss really, since as any fool will tell you about the Long Tail, the hit will only account for 15% of the cash to be made. 85% going down the dunny? Has anyone told Simon Cowell?

This winner-takes-all approach results in the survival of the blandest; the least worst, emerge as the 'hits'.

There are recurring examples of this 'survival of the blandest' emerging. In every case they are where a centre-out-we're-in-control approach remains at the heart of the trappings of shared ownership. Simply - the centre organises a competition - the edge gets to vote. The edge loves diversity, is passionate about difference and will self organise around it to celebrate it - but this gets swept away by the pursuit of a winner.

The lesson of the networked world is the big win is in the long tail.

2. My second concern is perhaps more challenging. A very fine singer got voted out on Saturday night. I mean a very fine singer. A fabulous school teacher, from Luton. The studio audience stood in awe to applaud her performance. She was good. Oh, I did I mention she happens to be black?

It's not the first time staggeringly talented black singers have fallen under the wheels of the battle of the bland. Whenever it occurs I get alarmed and surprised about the great British public. And it tells its own heartbreaking story that the wonderful Beverley was entirely unphased by this turn of events.

So this is where it gets challenging. It turns out I just don't trust the judgement of a significant number of people. So why should I be comfortable allowing their 'one vote' to be equal to my own?

Of course, this begs the question - why should my vote, my say, be given any more weight than anyone else's. This is the difficulty of democracy, and famously, it's tyranny.

But perhaps the networked world is showing us ways in which the idea that it must always be one-person-one-vote can change.

We are quite comfortable talking about user ratings being given more credence if the raters themselves have been given more credence by members of their community. We seem comfortable with the notion that if the community values your opinion (or doesn't) they can share this through some kind of scoring, some form of rating and recommendation. And that your influence, your opportunity for your voice to be heard, may rise and fall with this.

One-person-one-vote means everyone's opinion is equal. But in the networked world there is a general acceptance that this is not the case. Perhaps it can apply within niched communities - but not on the mass scale?

Imagine an X-Factor competition in which only people I trust can vote. This is the niche global approach. Tough one to stage on mass broadcast TV, I grant.

My community of people I trust would vote away and we'd all end up with a result we supported. Our bit of the long tail would award the 'win' to artist x. And we'd love x, our building of trust may even have included some taste sharing. No wonder we all love x.

Now repeat with someone else's community of trust. Artist Y wins! Hurrah. The long tail is being enabled.

Everyone is created equal, but when they enter a community equality ends.

That sounds quite anti- web2.0 quite anti, social. But it also sounds like the reality of life as we experience it.

It feels natural. But is this slippage towards hierarchy natural, helpful, or simply residual? Your contributions very, very welcome.