“Oh, that’s just a waste, we don’t need that,” she maintained.

But when we got one, there was an instant feeling of liberation. Now, when the kids stayed up until 8:20, we could start watching our show at 8:21, instead of waiting for it to finish recording at 9:00. In fact, it was better, because we could wait until then to start and still “finish” when everyone else did.

Maybe you felt the same way about liberating your songs on iTunes, being able to carry a lifetime of music passions in your pocket. One dial away from every tangible memory.

That feeling is addictive; and it is both powerful and empowering. The great impact of personal technology did not really manifest until it put us in charge of our own schedules again. We are no longer captive to the time and place that another is sharing – we choose when and how we will consume. It’s a powerful feeling, and I was certain that I would never go back. I knew that my daughter would come of age as part of the generation that “dictates to” and does not get “dictated to.”

Boy, was I wrong.

The Power of Serendipity

It hit home when I was in my bedroom organizing a drawer, when my daughter asked for help. She wanted me to hurry up and help her with something in her room, because the Harry Potter movie was coming on television in a few minutes.

Mind you, this is the same Harry Potter movie that we’ve owned on DVD since before my seven-year-old daughter could speak. She had just watched it last week. And she wasn’t interested in seeing it again, except for the fact that it was going to be on TV!

I told her that we could take a few minutes to get things settled in her room, and start the DVD whenever we wanted to.

“But Daddy!”

Without commercials.

“But Daddy!!!”

Exactly. There is something there I didn’t quite understand. She was supposed to be growing up in an age where the consumer controlled everything, and had the upper hand.

The Mass Experience

I don’t know if you realized it, but the ratings for the Super Bowl were up. And the ratings for the Oscars were up. It wasn’t because either of these live events were any better than predecessors – but because part of the show is our participation in a great communal experience. People who might have been on the fence about watching the Academy Awards did so, just to follow along with the bitter snark and commentary from their friends on social networks. Not a gigantic impact, but enough to turn the tide of declining viewership.

We are still social animals, and when we are so empowered for individual consumption of media we will still yearn for and cling to those communal moments. Hosting a Super Bowl or an Oscar Night party takes effort. Jumping into and out of online clusters of people is easy – because we are empowered to do so!

The traditional broadcasters should keep things well in mind that the way to remain relevant and deliver eyeballs is to provide campfires for us to huddle around. It must be the kind of experience that makes you feel like you’re missing something if you aren’t there in real-time. No offense to fans of “How I Met Your Mother,” but the scripted situation comedy doesn’t provide the level of “OMG WTF Did you see THAT!” one finds in discussions of “Lost.”

We’re Not Immune

None of us are immune to this pull. I thought I was.

The other night, while checking my DVR to make sure I was going to record the shows that I would get yelled at for missing, I noticed something.

Right there, on DirecTV’s 101 – Rush, live in concert.

I’ve seen them eight times myself, and own everything they’ve released. I am a huge fan. And you’d better believe I watched a few minutes and recorded it. Even though I own the DVD set it was edited from.

And last month, while driving a rental car with satellite radio, there was Limelight on the Classic Rock channel. And there I was, listening to it, even though I had the disc sitting right there in the passenger seat.

There’s something about the serendipity and randomness that is a draw. And there’s something else about that communal experience. I wasn’t listening to Limelight because something new and unexpected might happen. I wasn’t live-tweeting the lyrics, nor was I chatting it up with friends online.

There was something magical about knowing that somewhere – tens of thousands of somewheres, in offices and automobiles across the country – there were others who put aside the alienation, and got on with the fascination. The real relation, the underlying theme. We were all experiencing it alone, together.

The broadcasters who figure this out will survive the implosion of traditional media.

In other words, speaking and interacting with your customers are the new leads.

This may sound like “flat is the new up,” but it is different – the whole marketing world is changing. Look at all the smart phones out there. A recent article about Verizon Wireless 4G speed may have these phones going faster than home Internet. (My phone is already faster than my broadband). This means businesses (or all customers) can or will be able to buy anywhere, anytime. And more are joining these ranks literally every hour.

Michael Greene on the Forrester blog does a pretty good job of describing the talking points:

He explains that over the next five years, Forrester sees a doubling of interactive marketing to $4.8 billion by 2014. “That’s no number to sneeze at,” states Greene, “but what impresses me most is that historically conservative B2B marketers are not only investing in interactive marketing, but actually shifting budget towards online channels.”

