image by eric skiff, flikr / used under creative commons 2.0 license

(NOTE: I originally wrote this in August of 2009. I found it while looking through content on this site in preparation for another online move, to crossroads-team.com. I made only a few edits and have re-posted it. A decade later, still very, very true. — Mandy)

Social media allows good ideas to quickly surface. It also allows – encourages, even – idiocy to surface & spread. Launch a bad idea in a meeting and it will hang out there for a moment and then fall to the floor, with the other chaff, due to lack of support.

No one asks you about it, talks to the boss about it, tells their buddies about it… You hear crickets.

In social media, so often it is the bad ideas that get talked about the most. They are shared & discussed… The opposite of what happens in the real world.

Some people attribute the spread of bad ideas to the anonymity offered by the Internet. While I think anonymity contributes to the speed of disdain, of thoughtlessness and the abundance of simple idiocy easily findable online, I think the reason bad ideas spread quickly is different.  

Essentially, in offline sharing (our meeting example), gravity works as a filter… Good stuff rises, usually, because it takes effort to raise and support it. No one invests the effort of speaking in support, challenging those who disagree — in person — into things, people, or ideas they think are doomed to failure. Or, at least, they don’t invest that kind of effort for very long.

But online, gravity isn’t a good filter for ideas… It’s nearly effortless to retweet a link to something bad with a (LOL) or (what were they thinking?) addition. Since online gravity doesn’t pull at us with the same weight, we are more willing to fight it to spread, defend, etc. bad ideas. 

The dangers of living too long in a low-gravity environment has been proven by astronauts… Muscles atrophy, bones weaken. Don’t let the weak gravity of an online environment atrophy your mental muscle or your support system. 

Much has been written about Crisis PR, rife with examples of doing it wrong or doing it right. I often get asked to provide a quick reference for managing challenging public relations situations. Keep in mind that  “public” doesn’t mean “the public” as a whole, but rather represents the group of people or institutions who are the intended audience for the communication efforts of the individual or business in crisis. And, that this quick guide to crisis PR is written from a strategic perspective. Tactical implementations (how you achieve authentically addressing perceptions, for instance) will vary based on who is having the crisis and who needs to be influenced regarding it.

FIRST THINGS FIRST: Have a plan. Crisis communication is going to, at some point, be a need for every business or brand. It’s a “when” question, not an “if” question. Define the likely (and less likely, but most critical) scenarios, and for each:

1. Decide whom will be communicating on behalf of the organization. It’s easiest if you have a defined spokesperson, so that this person or role will be THE person for most situations, but it’s not always possible.
2. Decide how that person will have access to the facts and information they need to effectively do their job.
3. In a crisis, who will contact whom, and when? How will the spokesperson get the word that a crisis is at hand? Where do people involved physically need to go, and what do they need to do when they get there?
4. How will information flow during the crisis? Who has the authority to verify information as fact, and of those facts, which are releasable facts at what point in time, along the way? Any crisis communication plan is only as good as the information flow it generates.

Then, after you have the basics of your general flow defined, ensure your tactical plan includes:

1. Facts First: Define the facts, provide appropriate context. Clarify what is perception and what is fact in the situation at hand. Be precise with the language. How will you continue to communicate? Set expectations for when the next update will come, or what kinds of information will and will not be available.
2. Authentically Address Perceptions: Display (and mean it) appropriate concern or involvement. Regardless of the truth of the accusations/situation, people/ publics ARE concerned. That concern should be addressed authentically and honestly. Telling people “don’t be concerned” doesn’t work. Telling people the truth, and allowing them the opportunity to unconcern themselves, does. Perception is reality for each individual and the only two things that ever have or ever will change perception are communication/information and actual experience.
3. Close the Loop: Seek ways to see if perceptions actually are changing… gather feedback from the public or constituencies you are trying to influence. It is absolutely necessary in order to gauge the effectiveness of the crisis communications, to identify emerging issues (good or bad), and to appropriately structure further communication.
4. Rinse, Repeat: The message, if complex, will likely require multiple layers/channels of communication and multiple instances of communication. Influencing perceptions via communication and information is a process, not an event. Engaging your online and offline community can help. More on that later. But if you have networks who can amplify your message/communications, engaging them can help.
5. Be Available: If you are the person charged with communicating, recognize that the rhythm of crisis communication can be fast, furious, and all consuming until the crisis is past. If you are supporting the person who is doing the communicating, be as available as you can be to help gather, verify, monitor, and otherwise assist in the execution of the plan until the crisis has passed.
6. Evaluate your Efforts: After everyone has caught their breath, take a moment and look at what happened from the communication side. What went well? What didn’t? Does the plan need to be changed now that it has been battle-tested?

