Pass the Mic Blog

Have you ever received a gold star, or a token in my case, in elementary school for good behavior or producing good work in class? The star system is an effective incentive mechanism in which teachers have implemented a reward system to promote achievement and encourage positive behavior. Students would work hard to achieve the most stars in order to be listed the highest on the ladder; I sure did.

Similarly, marketers are implementing these game mechanics to encourage more customer engagement and influence behavior. Businesses are also finding this strategy effective in the work place for driving employee productivity, personal development and innovation. This psychological motivation is exactly what the “Gamification” trend aims to succeed in a non-gaming context. So is this strategy worth the investment?

Industry analyst firm Gartner says that it is a highly significant trend and predicts more than 70 percent of Global 2000 organizations will have at least one “gamified” application by 2014. Agreeing with Gartner, if implemented correctly, Gamification can be more than just a buzzword. It has the potential to develop a positive interactive experience for customers and transform work into an enjoyable environment for employees. Especially with consumers today increasingly online and on social channels, this presents a new opportunity to engage on another level.

What is needed to implement a Gamification design?

It’s important to remember that Gamification does not mean converting your website into a game of Angry Birds or Tetris, but rather an interactive website that motivates customers to use and engage with your products. This can be done by offering rewards and driving competition among consumers. Some good Gamification design elements and implementations from organizations include:

• Adding a leaderboard: With IActionable Engage engine, Salesforce employees were able to manage their own performance and view the performance of other team members. This drove direct competition and motivation to increase lead generation, customer support and sales numbers.

• Offering badges: Foursquare incorporated game-like tactics by allowing its users to claim mayorships, unlock badges and receive discounts to specific retailers while tracking against friends through a leaderboard.

• Incorporating challenges: Scvngr and Buffalo Wild Wings created an engaging app that allowed users to complete online challenges and unlock rewards.

• Tacking progress: American Airlines developed a progress bar that allowed its users to track their Elite Status Qualification. The more flights purchased the higher the bar increased for users to earn more points and miles. People are often driven to reach the 100 percent completion mark; I sure felt this drive when I was developing my LinkedIn profile.

These are many more Gamification examples begin implemented by businesses, and I anticipate seeing new implementations in the coming months. For marketers considering implementing a Gamification strategy, it’s important to define first business objectives as well as a strong design. Industry analyst, Brian Burke of Gartner wrote an article that validates this point in his article titled “The Gamification of Business,” saying “We predict that by 2014, 80 percent of current gamified applications will fail to meet business objectives, primarily due to poor design. This design includes defining business objectives, as well as application definition, deployment and adoption. In the longer term, as design practices improve and organizations focus on defining clear business objectives, Gamification will have a significant business impact and become an important means for organizations to engage audiences at a deeper level.”

If there is an opportunity to incorporate Gamification into your marketing strategy, take the risk and test this approach. If implemented, companies should be innovative and think about how this benefits the company and its consumers. The opportunities in the end may be rewarding.

- Raquel Prieto

For a man who usually lets his game do the talking, Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe “Black Mamba” Bryant, sure had a lot to say during the team’s first playoff game this weekend.  Sidelined by a torn Achilles tendon, the 15-time NBA All-Star took to his Twitter account to share his thoughts on the Lakers performance versus the San Antonio Spurs. While not particularly venomous in nature, the Black Mamba’s tweets did manage to slither their way to the attention of his coach and the commissioner of the NBA.

The controversy surrounding professional athletes tweeting is nothing new, as athletes have been known to get themselves into trouble on social media. But Bryant’s commentary seemed more like an attempt to coach from afar rather than take a stab against his team. Should a player of his caliber, who has been an integral part of the L.A. organization, be strongly advised to stifle his opinions? Or are his comments justifiable?

During the course of the game, Bryant proceeded to send out 11 tweets, a few of which are included below for your reading pleasure.

I’ll admit it. I’m a huge Kobe fan. Say what you want about him, but from where I stand, the man’s work ethic and drive are unrivaled among professional athletes, and it’s hard to argue that he isn’t one of the greatest to ever play the game. Chances are most Bryant enthusiasts would deem these comments tame and dare we say, insightful? Kobe has never been known to keep his opinions to himself when it comes to basketball. In fact, many crucial game decisions, including his playing time, are decided by the Black Mamba himself.  Often praised for his leadership, teammates and coaches typically welcome his insight and are quick to lean on Bryant for guidance. While having Kobe physically present on the bench to provide these remarks would be ideal, it’s unrealistic that he should have to hold his tongue while forced to sit at home and watch from his couch. His commentary consisted of inoffensive observations of the game and the players, and as teammates attested, didn’t contain anything he wouldn’t say straight to their faces. 