He brings up three touchstone points: B2B interactivity will bring tangible results; digital isn’t just for sourcing leads anymore; and B2B marketers can’t ignore social media.

“Even more than their B2C counterparts, B2B interactive marketers are highly focused on channels that deliver tangible business results,” according to Greene. This means turning interactive data points to identify who is really interested in your product or services. This could mean trouble for traditional marketing channels like catalog and mailing lists. No wonder CoTweet, a CRM interface for Twitter used by Ford (among others) was just purchased by email marketing firm ExactTarget.

Forrester finds that paid search is still at the top of the B2B marketers’ spend, while display ads, mobile, and social media are exploding.

This becomes, in my judgment, the slippery slope that we saw when the Internet was new. Some of the best-known companies took their print ads and literally moved them onto the web. PLOP. Just stick it on that page. When that didn’t work, some fired their web teams because it became clear that you could not sell on the web. Enter Amazon to prove they were wrong. Not just a little wrong, but really, really wrong.

I see companies making the same mistake, especially with content, usability, and metrics. Some are cramming their sales in social media channels but are missing the larger point. Customers want to have a conversation with the company, or perhaps just a question answered. The new world demands accessibility and not just pasting your big Photoshop ad on a small cell phone screen. Sure, branding and maintaining a recognizable look and feel are important, but you need to remember how the media is being used, how people are interacting with the content and what they expect as an outcome.

I have a vivid picture in my mind of Marshall McLuhan (“the medium is the message”) throwing up his hands and walking away because so many business people refuse to change gears to see what the customer needs, thinks, wants, and in the case of social media, is saying about your company.

McLuhan would, on occasion use the pun, the “mess age.” And he was writing about the television era in the mid 1960s. It is apparently every bit as relevant today.

Scott Monty who runs the social media program at Ford said this on his personal blog: “When you start hearing about social media taking up more budget rather than having to struggle for dollars and attention, it’s clear that the practice is gaining in legitimacy.”  And that is indeed becoming the case.

I have ranted about two of the nation’s (U.S.) largest retailers having good Facebook pages, but no way to ask questions or get help on Facebook. So I bought somewhere else feeling like I was being ignored in their “store.”

Customers and prospects are demanding answers on their terms, be it on Twitter, Facebook, NING or a phone call, which is more likely now made from a cellular phone. Our new job as B2B marketers is to reach out and hold conversations with customers, develop relationships and analytics to identify which will provide what our company is seeking to achieve (without ticking off any of the other customers). Or more simply, when it comes to chatting with the customer, “Love the One You’re With.”

One of the things I love most about reading is the way it tends to clear my mind–I’m one of those people who could spend every waking hour thinking about what I need to do, what I’ve done, what I should be doing, etc. It can be exhausting to never let your brain have any down time–it’s also counterproductive, as when you are constantly fixated on details your creativity can be stifled. (This is one of the main reasons I avoid reading business books. Depending on the author/subject I find many of them could be summed up in a white paper, plus they don’t jump my brain to think creatively.)

As I was reading Aldrin’s book an anecdote he related started me thinking about–of all things–fair use. (It also got me thinking about ghost writing, but that’s another post.) Aldrin was the subject of an iconic photo: the so-called “visor shot” from the Apollo 11 Moon landing. The photo has been used for commercial purposes, and Aldrin acknowledges that some applications (like MTV’s use for its awards) are harmless and even complimentary. However, Bacardi used the image for a rum commercial, depicting the astronaut with shorts on and pouring rum. This probably doesn’t seem all that egregious but for the fact that Aldrin is a recovering alcoholic, who at the time of the advertisement had been sober for 20 years. Aldrin was able to get Bacardi to pull the ad–but that begs the question: should Bacardi have even rolled out the ad in the first place? To them, it was a faceless image that everyone recognized. But there’s a person in that photo, even if you can’t see his face. Shouldn’t some consideration have been given to the individual’s circumstance? It’s not like it would have been hard to research, even in the ’80s with no Internet–you can narrow down who was in the photo pretty quickly.

I can see how it could happen in meetings and brainstorming sessions–people get going with the whiteboard, one idea builds on top of another, and it’s pretty easy to arrive at “here’s what we’re going to do” while blowing right past the “wait, should we do this?” How many poorly conceived social media (or even traditional marketing/advertising) campaigns have there been that just make you shake your head and say “what were they thinking?” The whole sub-par sub-viral category takes this all to a new, low level. (B.L. Ochman’s post contains another WTH/F-were-they-thinking example of a parody of the Columbine tragedy.)