Finally: Communicate the plan thoroughly to everyone involved, and let those who may be impacted know it exists and how to access it. Anyone who needs to take action in a crisis should know the plan well enough to execute on it without looking it up.

1. Start with an outline or at least a mind map or notes. Decide what the big idea is you want to convey and what the main supports are. If you have source material, grab the URL and save it to a working document so you can easily link to it from your post. Be ruthless… do you have more than one big idea? It’s two blog posts.
2. Write tight. Say only what you need to say. Re-read after you’ve written your draft and eliminate any redundancy in word, phrase, or idea. An effective blog post needs to be readable and digestible in less than 10 minutes. Rather than explain someone else’s concept or idea, link out to it.
3. Use lists, bullets, subheads, images and pull quotes to break up chunks of text. No one wants to tackle a wall of gray text. No one. Add some visual interest and white space with these tools.
4. Edit like you mean it. Kill the fluff. All of it. Kill the “heavy” phrases. Don’t say “due to the nature of the relationship between these concepts” when you could say “because.”
5. Aim for 300 to 600 words. but not more than that. If you have more than 600 words, re-evalaute per point 1b, above.

See the edit in Part 5? I originally wrote the above tips for a client, and then thought, “Hey, I could make a worthwhile post out of that content. I get asked that question all the time!” I pasted them into the body of a new post and started writing the intro. Then I performed a Part 4, and noticed that saying “300 to 600” imposed a limit without the need to add “but not more than that.” So… it had to die the death of all redundant phrases. I hope this approach helps you craft blog posts that work!

Like this infographic? Get more. Used via permissions/rules. Thank you, copyblogger.com

I was on my way to a client meeting this morning. It was in a part of Tulsa that is just darn difficult to reach from where I office, so no route is a “good” one. After evaluating the “less bad” choices I had, I chose a route and started driving. While I left on time for the drive, I chose the route poorly… and after a few miles I could feel the pressure of the dash clock on my car as it ticked the minutes away. I found myself sitting at a red light in the left-turn only lane at a major intersection, wishing I’d gone the long way around but avoided this particular intersection which is known to the locals as a time-sink of enormous proportions because the light timing is unreliable. After waiting through one full light cycle without a left turn arrow (oy!) behind a gentlemen who was obviously agitated by the situation (arms waving, steering wheel being pounded), it looked like all would be well. Then, sirens…

First one, then another firetruck approached the intersection and barreled through (during my green arrow, dammit!) and then an ambulance did the same. By the time all the emergency vehicles had cleared the intersection, the arrow was red again and I and the very agitated man in front of me got to wait through another full light cycle. By this time, I am certain to be late. And the guy in the car ahead of me looks like he’s about to have a heart attack he’s so upset. I feel a little bad for him, because he’s obviously in a hurry to get somewhere. Traffic behind me is built up into a long line of people waiting to turn left… and I notice that right behind me is a Tulsa police officer.

I am giggling a little at heart-attack guy in front of me yelling at no one from inside his car when the light cycle sends the through traffic ahead and SKIPS THE LEFT TURN ARROW again. I start to fish for my phone to call my client and make the “I’m stuck in traffic call.” I notice the officer in the car behind utter a choice expletive (thanks, Dad, for making me watch football all those Sundays… I can lip-read cuss words like a boss). Then, I notice heart-attack man GO THROUGH THE RED ARROW ANYWAY and make his left turn.

