My latest contribution to EdelmanDigital.Com is up.

Perhaps the most under-utilized Web resources in the communications world are the Web sites offered by international governing bodies. Therein lies a wealth of information that often goes overlooked.

Go to the site to read more.

Was honored to join Richard Edelman, Robert Holdheim, Mark Hass and Steve Rubel as co-contributors in the "Social Media In Action" chapter of The Handbook of Strategic Public Relations & Integrated Marketing (2nd Ed.), edited by Northwestern's PR professor par excellence, Clarke Caywood. 

I recently gave a video interview regarding the themes in my contributions to that chapter. Here it is below.

For people who are serious about discussing the PR-and-Wikipedia-related matters covered in yesterday's posts, I've created a group on Facebook at the suggestion of John Cass. This was in the context of a discussion on Kevin Dugan's Facebook related to my original open letter. 

Owing to the name, I anticipate that the bulk of the members would be PR folks, but I strongly encourage people of all views to participate because, frankly, that's the only way we'll get closer to the goal.

And what is this goal? This will become clearer over time, but the core idea rests on four pillars:

1. Corporate communicators want to do the right thing.
2. Communicators engaged in ethical practice have a lot to contribute.
3. Current Wikipedia policy does not fully understand #1 and #2, owing to the activities of some bad actors and a general misunderstanding of public relations in general.
4. Accurate Wikipedia entries are in the public interest. 

The group is open. There's not much of a there there yet, but that's where you come in.

And, yes, I realize that there's some philosophy-shear in terms of using a proprietary resource to discuss matters related to an open-source one. This is trumped (if slightly) by the very "PR" consideration of going where most of the interested parties already are and integrating it into people's day-to-day online experience. 

Hoping people support this effort and take it up in the spirit it is intended. 

Jimmy,

I’d like to take the opportunity to publicly address an important topic that is long overdue for discussion. I write this, not as a representative of my employer, but as a career communications professional focused on matters related to online communities.

Short version: A truly serious conversation needs to happen about how communications professionals and the Wikipedia community can/must work together. Since recent events have thrown this issue into sharp relief, I’d like us to have an open, constructive and fair discussion about the important issues where public relations and Wikipedia intersect.

As to the long version, consider:

• Wikipedia is on the first page of search results for nearly every company, brand, product, personality, captain-of-industry, etc. This shoulders Wikipedia with a great level of responsibility, whether asked for or otherwise.
• Many entries are derelict, even for important topics and well-known industry bellwethers. Financial data is often years old. Some companies are described as remaining in businesses long divested. A WikiProject for reviving abandoned articles, and a proposal for a similar effort, themselves both appear abandoned.
• You can imagine why a company might consider its entry to be a high priority (perhaps even to the point of distraction) and task its communications staff to "do something", especially if the entry is inaccurate.
• Entreaties on Talk pages—determined as the most appropriate place for a company representative to make his/her case—often go ignored for very long periods while inaccurate information persists. 
• The small concession to PR on the FAQ (that a company can "fix minor errors in spelling, grammar, usage, or fact", etc.) takes a lot for granted and helps neither a PR representative nor Wikipedia. For example, too often, a company representative will “go native” when it comes to separating matters of “fact” from matters upon which reasonable people might disagree. On the other hand, activists (hardly of a neutral point of view) appear to enjoy much more latitude. 

So, while I appreciate and support that Wikipedia must develop and enforce certain rules regarding neutrality and so on, the site is trying to have it both ways. In other words, it's clear that Wikipedia wants to be thought of as an accurate and available resource while 1) the volunteer maintenance of that resource—despite a strong level of dedication—is unable to keep up, and 2) the hands of ethical practitioners—those closest to data—are bound due to the activities of some bad actors.

This is a source of great tension between companies and Wikipedia and I’m not sure how the public is properly served by this state of affairs. Contrary to popular imagination, most corporate communications practitioners want to do the right thing. 

