For all of the benefits of social media, there are times when the controversy that is generated through a social channel is so silly, so shallow, and so worthless I wish it would be ignored. Unfortunately, with the prevalence of social channels and what can possibly be described as a unquenchable thirst for pageviews, an issue gets more attention and attraction than it merits, attracting national and even international coverage.

There is simply no other explanation for the stupid, pointless discussion around Olympic Gold Medalist Gabby Douglas’s HAIR.

Yes, you read that right. An enormously talented and adorable American teen does her country proud by winning a gold medal, and all a group of morons on Twitter can discuss is her hair.

Unbelievable.

While I recognize that by writing about this I’m further contributing to the pile of nonsense on this non-issue, my broader point is that some topics that spring up on Twitter should be ignored. Reporting on this topic gives her detractors more of a platform than they deserve. The people who would stoop to comment on an athlete’s hair style lack class. They should be ignored.

Yet, this topic is all over national media outlets, which lends validity to the topic.

Media, please. Just because something is trending on Twitter doesn’t mean it’s news. Not every idiot with a smartphone deserves to have his or her opinion elevated to news coverage.

If we are all going to rush to judgment, I hope we’re at least burning some calories while we are doing so. The Chick-Fil-A fiasco took a turn for the absurd today, with allegations that someone on the PR team set up a fake account and started to push back on the Muppets toys being pulled from stores.

There’s background on this issue all over the Internet, and that isn’t the point of this post, so if you need the 411 on what led up to this Google: Chick Fil A Muppets Gay Marriage and read a few items from the reputable news sources that come up. Assuming you are all caught up, now the PR/oddity.

At some point today, a screenshot of a Facebook exchange started making the rounds, and was picked up by Gizmodo and Mashable, with headlines blaring “Chick-Fil-A Accused of Setting up Fake Facebook Account.”

There are a few issues here. In no particular order:

• Was a fake account set up?

• If a fake account was set up, was it set up by a member of the Chick-Fil-A PR team?

• If a fake account was set up, and it wasn’t a member of the PR team, was it even an employee or someone close to Chick-Fil-A?

• If the answers to the three above questions are all no, why are we even discussing this?

The Fake Account

Although this seemed to be a given—that a fake account was indeed set up—Forbes had the following interesting footnote in the article they wrote on this debacle, which stated:

“It looks like the screenshot of the conversation above was originally posted on Reddit and must have been posted by Robert R. — given his ability to “remove preview.” It’s notable that no one who has written about this has linked to the original Facebook exchange; they’ve simply included this image in their posts.”

So, the Facebook conversation that included the purportedly fake account has been verified by exactly one person. The rest of the coverage of this exchange has all linked back to that screenshot. This is not particularly damning, but is, I think cause for a pause.

The Chick-Fil-A PR Team

Almost all of the coverage I’ve seen on this appears to assume it was someone on the PR team who did this. In part, this is because of a combination of previous behavior of bad actors of brands and a lamentable reputation on the part of PR pros as being spin doctors (and, basically, liars). However, I have yet to see one shred of evidence put forth by anyone that actually points to the PR team.

This is a major brand, and social media (and its mistakes) have been around for a while—the idea of a professional team doing something as incredibly dumb as setting up a fake account, while not impossible, is in my opinion fairly remote. When we see brands doing dumb things on Facebook, it usually amounts to one of the following scenarios: they are either deleting comments they don’t like, or, they are ignoring the problem and hoping it will just die down organically. This doesn’t fit either major category of Facebook Brand Myopia Syndrome. Additionally, Chick-Fil-A has categorically denied they set up a fake account.

The “Chick-Fil-A Once Removed” Scenario

This is a bit more plausible in my opinion. It is within the realm of possibility that someone dedicated to the brand—perhaps even someone with a connection to it, like a franchisee or line worker, or a spouse of someone employed by Chick-Fil-A—would feel as though the brand was being unfairly attacked and could, conceivably, think this was a way to address the onslaught of criticism. (It isn’t, of course.) But would someone sitting at home, whose household income is dependent on the brand, feel like this is a way to get a message out? If a fake account was indeed set up, this is the scenario I’d lean toward believing. It could quite simply be a well-intentioned but seriously misguided attempt to address the issue.

Why are we discussing this?

True to Internet Kerfuffledom, we are in the midst of a standard “accuse first verify later” social media sh!tstorm. Until there is evidence that more than one person saw this exchange on Facebook, this is a dead issue as far as I’m concerned. It’s too easy to photoshop or spoof sites. Once we have that, then we need to move on to addressing the other issues.