The officer utters another choice expletive, the arrow finally turns green, and the officer hits his lights and sirens to fly out around my carefully-executed-into-the-nearest-lane-with-blinker-on turn to go stop angry man and ticket him for running the red light. So… to sum up, if you intend to break the rules, no matter how good the reason seems to you at the time, you better check your six first.

For those of you expecting marketing or PR wisdom, I apologize. Regularly scheduled content will resume once I stop laughing quietly to myself every time I think of the look on heart-attack man’s face when he realized he’d pulled that stunt right in front of a police officer.

The “smiling” logo has replaced the “swooshy” logo as the default graphic element. Those of you who’ve been designing logos (or working with logos) for more than the past five years know what I mean. The movement toward these friendlier, more playful logos might be, as the NY Times article on the trend referenced above says, a response toward the recession. No one wanted to appear big, corporate, and distant. I think it’s also a response to social media influences… a perhaps mis-implemented effort of brands to be more approachable for consumers (another way to engage an advertising audience). Somehow, brands translated “be more conversational” to “we need to lowercase our logo to show that we are a friendly company and that we’d be awesome to chat with on Facebook or Twitter.”

But the logo change that finally prompted me to write this rant post was the Arby’s logo “update.” Or, should I say “arby’s” since they are now a lower case logo, too. I am not against all lower case, everywhere, really. I am against a deliberate attempt to take a brand known for its western shtick and meat sandwiches and try to make it “modern” in a way that just makes it generic. And now, we have a kinder, friendlier arby’s logo (except for a weirdly attached apostrophe that is supposed to represent a slicer blade, the one nod to what arby’s is supposedly all about… slicing meat fresh in house) attached to commercials about finding the real food truth in fishing:

Gravelly male “manly” voice: Our fish comes from a place we call… the SEA. From men who wear things called… BEARDS. Because it’s cold in Alaska where we catch our fish.

With this logo.

Leaving out the fact that the type is 2-D and the hat is an extrusion effect and tilted (so the text and the hat don’t occupy the same plane anymore), and that we have “friendly” type coupled with a western hat and a slicing blade, the basic question comes down to this:

Do you believe the message (real fish, from the Alaskan sea, caught by guys with beards on ships in dangerous waters) from this “face?” Would you believe ANY “real food” message from this corporate face?

I don’t hate every logo redesign, I promise. I’m in the middle of a couple myself for clients. What I hate is such an obvious disconnect between who the brand is (which is not what the people in the offices think, but what the people eating, or not eating, at the restaurants think) and how its represented. And if the goal here is to move Arby’s (I can’t help it, it needs to be capitalized) in a different direction, then why run the “real food by real men” commercials on TV and radio?

I want brands to be themselves. If you aren’t a childlike, friendly, fun kind of brand, don’t put that out there graphically. Be who you are, or put out there who you’d like to be… I’m OK with that, aspirational branding. Just don’t try to be different by being like everyone else. The genericization of brand logos is alarming as a trend and one I hope has run its course.

Rant Post over. What do you guys think… ?

Yesterday’s request was a new one for me… “Can you come on in the morning and talk about ‘Catfishing?'” While I was aware of the Manti Te’o story, I had not heard the phenomenon of online impersonation called catfishing. So my response to Michelle Linn, one of the Daybreak anchors, was tentative: “Um, I am available, but the only catfishing I know about has to do with bait and a river.” Thankfully, Michelle has a great sense of humor and clued me in to the Urban Dictionary use of the word – which made its connection to current events perfectly clear. OK! Now I’m good! So I told her yes, of course, I would do some research to develop some condensed tips to avoid being the next Manti Te’o that would be TV-friendly and see her in the morning.

The keys to a good, short notice TV interview:

• Make sure it is something you actually DO know about (online interactions I do know about)
• Make sure you can condense your thoughts into a few minutes of conversation
• Tie in the current event/story when applicable
• Do the research to make sure you’re prepared for more than just exactly what you intended to say. It’s live TV… things happen.
• Wear a “statement” necklace. Well, only if you’re a female, or a guy really into necklaces… but the point is to take a bit of time with what’s going on near your face. It will show.