Yes, it’s a big Internet and there are lots of things on it and you have to stand out blah, blah, blah. But throwing decency and common sense out the window while you are doing so might win you a few fans, but will probably cost you far more. I’m fully aware this post won’t reach anyone that it should, because those prone to using these sorts of attention-baiting tactics don’t really care about their image, they only care about eyeballs and buzz. But the escalation of inappropriate content affects all of us in communications, as it debases the industry (further, some might argue) and ultimately where does it end?

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

Click here to listen to the 35-minute discussion.

• ABC News is laying off a significant portion of its staff–some reports say up to 20 percent of its news division will be affected. While some view this as a further implosion of the mainstream media, ABC states that it is part of a move to restructure the organization to better respond to the changing market. Kellye points out that by becoming more like social media, news organizations may be giving up a niche they fill well–that of investigative reporting.
• Next, the group covered Twitter’s new ad platform, and what this could mean for users–will people be annoyed by the ads, or will they accept this as a necessary component to keep a free service free?
• Wrapping up the topics for the week, Kellye, Doug and Jen talk about that awkward moment when you need to fire a client–sometimes it’s clear cut (such as ethics), but other times it is a matter of expectations that aren’t matching up.

Click here to listen to the 35-minute discussion.

People who interviewed me afterward for blogs and articles wanted to know how I did it. The answer is pretty simple: I just did what I typically do every day, but I step it up to keep pace with the news. Social media is much more than just the physical tools such as Twitter, Facebook or Google Buzz: It is the community of people who trust you and are interested in what you have to say. News organizations can’t ignore this community (which exists whether you are there or not) and then parachute into a breaking news event and expect good results.

When I’m interacting with the public on a typical day, this is what I try to do (regardless of what tool I’m using to communicate):

• I respond to people who ask me questions. A lot of times, people are asking me questions that are not within my expertise. I find the expert in the building and get an answer, whether the person is wondering why they’re not getting their print paper delivered or why there is smoke on the horizon. I see being responsive as part customer service and part journalism. Social media can be a great customer service tool, and if I can help out there to make my news organization better for the public, I do it. As for the journalism part, all you have to do is ask the assistant city editors how often I bug them with tips I hear from social media. We get a lot of tips that turn out to be blog posts or stories.

• I thank people who give me a tip. The other day, someone pointed out to me on Twitter that Perez Hilton blogged about Austin homeless celebrity Leslie Cochran (yes, Austin has a celebrity homeless person). I turned that tip into a short blog post on our own site, and our Web production desk built a fascinating photo gallery of Leslie. I then made sure to publicly thank the person who gave me the tip.

• I talk in a conversational tone, and even have a little fun. I have the corporate “S” as a Twitter and Facebook avatar, but people in the community know me (or feel like they do) because I’m not just spitting out headlines. At its heart, social media is a sharing machine. People don’t share news with their friends by saying, “Sources say Karen to have a boy.” Instead, they say, “Did you hear Karen is having a boy?” Media organizations that are intruding in people’s circle of friends and family on social networks should have some personality.

• I am not afraid to ask for the public’s help. If I see someone mention that there is smoke bellowing up on the horizon, and the metro desk hasn’t heard yet what it is, I have no problem with tweeting something like, “Hearing some reports of a fire in North Austin. Anyone see what’s going on?”

These are the things I do on a daily basis, even when there’s not much going on in Central Texas. When big news does happen, though, all that work building a relationship with the community pays off. Here are the same bullet points during a big news event.

• Because I’m seen as responsive, people are not afraid to give us information. They know that someone is seeing what they’re offering up. During the plane crash, people volunteered content in droves. We received dozens of pictures from witnesses, witness reports and even a tip that the pilot’s manifesto was online. Thanks to that tip, I believe we were the first media organization to post the manifesto on its Web site.

• People know I’m appreciative of what we get, and they genuinely care about our organization and several of our staff members who they “know” through social media. Reporters and photographers no longer have to be faceless bylines.

• Since I am conversational, it’s not awkward when I break into Twitter with this post that I sent early in the plane crash story: “Anyone up in the 183 area who has seen anything? If you have a twitpic, let me know.”