When asked about the tweets, Lakers head coach Mike D’Antoni rolled his eyes and sarcastically stated, “It’s great to have that commentary. He’s a fan right now, he’s a fan, you guys put a little more importance on that kind of fan. He gets excited, he wants to be a part of it, I don’t blame him, it’s good.”

One can imagine that comment didn’t sit well with a player who has dedicated his life to the Lakers. Kobe, took to Twitter again tweeting, “A fan?? Lol. #microphonetalk”

While Kobe may not agree with his coach, apparently NBA commissioner David Stern does. Stern and the NBA League Office released a memo saying, “It is in the best interest of our organization that all players, including all those currently on the team roster refrain from use of all social media during the game.”

The NBA claims to be all about the fans and Kobe Bryant is without a doubt one of the biggest talents it has ever been graced with. So when the league publicly advises a fan favorite to pipe down, I can’t help but wonder if they’re missing the boat. With all the emphasis placed today on brands’ engagement with consumers via social media, shouldn’t the NBA be grateful that a big star is doing just that? From a PR perspective, what made the organization look bad wasn’t Kobe’s tweets, but D’Antoni’s snarky comments to the media. Through his Twitter feed and recently created Instagram, Bryant has not only been sharing game time commentary, but allowing fans a peek into his daily life on the road to recovery. Bryant could’ve used his season-ending injury as a chance to take a break from the public eye and basketball as a whole. Instead, he is staying relevant and involved during the Lakers playoff journey, even taking the time to personally respond to fans’ comments.

For Kobe Bryant, vocalizing opinions on basketball and the Lakers isn’t just something he can turn on and off, and quite frankly, he shouldn’t have to. Instead of being criticized for his actions, the organization should be thankful to have such a devoted player who genuinely wants to help the team succeed.

Our agency is a proud member of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA). If you haven’t heard of WOMMA,  I recommend you take a look at their website, and browse some of the content they have developed. (In case you missed that, you’ve just been WOM’d.)

All kidding aside, word of mouth marketing is one of the most effective communications vehicles of all time. Don’t believe me? When was the last time you heard a rave review about a new product from a friend, family member, spouse, colleague or acquaintance, and didn’t at least Google the name to take a look?  That is the power of WOM in action.

While it isn’t new news that word of mouth recommendations are effective (here is some research if you need proof), a recent video from one of our favorite beers, Heineken, got me thinking. Many of us think of Heineken as just a brand of beer. But, a recently developed video showed a whole new side of that brand, the people and their personality. The video centers on a fun search for an intern from a pool of more than 1,700 applicants.

Did you click on that link?  I’ll bet you did.  While that click-through may not immediately make you feel you’ve been marketed to, think about what you wanted to do immediately after watching it. Did you IM it to a few co-workers and friends? Maybe even post it to Facebook or Google+? If so, the video is serving its purpose. Even though you weren’t sending something that directly tied to the beer itself, passing on Heineken content is essentially the equivalent of recommending the beer itself to your peers. You have just helped make their WOM campaign effective. Are you thirsty for a Heineken now? I know I am!

While consumer brands have no problem seeing the benefits from word of mouth marketing campaigns, B2B organizations struggle more with quantifying the ROI. This isn’t because word of mouth marketing can’t have a positive impact for those in B2B.  It’s more about the longer selling cycle than that of consumer brands. B2B technologies are far more complex (you aren’t just buying a pack of gum or shampoo) and the sales process involves many more stakeholders.

So, how can B2B organizations use word of mouth marketing techniques and campaigns? We only need to look to back to the Heineken example for something all B2B companies can capitalize on – tell your company’s story.

Many B2B companies often place a tremendous amount of focus on telling their product story and often far less on telling the company story. This is a huge opportunity missed. Telling a company story isn’t just for vanity. In fact, if done in a creative way, it can lead to greater brand awareness and a better understanding of the company and its people, thus making it more memorable, approachable and engaging. In the end, B2B word of mouth marketing campaigns around a company’s story further implants the brand in peoples’ minds, giving you a greater chance of being considered in the next sales cycle. While ROI requires a longer time in this scenario, it does often positively impact the sales funnel.