For those of you who didn’t see the interview this morning, here are the basics we covered… or you can watch the Catfishing interview here.

Red Flag Signs You’re Being Catfished:

1. Dramatic disasters and miraculous recoveries – Does your new friend seem to live a life more colorful than can be easily believed?
2. Glamourous careers, trips or experiences – Photo shoots in Hawaii? Model/Photographer/Musician on Tour?
3. He/She isn’t available except at certain times or in certain circumstances. Scheduled in-person meetings seem to be cancelled at the last minute due to some crisis or family event.

What To Do If You Suspect a Catfish

1. Use Google. Look up their name, image search for those amazing photos you received, look up any details they’ve provided to check for accuracy.
2. Ask for a specific photo. One hard to find online and steal…. Consider asking for a shot that includes your friend’s face, a public building in the town they say they live in, and a daily newspaper… perhaps with YOUR name written on it.
3. Trust your instincts. If you suspect the ‘relationship’ is too good to be true, it probably is. Cut off contact and move on.

Important to note: Some states have “illegal impersonation” laws on the books, but in most cases unless the perpetrator’s intent is said to be/proven to be malicious, no prosecution is undertaken. However, in most cases, if impersonation is used to commit another crime (such as soliciting a child for illegal acts, stealing financial information or identities) then both the impersonation and the other crimes are actionable offenses.

And there you have it. Catfishing for the non-fishing set.

P.S. I am sorry for the serious hiatus from the blog. I promise to be better… It got very, very busy for awhile here at Crossroads Communications. Thankfully, it’s still busy, but I’ve decided to cut back a wee bit on some other avenues of social interaction online and put more effort back into sharing thoughts and having conversations here. Because this is the only online property where my content is mine and the privacy and sharing settings can’t be changed at someone else’s whim

Talk soon… Mandy

First, be a public agency. One funded by public money and responsible for public information, services and monies. Ensure your organization is in a position of power and authority over the lives of said public, making the public therefore dependent upon you and your information to accomplish required tasks or duties.

Then, and this is vital, make sure your extensive labyrinth of a website is navel-gazing at its bureaucratic best. DO NOT, under any circumstances, attempt to organize information based on how the users, the pitiful plebs who are the public, might actually search for it. Don’t employ breadcrumbs or other visual navigational cues. Don’t seek to put the user, the customer, the public, the reason you exist at all, first in your decision-making process.

You should end up with something like this:

Try to make the navigation choice that the public actually wants, “Where To File,” ambiguous. Do they mean physically where to go to file? Do they mean where to mail my return once it’s done? Do they mean where to go to find someone to help me file or prepare my return? Keeping them guessing keeps them on your site longer.

Don’t bother, ever, to do anything as mundane as looking at common search terms or phrases and checking to see if your site’s content matches them or delivers the information the public is seeking. After all, mystery is the heart of any good romance between a governmental agency and the public it “serves” (air bunnies on purpose there).

Your goal? End up with top Google searches serving results like this:

Note the first organic result is from 2009. And the only result from the IRS, our agency in question here, is not applicable. With quotes, “Where do I mail my tax return” and without the year in the search still nets a first page without a single IRS result.

So if you, too, want to completely piss off the public (or your public in particular), it’s simple. Be like the IRS. After all, Honeybadger don’t care about the public.

</sarcasm> 

Evidently, I’ve been saying it often since I started writing this blog almost three years ago. The above graphic is a wordle created from the rss feed of my blog. There’s no way to date-limit or post-limit the data pulled… what’s in the feed, or what you enter into a text block provided (handy if you want to dissect a post, an essay, a book, get crafty with your kids’ names) is what you get.