Some initial recommendations to help start discussion:

• When an entry is derelict (duration and definition TBD), a communications representative should be granted greater leeway in editing the entry. The entry can have a notification at the top indicating the derelict status, or even that a communications representative has had a hand in updating it. This will allow visitors to make their own judgments on how to evaluate the entry or even prioritize it in terms of how and when it gets evaluated and/or revised by a neutral party. The choice is between the certainty of an inaccurate entry or the possibility that the entry would not meet NPOV guidelines. Negative attention to bad behavior (or even to mediocre efforts) would mitigate the impact of the latter. 
• We could revive discussion about some guidance you gave in 2006, whereby a company could author a suggested entry, license it under the FDL, post it on its own site, and “notify Wikipedians who are totally independent.” This means less work for volunteers, since it’s almost always easier to react to something rather than write it from scratch. The best corporate communicators should be able to author something reasonably neutral, I'd imagine, with the Wikipedia community serving as an important check-and-balance. 

The next move is yours. I’d welcome further discussion on this topic, with the aim of fairly framing an open and constructive discussion about this matter. 

Thanks and regards,

/pmg

UPDATE 2012-01-04-1100 CT: In one of those "Great Minds Think Alike" type things, Stuart Bruce published his own thoughts about PR and Wikipedia, even referencing the same 2006 post from Jimmy Wales that I referenced above. He was inspired by MP Tom Watson's talk page on the topic. Clearly there's some pent-up discussion here and, I agree, that working with Wikipedia on improving the rules for corporate communications participation should be an international effort. 

UPDATE 2012-01-09-1300 CT: Mr. Wales responds. A lot to think about, so you'll see my reaction delivered in bits on this blog over the next few days. 

The PRSA has managed to make quite a bit of noise around its crowdsourcing effort aimed at coming up with a new definition of "public relations." 

As with any such effort, there's always the risk that individuals or groups with zero, limited or even slanted knowledge of public relations will chime in. There will also likely be a number of agenda-driven folks aimed at unfairly smearing PR. 

Here are a few possibilities:

• Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI): "PR makes you really fat."
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): "PR requires a helmet, handrails, and skid-proof surfaces at all times."
• Food & Drug Administration (FDA): "This letter concerns PRSA's marketing of the "Public Relations...Defined" communications and marketing initiative. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed the label and labeling, including statements made on your website at the Internet addresses www.prsa.org and prsay.prsa.org. Based on claims made by PRSA for this product, PR is a drug under section 245(k)(7)(N) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”), [78 U.S.C. § 654 (k)(7)(N)], as it is intended for use in the influencing of public perceptions. As discussed below, this product is unapproved and your marketing of it violates the FD&C Act..."
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC): "As we are now re-classifying 'public relations' under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, PR is now defined as under the jurisdiction of this regulatory body."
• Office of the Surgeon General: "If you PR with someone, you PR with everyone that person has PR'ed with..."
• Coast to Coast AM: "The U.S. military used PR to cover up the Roswell landing and make us believe that the spacecraft from our extra-terrestrial visitors was a 'weather balloon.'"
• Paul Krugman: "As I've already said in a previous column, PR is something that was clearly George W. Bush's fault. Wait. What? Nobel committee on Line Two? Again? Wow! I should've thought of this years ago!"
• Media Research Center/Newsbusters: "PR is something that George Soros maybe uses occasionally, thereby proving without a doubt that PR is a vast and far-reaching conspiracy of the liberal media elite."
• Bill Maher: [Dud joke 1] [Dud joke 2] [Dud joke 3] "MICHELLE BACHMANN! SARAH PALIN!" [Applause] 
• World Net Daily: "PR is a tactic used by far-left-wing fifth-columnist sleeper cells led by an unholy union between Bill Ayers and the remnants of the Symbionese Liberation Army to lull you into a false sense of security and, before you know it, you'll be taxed at 95%, your home will be taken by eminent domain and razed to build an ACORN office, and your kids will spend 10 hours a day in public school indoctrination sessions wearing Che Guevara t-shirts and watching Hugo Chavez speeches. Just you watch!"
• University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit: "PR? Science? Meh... Tomato, toe-mah-toe..."
• The Budget Supercommittee: [Deadline extension requested from PRSA]
• Keith Olbermann: "PR is..." [It doesn't actually matter what comes next.]
• TechCrunch: "PR is something that will never, ever change our minds about the fact that RSS is Dead. Dead! DEAD, I TELL YOU!!1! (Although jumping on PR people is a good way to boost traffic, comments, likes and +1's every so often, FWIW LOL.)"
• Thomas Friedman: "PR is a strategic communications discipline whereby the hot, flat, crowded world can... Wow!!! China! Is! Just! So! AMAZING!"
• Media Matters for America: "Ummm... Uhhh... Err... FOX NEWS! BILL O'REILLY!!"
• Letter to The Economist: "SIR - With regard to public relations..."
• Charlie Sheen: "PR is a function of my rockstar ninja adonis-DNA amazingness #winning #tigerblood."
• Keith Olbermann: *sigh* "I said that PR is..."