• Since I often ask for the public’s help in reporting the news in our community, I hardly even have to ask for help during breaking news – people just offer it up.  I like to think of it this way: for decades, the TV and radio stations had a corner on getting people to call in with tips during breaking news. If a tornado touches down, people used to think right away to call the TV station with their report, photo or video. The Internet has leveled this playing field for newspapers. Now a storm-chaser’s photo can lead the newspaper’s Web site within minutes. TV and radio stations are good at getting on the air and asking for that content. I see what I do on social media as the equivalent.

There’s no magic to using social media tools well. It just takes a commitment to it, and a willingness to work with the community every day, even when the news is slow.

Robert Quigley is the social media editor at the Austin American-Statesman and is a blogger forhttp://oldmedianewtricks.com.

The question, which sounds as obvious as “how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll lollipop” was tweeted by David Snowden of Cognitive Edge from the Henley Knowledge Management Forum in the U.K.

It is questions like these that drive knowledge management, or “KM” professionals crazy. (Not just you.)

I first met David when I was on the KM team at Intel, and he was a KM thought leader for IBM. No question, social media, and in this case Twitter has made the world a smaller place.

We have all been forced into using systems that try to make us behave in a certain way, which is generally counter-intuitive. The system may be from our company or a company that we do business with.  In almost every case, the reason they are driving us nuts is that it should make it easier for THEM to do something. In fact, the Ugly Bear of Unintended Consequences rears its ugly head to make everyone’s life worse.

Enter knowledge management to tame the bear and enable your engagement into the process, not suffer through it.

Knowledge management is, to clarify, the practices of capturing, codifying, reusing and measuring how the information is applied. In my model, it also becomes a cycle, where the business must react to the measurements of how the knowledge is applied, because knowledge is a dynamic force that keeps evolving.

In a society where content is growing at a faster pace seemingly every minute, it makes sense that content is only as good as its ability to be applied.

Knowledge is different than just data. Knowledge is (arguably) information with application or context. It may be unquantifiable, but many elements of a lesson are able to be measured.  Interaction with step-by-step instructions solving a specific issues are a good example. There’s value in the steps and knowing how they are used.

Companies that have a web site with a carefully managed knowledgebase can leverage the shared community knowledge to be the subject matter expert on the web site, even if they are not the market leader.

Let me call that out again, the non-market leader CAN grow market share by storing knowledge. For example, the once little-known CNET tech news web site grew to selling technical specs to eCommerce sites and making millions. Smaller telecom companies became the market leader by becoming the information “go-to” source for their market segment. All they did was explain new technology at the lowest common terms.

You need to pay attention to how users interact with your content, and that means detailed analytics. Not just with which documents they use, but to determine what they are doing with the document’s content. In the past, I have found that pairing analytics with a third-party call center to confirm this information very useful in getting unbiased results.  Now, mouse tracking analytics may serve part of that need.

Armed with statistically significant data, you can then develop the knowledgebase to help the majority of your customers fall in love with you. If you can solve major problems with your content, and measure that content usage to determine what the next problem will be, then you can head off your customer’s issues BEFORE it haunts you both. That means customers will find the answers on your web site. If theyt do, why would they buy elsewhere?

But what if you were the customer: Why would you NOT want the information you need to solve your problem at your fingertips? Trust me, your customer sure does. That’s why it makes sense to support the resources to develop, measure and continue to develop the content and interface you need to become your market leader.

With one company in my past, we made every prospective employee write a step-by-step document of how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. We taught step by step documentation writing to everyone in the company at all our locations. We shared the ownership of this project with everyone. Within a year, we went from 20 knowledge contributors to over 500 document contributors, and that included the administrative assistants. They learned information about the products and shared it.

For the record, yes, this start-up became the market leader.

There are a lot of good and nearly free platforms that can be used for this. What is vital is that your system is designed to engage your customers, not just the price tag. You can keep The Bear at bay. Every day analysis must be done on data usage and the system needs constant reevaluation that is based on data, and not a “gut feeling.”

After all, did you ever see what’s in a gut?

Last week, Facebook overtook Internet portal Yahoo! as the second most popular site in the United States. According to web measurement firm Compete, the social site broke 133.6 million unique users in January. That puts them a mere 18 million users from knocking Google from the number one spot. They changed some privacy settings last week that could make things better for you – if you know about them. Finally, they reiterated their position that mobile will be their number one area of growth.  There are several takeaways for organizations of every type and size.