It’s a great “gut check” for whether or not you’re walking the talk. I did a wordle gut check for the blog about 18 months ago, and it’s markedly different in some important ways. It was more focused on community. On blogging, people and audience. Back in September of 2010, I was writing about those topics because many businesses and brands were just beginning to embrace blogging and were trying to figure out how it fit into online communities, audiences and ultimately, how they could use it to better connect with customers, who are of course, people first. For the past year, though, my focus has shifted from why businesses should be in conversation with their customers to what they ought to be talking about, sharing, building and why. Hence the keywords in this wordle are relevant social content. 

How do you go about being relevant to your audience? Hopefully you’re spending some time online and offline in the places your hoped for audience of prospects gathers. Hopefully you’re diligently trying to figure out what they do there, what they want from that channel of communication. Hopefully you’re looking at communication as a two-way street and I don’t just mean someone commenting on your blog post or liking your Facebook status update. Customers also communicate by their dollars, their time, their attention, by email, by online reviews to sites you don’t own, by word of mouth… to be relevant, you need to be delivering what people want, where they want it, when they want it, how they want it, and be prepared to hear them and respond if they have questions, comments, feedback, ideas, criticisms or kudos.

Given the “Search Together” idea that Google has recently implemented, using your social graph, your physical location and your past web history to personalize your search results, relevance is so much more than keywords on your website. If there are no conversations about you, with you, around your space…. you’ll struggle with the personalized search results based on the social graph.

How do you define relevance? How do you engage and converse and be socially present as a brand or business?

Filtering happens everywhere everyday.

I spoke yesterday to a great crowd at Social Media Tulsa 2012 about social relevance and how we use our social networks to filter the huge amount of content we come into contact with online every day. Often, the filtering is happening in ways we don’t see or recognize like when Facebook chooses what to show in your newsfeed because of what you’ve interacted with in the past. Or when Google show you personalized search results because of who you’re connected to on Twitter or other social nets. The big ideas, though, concerned blowing up the myth that content is king. Relevant content is king, queen and probably even the court jester as required. And I’m not talking about just making sure your content is SEO friendly or keyword rich. Content can be keyworded to death and still be crap. In fact, is usually IS crap.

Relevance doesn’t mean “how do I get people to find what I’m selling / sharing / writing about on my google ad-heavy website?” Relevance means how do we organzine, judge and interact with information online. How do users determine what is relevant? They evaluate the following:

• Who did it come from? (my best friend, a business colleague, my old friend from high school, a random Twitter follower)
• Where did I find it? (Which social channel, which news site, which blog, which portal or website?)
• What is the context? (Is there an obvious slant or spin?…  Note, how much credence this point is given directly depends on number 4)
• How important is this to me (how much do I care about the accuracy of the information?)

Users make those judgements quickly when evaluating search results or evaluating content on a site. Relevant content ticks all the boxes…. it’s from a source they trust or value, it exists in an expected or trusted channel or site, the context makes sense or resonates with the user, and the accuracy isn’t suspect. Then… you have a shot at getting that bit of content noticed and possibly retained.

You must know who your intended audience is. You must spend some time thinking about where they go online for what different types of content. Delivering dating advice via LinkedIn might not be the best channel choice, for instance. The context may not be relevant for what the audience is seeking from that site at that time. It isn’t enough to know who, demographically, hangs out where. To be relevant, you have to figure out why they go where they go and what they want to accomplish while there.

Then, you can start to create content that matters. That is relevant to your intended audience. Now it’s time to look at those old stand-bys of journalistic writing – the 5 Ws – except with a social relevance twist.

1. Who are you writing for?
2. Where do they hang out online?
3. What do they do there? (how much time, what kinds of interactions, what kind of environment)
4. When do they seek out your type of content? (When in the sales cycle? What time of day? What kind of life experience or problem or moment tends to prompt seeking out your content?)
5. Why YOU? How can you be the relevant choice?
6. and How can you deliver what they want?

Now you’re ready to write or shoot or create content that matters. And if you follow the above, you’ll see very quickly why you should go, right now, and turn off your autopost from Facebook to Twitter.

See the slides from the presentation here.