You get the idea. Heck, even Wikipedia could get into the act:

"Wisdom in crowds", indeed.

Photo Credit: TopRankOnlineMarketing

As some of you know, I'm pursuing my MBA degree by way of the executive program at Purdue University's Calumet campus. This after more than 15 years in public relations.

A few folks have asked me "Why?" Here's my way around an answer. (And, no, writing about my MBA plans during this whole Occupy Wall Street distraction isn't meant to be intentionally provocative.) 

First, and to be perfectly frank, I miss school. I seem to do pretty well at keeping myself occupied and curious when it comes to learning new things, but it's often been a solitary or, when not, fleeting experience. This program is neither: Even at an accelerated pace, I will be committed nearly every Saturday between now and February 2013, to say nothing of the homework—about 8-15 hours/week worth. Fortunately, the class (about two-dozen folks) are all from varied backgrounds and bring different experiences. Within that, I've been fortunate enough to find four other classmates who all work well together in group projects, of which there will be plenty. 

Second (and I'm just going to come out and say it) the professional accreditations available to public relations professionals* have very little meaning to business. The MBA denotes a level of knowledge and commitment that everyone in business understands and to which all participants can ascribe value. APR? ABC? Not so much. (I've seen job ads for senior PR folks that suggest or require that candidates hold an MBA, never any accreditation from the trade orgs.) That said, I have observed how independent practioners or those in smaller markets have used such accreditations to differentiate themselves to great effect.

(* Here I use the term "professional" as a noun somewhat loosely, since the term has moved from its proper denotation of "a job that requires specialized training, such as a doctor or lawyer" to a far looser connotation of "someone in a white-collar job who works really, really hard.")

In other words, in the absence of a board or "bar association" for public relations practitioners, the MBA is pretty much it. While I don't necessarily call for the "cartelization" in PR that professional licensing inevitably creates, I would think that, if it were to happen, having an MBA (on top of years of experience) is probably a good way to get grandfathered in. 

Third, it occurred to me that I've been successful in business PR and the business of PR, though I possessed less of a formalized, complete understanding of the business of business. The process of getting the MBA (more so than the degree itself) is a means to even out the peaks-and-valleys in my professional (there's that word again) topography.

During this process, I promise not to 1) obsessively append "MBA" to my name on email signatures, business cards, etc., 2) quote from Michael Porter (who has already cast too-long-a-shadow on two of my first three classes), or 3) generally end up spouting what Bishop John Henry Newman called the "elegant imbicility" that higher education too often imparts. 

So, that's it. Watch this space for updates. 

(The above tie and others available at Zazzle.)

I recently gave a speech to PRSA's Central Ohio chapter. The topic was how an organization can ease themselves into becoming a social business by looking at the communications tasks that it currently performs and evaluating how social technologies and philosophies can accelerate and improve those tasks in the service of a broad communications strategy.

They managed to capture my post-talk thoughts on the way out the door to the airport. 

Three years ago this month, I started a blog called "Cachaçagora."

Long story short, my wife is from Rio de Janeiro and her mom and stepdad are evangelists for well-made cachaça (pronounced "ka-SHAH-suh"). Distilled from sugarcane juice, cachaça is the national alcoholic beverage of Brazil and the third most-distilled spirit in the world. Of the 1.3 billion liters or so that the country produces among its more than 5,000 distillers of widely varying quality, only a fraction of a percent makes it to the northern hemisphere. (The balance that stays in Brazil amounts to about six or seven liters for every man, woman and child in the country, which perhaps helps explain Carnaval to some of you.)