Facebook is growing by giving people a place to share what they have in common.  Earlier generations joined clubs, told stories and showed the photos that they kept in their wallet. While a lot of that is still happening, time pressures and the power of the Internet have encouraged a big change. Today, people join Facebook to find old friends – or make new friends who come from the same schools, professional organizations or perhaps who have the same beliefs.  We now show photos from our mobile devices. We are spending time with friends online, sharing personal stories and restaurant reviews from our mobile phones and expanding our professional outreach. It is this social and economic change that requires your attention.

What do your customers or donors have as their common ground? More important, are they already meeting online and making up their minds without you? You need tools to quantify their activity and to engage them in conversations that add value to their day – and yours. This means you may have to find them in their social media space first, and there are a number of useful tools at your disposal.  For the record, this is not where you try and sell people; your web site should do that. This is where you have conversations with people. This is where you can prove you know what you are talking about.

Just because we are talking about social media, this is not – REPEAT NOT – the job of the intern. The person talking needs to be someone knowledgeable who can speak on behalf of the company. These conversations are recorded in Google and other search engines for a long, long time. More important, they ARE the voice of the company. Listening to them are likely your clients, customers and suppliers, all making up their mind based on what is said. And just because they weren’t online to see it said, doesn’t mean they won’t find it in some search engine later. Don’t use that statement as the reason not to implement a social media program, but use it as the reason to learn more.

Last week Facebook added some granularity around their privacy setting that gives you more power over who can see your “posts.” You can set it differently for each post, if you remember. Unfortunately, those of us who already segmented our users into groups we used to focus our posts in the old system had them wiped from the top level screen in the interface update.  Now we are back to selecting the Facebook preselected groups, closer to ‘send it to the immediate world’ grouping. So much for granularity.

When Facebook gets this part right, it will give information that can be mined (recorded and quantified). Data can answer questions like: When and how often did you say you were sick? What were you trying to keep “private”?  While I have no proof that this IS being done, it is possible it CAN be done both by Facebook and application creators.

So what are they big takeaways for your business?

First, the world is no longer flat nor round: It is virtual and it is social. People are talking about every brand and shop, including yours. Even the little local coffee shop or garage is being talked about. And search engines and newer applications have access to the chatter. You need to be listening and know when to speak. You must first have a seat at the table. Not being at the table would be like being in a fight for survival that you don’t know exists until you’ve almost lost the battle.

Click here to listen to the 30-minute show.

• First, Jen and Sarah tackle the Kevin Smith versus Southwest Air debate, and how both sides are likely to benefit from all of the publicity. What happens when two social media titans go head-to-head? Everyone gets media coverage, and nothing is really resolved.
• Next, they discuss the Tiger Woods press conference–if you can call it a press conference when no press is invited.
• Finally, they cover the Please Rob Me site. Sarah points out that most likely, anyone using Foursquare is social media-savvy enough to get that they are disclosing their location. Jen adds that Facebook, due to its diverse user base is a more likely candidate for people inadvertently oversharing.

In this case, it’s an Adult Album Alternative format – and I suppose it’s a sign of the times that something rated AAA is no longer a safe investment.

Tens of thousands of fans flocked to show their support online, via petitions and emails to Citadel Broadcasting and Facebook groups. But WWMM-FM, Live 100.5 is not coming back. It’s not that the format failed, but the business around it is crumbling. The implosion in radio is unfolding differently than the implosions of television and print, but it’s happening for the same underlying reason.

In the next few days, right after the last song has played, 100.5 will become a talk radio station. It will be Birmingham’s third news/talk FM station, not counting the all-sports FM station. All three will simulcast the signals and shows of AM counterparts with longevity, which means that there will be little new exposure of new programming, just greater reach for the existing ones.

Evolution or De-evolution?

We’ve come to believe in the last couple of decades that AM was built for talk and FM was built for music, but that’s not the case at all. AM radios used to deliver a quality signal, and years ago sounded much better than they do today. The reason AM sounds so bad compared to FM has less-than-you’d think to do with stereo quality and bandwidth, and more to do with auto manufacturers who cut costs in the 1970s by putting the crappiest AM tuners they could find. Eventually, the advent of the portable 8-track and cassette tapes created an expectation of stereo separation, and FM’s natural advantage swung the balance of power.