I haven’t seen the movie (yet), but this post makes me want to. Go read it, it’s great–an excerpt worth calling out here:

[...] If I see one more social media leadership position go by default to candidates with “big agency digital experience” or “big brand digital experience,” I am going to throw my pencil at somebody’s head. There is the medieval thinking in action, right there. There’s the primary reason why almost every social media program on the planet is failing to produce results, why three fourths of companies still can’t figure out how to calculate the ROI of their social media programs, why most brands see less than 1% of engagement from their followers and fans after the first touch, why “content is king” is failing, and why increasingly, “social media” strategy and budgets are shifting to ad buys on social networks. That’s right: For all the talk about earned media and engagement and conversations, social media account roles are starting to go to media buyers now. Everyone loves to talk the talk. Almost no company is willing to actually walk the walk. That sound you’re hearing is the banging of traditional marketing hammers pounding nails into social business’ coffin.

I think Olivier Blanchard has hit the nail square on its head, and if the measurement aspect of social isn’t addressed soon, the PR component is going to wither up and die. The dollars will go straight to advertising–which is a shame, because there is a role for communications in social. Social media is about communicating, and yet because brands can’t seem to wrap their hands and heads around how to do it, the dollars will go to the one component that drives people crazy: advertising.

H/T to Scott Monty for pointing the post out.

My parents, friends, and long-suffering husband can attest that I am rarely rendered speechless. But the antics of marketing firm BBH Labs have me darn close. I honestly had a hard time believing this wasn’t a story that inadvertently made it into the mainstream media after having been sourced by The Onion.

For the handful who haven’t heard, this marketing firm equipped homeless people in Austin with devices that enabled them to become wireless hotspots. People in Austin at SXSW then pay via Paypal to access the Internet through these hotspots, and the homeless people get to keep the money.

Good grief.

So what we have are a bunch of people who a) paid a lot of money to be at and get to SXSW, who are using b) gadgets and mobile devices that cost hundreds of dollars, accessing the Internet by using (and there is no other word) c) homeless people as the means? How could someone have offered up this idea and not realized how patently offensive and thoroughly dehumanizing it is?

Wireless says it seems like “something out of a darkly satirical science-fiction dystopia.”

Ragan quotes PR practitioner Richard Smith who said: “Watch ‘The Matrix,’ Brainstorm every sensationalist headline that could result, Don’t do anything to further that along.”

Read Write Web has perhaps captured the entire ordeal most succinctly: “You pay these homeless, human hotspots whatever you like, and then I guess you sit next to them and check your email and whatnot. The digital divide has never hit us over the head with a more blunt display of unselfconscious gall.”

The Verge carries a post by Laura June that takes a different tact, saying that the program raised awareness (so it was a successful marketing campaign).

It seems to me that there should be a better way of raising awareness of an issue than turning people into conduits to feed our Internet/hyperconnectivity addiction(s).

This week, co-host Doug Haslam of Voce Communications (a Porter Novelli Company) joined me to discuss the trouble with Pinterest and copyright, what happens–and what doesn’t–when a post goes “viral,” and is social media the solution for every business?

This week’s show is 30 minutes long.

• First, Doug and I talk about Pinterest, and the question of copyright. It’s interesting to note that this has slowly come to the forefront as an issue, rather than a huge blare of headlines with the social scandal du jour rash of commentary we normally see. Instead, it has bubbled up as a topic with people asking, “what about copyright?” The easiest manifestation of potential problems is in the area of professional photographers. Having people lift your work and repurpose it with no credit given or money paid hits them in the pocket. But what about businesses that want their images spread? And is it realistic to put the burden of use determination and responsibility on the end user? It’s a Pin Board–of course people are going to pin pictures they like. And they’ll probably do it without the foggiest notion about rights and fair use, because they are not lawyers. Doug notes that even the line between transformative works, which are protected by fair use, and outright copyright violations, which clearly aren’t protected, is blurred.
• Next, we discuss an interesting post that appeared on the Grow blog. Adam Toporek hit the big time–he had a link to a blog post he’d written tweeted out by Tony Robbins. Yes, *that* Tony Robbins. After millions of hits, he’s an overnight success, as everyone who read the post now follows him on Twitter, reads his blog–sometimes twice a day–and his Klout score rivals Bieber’s, right? Not so fast. Toporek says in his post “There was no real impact on my blog, Twitter account or Klout score.” Fame is fleeting. Doug notes that this makes sense. After all, unless the post specifically appealed on a direct level to the exact audience that follows Tony Robbins, there’s no reason there would be a long term effect.
• Finally, we wrap up discussing a piece on Spin Sucks by Ken Mueller titled “Social Media and the Solution to your Problems.” Social media is helpful and useful–but is it a “must have” for every business? From Doug’s tin roofing expert to the local pizza joint, what is the balance between social participation and the needs of a business? Is there a cost-effective way to get help–knowing that small businesses usually don’t have piles of cash lying around to pay consultants, what is the solution?