One day while in Rio, generally relaxing with my laptop and waiting for folks to get ready, something occured to me while I was going through some feeds. It seems that the sole notion of "community" that the majority of Web 2.0 PR/marketing royalty actually understands only extends so far as how they leveraged that community, and the mainstream media interest around same, to make themselves famous. Making the leap from that experience to helping a client manage its own reputation online is a much bigger chasm than many believe. 

I came to the conclusion that blogging about PR and social media alone (which I had done since 2001) was meager gruel with which to feed instinct and understanding about the following:

• Who are these empowered online enthusiasts we're always yammering (small-"y") about?
• What really makes them tick?
• How do they squeeze it between a day job and the rest of, well, life?

So... 90 minutes of messing around with TypePad and GIMP resulted in Cachaçagora, where I try my best to give North American (and global) audiences a sense of the versatility and uniqueness of Brazil's national spirit. There's also a companion Facebook group and Twitter however, commitments being what they are, they only serve as more or less as notification engines. I feature different brands, cocktail recipes and, scarce time permitting, the occasional distillery feature. 

Years later, my presentation "Everything I (Now) Know About PR I Learned from Cachaça" is one of my most popular talks. (It gets even more so if I pass out a sample or two, believe me.) I've delivered this five or six times now. 

The full presentation is a ten-point list. Here are three airplane-bottle-sized samples after the jump.

If you don't add value, you risk (and richly deserve) disintermediation.

One brand I work with has a PR firm. They do a pretty good job at sending review samples, setting up appointments, emailing event reminders and so on. 

The thing is, the distillery founder and his admin are very accessible via email and Facebook. I get a lot more done going through them. They don't seem to mind working with me directly. I haven't spoken to their agency in a year.

At least three other brands trying to get into the U.S. have either axed their U.S. agencies or allowed them to become a non-issue. So, if the only thing you're doing for your organization or client is more akin to a shipping clerk than a PR counselor, you're going to find your career assuming room-temperature quickly. 

Tell your story smartly and in more than words.

I find the blind craze to hire just any ol' "Digital Native" beyond silly. ("After all," the rationale goes, "they grew up with this stuff!") Like anything else, there are good ones and there are bad ones. That said, the best agency contact I worked with was a young twentysomething who truly knew how to get me to drop everything and write. Every correspondence was not only meaningful and had an excellent core idea behind it, but offered multimedia assets as well. Most importantly, based on what I saw in other places, she also seemed to know what kind of item I might pass on; she didn't send me every publicity item. 

"Give 'em free product" is not the best, or even a good, way to go. 

I won't lie to you: getting free cachaça to taste is very, very nice. That said, brands that have a relationship with me solely on that level are grossly devaluing their social capital. If, after a brainstorm, your program's  community engagement only exists as a giveaway, you seriously need to go back to the woodshed. 

What works: access. The best brands have put me in touch with bartenders, mixologists, their master distillers, and so on. One brand even got me an interview with the king of mixologists himself, Tony Abou-Ganim. The smaller distilleries have allowed me to write and film mini-features of their work.

At the core of these points (as well as the other seven) is the notion that the best distilleries have an innate understanding of mutual, objective value: when their communications needs help me make a better Cachacagora, we both win. It's the long-term win-win that too many marketers so often miss in the effort to make short-term clip-count and page-view goals.  

From my contribution this week to Edelman Digital's Friday Five newsletter:

I’m often called in to help write or evaluate social media policies for clients across our global network. In addition, I have a folder on my laptop bursting with policies that I’ve found from other companies. I spend a lot of time with these documents in my role, 10 percent of which involves being like the firm’s “Emily Post” of the Web.

Over time, I’ve noticed that there are a number of elements that social media policies tend to miss. Here are five of them.

More over at EdelmanDigital.Com.

Photo Credit: William Couch under Creative Commons.

Had the great pleasure of participating in Episode #101 of This Week in Law, hosted by Denise Howell and Evan Brown. My fellow guest was IT professional Jason Watkins.

Talked about social media policies, sportscasting, Quora, ICE, Wikileaks, fake Steve Jobs, fake Rahm Emanuel, sexting, and Charlie Sheen. Plugged The Pirate's Dilemma (still my favorite marketing book) and UIC's Flourish Conference (April 1 - 3, where my wife and I volunteer).

Here are Denise's complete show notes.