AM languished until saved by the talk format, which relied didn’t require a stereo signal nor the same audio quality. Talk hosts on AM radio could take advantage of the night-hours of clear channels to develop larger regional audiences, therefore justifying the expense of their niche. Yet now the economics of the overall industry are pushing talk onto the FM dial, where we can hear angry hosts hang up on callers with the clarity and timbre that only a true audiophile could appreciate.

It would be easy to point the blame at greater choice for personal entertainment, such as the rise of Internet streaming music, iPods and mp3 players. Radio is adapting to new competition, but it has done that before. Just as much blame goes to an industry that continues to make the mistake of not knowing what it has to sell.

Content or silo?

Take the incoming talk station, for example. Its AM counterpart has not had a local weekday voice for some time now, bringing in syndicated national and regional content. Now, it is kicking up a local morning show for the launch. Citadel didn’t do market research to determine if a new talk show was needed, or what niche they could serve to pull in a desired demographic. It’s a case of Fire-Ready-Aim. Not knowing what else to do, it just fills the time.

Many aspiring hosts would think of this as an opportunity, but is it really? There are many working models now allowing people to start their own shows online, with the end product being more easily time-shifted for the convenience of the listener. If you want to build an audience for advertisers or for influence, why would you want to insert yourself into a silo that is more desperate for you than you are for it? Why saddle yourself with the restrictions of time-clocks and slots and breaks and expensive antennae and huge power bills? Moving forward, Radio will be further shackled by being a silo in search of content, instead of allowing the content to thrive.

It’s not just radio

Television and newspapers are running into the same problem. What they produce is very different from what they sell. Local TV stations are tasked with producing a “newscast,” which comes with very artificial restrictions about frequency, duration, and time of launch. Every newscast runs 30 minutes, and there will be 21 minutes to fill. No matter how important the news of that day, it will be crammed or stretched to fill. Because it’s all about the container, and not the value proposition.

Newspapers have fared a little better in the transition to online, but only because they had more resources in the field to begin with. The newspaper itself was the single published item. An edition went to press as one unit, and it was counted as a single unit for auditing purposes. The Times-Picayune sold more than half a million copies of its Super Bowl edition a couple of weeks ago. It’s counted as a single quantum.

But that’s not the value proposition. What the Times-Picayune and other papers sell is two-fold; access to timely information, and readers’ attention to advertisers. In an online venue, they are giving away the first in the hopes they can leverage the second. There still exists that dichotomy between producing to fill the container instead of producing to fill the demand.

Many journalists have escaped into a successful freelance existence, because they realize the product they produce – the story – can be consumed as an individual quantum of its own. News, like so many other things, is granular. We don’t buy albums anymore; we download the individual song (which, since there is no B-side, is finally a “single.”) It doesn’t pay for television networks to tentpole similar shows, because much of the viewing will be time-shifted, done online, or caught up later with a Netflix subscription. Many who read news online don’t even get to the other parts of the site, and stay on the Breaking News page.

When more of the producers figure out they can control the distribution of their efforts directly, it will no longer be a buyers’ market for journalism and opinion. And on that day, many of the silos will collapse under the weight of the assumptions that kept the roof aloft.

Surviving the new frontier

The Internet has been called the “Wild Wild West,” but the advent of digital distribution is bringing on a new frontier. To survive it, you need to heed the warnings from the crumbling media empires. Know the difference between a container and a unit of value. Understand (as best you can) how people will find, acquire, and most importantly share those valuable quanta of information you provide. Be nimble and flexible in the ways you release those messages – and be smart in how you track them, because there is no single finish line for measurement. And most importantly, be interesting. Only the most interesting or entertaining element gets remembered, the rest get dismembered.

In the future, there will be no ribbon for being the third-place news/talk station in Birmingham. There will be no prize for being first, either, if “being there” is a function of filling a slot and not providing value.

Ike Pigott’s work with social media tools in times of crisis and disaster has been cited often as a case study within that field. A former journalist and Emmy-winning writer, Ike founded Positive Position Media Consulting through which he has coached hundreds of managers and executives for media interviews and crisis situations. He writes about communications at Occam’s RazR.

We were joined by special guest Jennifer Windrum, a PR practitioner who enjoys social media. She has decided to view her recent job loss as an opportunity to pursue her passions.

Click here to listen to the 31-minute show.

This week, we discussed Jennifer’s passion for social media and her WTFLungCancer (Where’s the Funding) efforts; Shel Holtz’s post about real-time feedback loops; and closed the show by discussing Forrester’s new blogging policy for its employees.