A quick note–the Roundtable will be taking a hiatus starting in March. We have a lot of exciting things cooking at CustomScoop, which is where yours truly will be focusing her time, for the time being. Thanks everyone for listening!

This week, I was joined by co-host Sarah Santucci to discuss FTD’s Facebook page on Valentine’s Day, Carnival Cruise Line’s decision to take a hiatus from social at the peak of a crisis, and we also discussed a post on Voce Communications blog that discusses some best practices for social business (although we admittedly get sidetracked by Pinterest).

This week’s program is 28 minutes long.

• First, Sarah and I talk about the sad state of FTD’s Facebook page on Valentine’s Day. The page was overrun by negative comments and disappointed customers–not exactly ideal content for the brand’s main wall. To their credit they didn’t spend their time deleting negative comments like some brands have done. We talk about ways that FTD could have at least blunted the impact; either by creating a delivery dilemma page on the wall, or something similar to channel customer queries in a–let’s admit it–less brutal fashion. On really busy days like Valentine’s Day, a brand like FTD is going to get hit and hit hard, so have a plan. The delivery issues are one thing, but the Consumerist’s “Garden of Discontent” that shows disappointing images are another thing. Social media certainly has changed business.
• Next, we talk about the baffling decision by Carnival Cruise Lines to suspend social media activity in the wake of the Costa Concordia disaster. This just seems utterly bizarre to someone with a communications background–why would you close down a channel during a crisis? It depends on how you view the account–which, in Carnival’s case appears to be a marketing/advertising channel. But as Sarah points out, you can change the tone of your content without shutting off the channel, which probably would have been a better idea.
• Finally, we discuss a post on Voce’s blog about best practices for streamlining corporate social accounts. Sarah points out that this is a really good post for businesses of any size to read, and contains some really good advice. We get sidetracked talking about Pinterest, as I note that not every business needs to be on every channel, and as we continue to see the number of channels grow peoples’ attention will become more fractured. I point out that teens have started to flock to Twitter because they can use fake names and protect their accounts (presumably from their parents) and even MySpace is seeing its numbers creep back up (I did not expect to type that sentence. Never say never!)

What is it about Twitter that gets grown adults who should know better into trouble? Twitter’s not the only culprit either; social media seems to amplify the best and worst in people.

One of the most recent examples of this is Oprah Winfrey’s recent Tweet urging families with Nielsen boxes to watch her OWN network, which is in direct violation of the ratings group’s rules. As a television veteran, owner of a television channel that bears her name, and all around media tycoon, Oprah surely knew and understood that a direct appeal to viewers with Nielsen boxes is strictly off limits. After sending the plea via Twitter, Oprah was contacted by the folks at Nielsen and she deleted the post, issuing a statement that she meant “no harm.”

There are a number of other examples from the worlds of politics, celebrity, and sports. There seems to be something about typing your thoughts into a 140-character message that removes the filter from our brains and just lets anything out. The immediacy and conciseness of the medium lends itself to snarky, off-the-cuff comments many would expect to hear walking down a high school hallway.  Sure some of these may be more serious gaffs than others, and some may even be manufactured, but what the heck are these folks thinking?

My grandmother used to say, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Another great piece of advice I received from a boss was to walk away from the computer before hitting send on an emotionally charged email. So why can’t these big wigs figure it out?

Maybe our immediate access to our gadgets, ever-present and ubiquitous, are part of the problem. They become little extensions of our minds, filled with all the data, entertainment, and contacts that make up our personal and professional worlds. It’s so easy to just babble in text form and spout off whatever pops into your head. Whatever the cause, I’m sure Oprah’s recent troubles are not the last social media scandal we’ll see making headlines.

Recently, two political discussions highlighted the power and speed of online activism. These weren’t the first, but the scale and speed of both issues were remarkable, and the results were nothing short of startling. So, we can expect to see more of this in the future, right?

I wouldn’t bet on it.

Now that the dust has settled (a bit) on both issues, it is time to take stock and see what lessons can be learned.

The SOPA/PIPA debate came first. The forces supporting this legislation–the motion picture and music industries, especially–have a long track record of working with and lobbying members of Congress. Those opposed to the legislation are more recent entrants to the lobbying circuit. Google only opened an office in Washington around five years ago, according to a post on Time’s Swampland blog. What Google and Facebook and Wikipedia lacked in the way of deep ties in Washington was more than made up for by a simple fact: these sites are intrinsically intertwined in the daily lives of millions. They were able to a) catch the attention of, and b) motivate people to act. This is the very definition of influence: the people who Google and Wikipedia prompted to act were not just those with a direct financial interest, they were the average, everyday users of the products. I don’t think you could get closer to a real grassroots movement, and that is why the response to SOPA/PIPA had such an impact.

However, this sort of motivation isn’t something that can happen often. Block out Wikipedia too many times and people get annoyed, not motivated. Put a black box over Google too often and it will prompt eyerolls instead of action.

The second debate shares some similarities and has some differences. The online response to the Komen Foundation’s decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from the process awarding grants to provide breast screenings was rapid and almost universally critical of the decision. There was some support for the move, but by and large the online discussion was dominated by those who disapproved of the move. Again this was a grassroots response, but unlike the SOPA/PIPA issue, most of the outcry was independent of the two organizations at the heart of the controversy: neither Planned Parenthood nor the Komen Foundation were actively channeling people to request an action–people were simply expressing anger, and a lot of it.

Of the two examples above, I’d wager that Komen-like flare-ups will be more common than the large-scale, directed at Congress actions we saw in the SOPA/PIPA debate.

Buried in this is the lesson for public affairs folks: it is exceedingly hard to generate true grassroots action for a reason and even more difficult on the scales we are talking about here. First, you have to capture peoples’ attention, which is no small thing. But it is the second element that is most difficult to replicate even on a small scale. You have to get them to care enough to react. So if you have a client demanding the type of Internet response we’ve seen recently with these two issues, it’s time to start managing expectations, because it’s as hard to predict what will motivate this many people as it is to predict which videos will go viral. There are some common elements, and we’ll look at those in a future post–but this level of response is extremely difficult to reliably predict.

This week, co-host Chip Griffin joined me to discuss the disclosure missteps made by both Path and Pinterest this week, the changing online media landscape and what that does (or doesn’t) mean, and we look at Reddit’s attempt to crowdsource the writing of legislation. Chip gives a shout-out to listener Carmen Sognonvi, and makes a request of listeners.

This week’s show is 28 minutes long.

• We kick things off by discussing two issues that appear to have a common thread: both Path and Pinterest were accused this week of failing to be as transparent as they could have been about their business practices. Path, an app that uploaded user’s contact information to make it more social, didn’t disclose this–and Pinterest didn’t disclose that it was inserting affiliate links in users’ “pins” and making a commission off of them when someone opted to purchase. Chip points out that people online are losing their minds in comments on the Path issue. People immediately subscribe evil intentions to companies, when in reality there is no evidence they are doing, or even planning on doing, anything wrong.
• Next, we discuss some changes in the online media space, and what the consolidations mean for the media landscape. Chip says they mean absolutely nothing–there have always been changes and consolidations, and this is no different. That it’s happening online rather than with print copies is about the only difference.
• Finally, we discuss a TechDirt post about Reddit’s attempt to crowdsource the authoring of the Free Internet Act. We both agree that this could be harder than it sounds–there’s a lot that goes into writing legislation, much of which is not intuitive on the surface, such as figuring out which sections of existing law get modified as well as paying attention to which committee a bill will be assigned. It is always good to have citizens engaged in the process, and we’re both looking forward to seeing how this experiment progresses.

I recently realized that I have attended or worked for four different institutes of higher learning and spent nearly six years in dormitories. Academic organizations are somewhat unusual in that they serve both public and private functions in society, as well as garnering resources from both public and private funds. This got me to thinking about the ways that preparatory schools, colleges, and universities can utilize media monitoring to gather actionable information to assist in these pursuits.

Here are a few ideas:

A – Alumnae relations

B – Board members

C – College name

D – Departments and department chairs

E – Educational trends or Emeriti

F – Faculty

G – Groups on campus

H – Hospital affiliations

I – Incidental mentions

J – Journalists writing about academic issues

K – Key donors

L – Legislation that may affect student loans

M – Municipal tax issues

N – Names of key legislators

O – Other alternative names for the school or its students

P – Planning events

Q – Questionable mentions in social media

R – Reaching out to former students and parents

S – Students traveling abroad

T – Tracking paid marketing efforts

U – Universities in the same tier – the competition

V – Visiting dignitaries or speakers

W – Working groups or other public/private partnerships

X – Exchange programs

Y – Young athletes for recruitment

Z – Zoning issues in the surrounding community

I hope this gives you some ideas on how your school can use media monitoring to enhance your programs and day-to-day operations.