McGrath/Power has seen the power of WOM first hand for both our B2B and B2C clients. Two examples, respectively, include the SMART Storage Systems NAND Band campaign (website, Twitter, YouTube) and Burgerville’s BV-TV campaign, because we were able to move beyond the product to show a new side of the company and the faces behind the brand name and products. Both initiatives spurred discussion at the industry and customer levels, ultimately gaining the client additional mindshare and traction in new conversations. What more can you ask for?

– Derek James

She’s an 18-time Billboard No. 1 artist with five consecutive Billboard No. 1 singles. She’s none other than singing superstar Mariah Carey.

Talk about a powerful introduction. Recognizing an artist as a Billboard chart-topper is something that has credibility and prestige to it.

Those times have come to an end, unfortunately. Send the “Thank You” cards you always felt forced to write to YouTube. It’ll help their ego.

Billboard chart position now includes YouTube plays as a metric. At first glance, adding YouTube plays to calculate the chart position seems like a good idea. Music videos are uploaded all the time and YouTube has 800 million active users, according to Business2Community.

But viral videos came in and screwed everything up. “Harlem Shake” and “Gangnam Style” are two of the most recent viral videos to crash this party like a pair of drunk, college kids starting a fight.

There’s no place for that here. As I write this, Baauer (definitely a household name, right?!) is sitting at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. “Harlem Shake” and “Gangnam Style” are videos that were primarily viewed for humor purposes, not for actual musical talent.

Metrics are made to track success and credibility (or lack thereof). As public relations professionals, almost everything we do for the client is being tracked by some sort of metric. Metrics help C-Level employees and the agency receive accurate measurements (if done right) of where the company stands on a large scale of competition.

Metrics are great when used right and like the Billboard charts, are terrible when used incorrectly. Being a No. 1 Billboard chart-topper has lost its credibility. The whole purpose of the Billboard charts was to show success of musical talent by number of albums (or singles) sold. Adding YouTube plays into that equation also diminishes the credibility of the metric YouTube plays. Artists should focus on album sales, not YouTube views.

As an agency, it would be like telling C-Level employees that the number of Facebook “Likes” is a direct reflection of the sales of his/her company. Sure, Facebook “Likes” are a good way of tracking how much visibility that company is getting, but it doesn’t add up to sales – nor should it.

Since the music industry has evolved, Billboard has added radio play and music streaming metrics to its equation of chart position. These metrics make sense. Users aren’t going to the radio to see a group of clowns and superheroes dance with no rhythm, wearing next to nothing. They listen to the radio because they want to listen to the actual music. Apparently, these metrics alone make too much sense for Billboard.

And I’m sure Mariah Carey doesn’t mind either.

–Marshall Hampson

Tumblr. It packs the photographic punch of Instagram and the networking notability of Facebook into one real-time stream of magnificence.

While social media content is shared and passed around fast enough for everything to warrant the phrase “so five minutes ago,” an actual social network takes years to gain steam. Just take a look at nine-year-old Facebook and seven-year-old Twitter. They’re ancient in dog years, not to mention social media years. Tumblr is no different.

Founded in 2007, Tumblr is another social network that slowly crept up on us. The last thing any company wants to do is jump on yet another social networking bandwagon, but the numbers are starting to speak for themselves. With nearly 97 million blogs, 44.6 billion blog posts, and 74,206,541 posts pushed out today alone, this is one social network that may sting a bit if you ignore it. In fact, it might even be phasing out your Facebook page.

A recent study found that teens and young adults prefer Tumblr over Facebook, and Facebook even noted in their annual Form 10-K that “some of our users, particularly our younger users, are aware of and actively engaging with other products and services similar to, or as a substitute for, Facebook.” The cherry on top? How about the unprofessional departure of Facebook’s Director of Product, Blake Ross? He announced in a Facebook post that the reason behind leaving the company stemmed from a conversation with some kid who told him Facebook was no longer “cool.” Ouch.

As the younger generation migrates to Tumblr, we have to ask – have you? If you’ve already considered setting up “shop” on Tumblr but have been held back by the return of that pesky voice from earlier social media days – “What will we truly get out of this?” – here are some brand benefits that might convince you:

> Tell Your Story: Through creative, short-form content, brands are able to build their identity and tell their story, tease and reveal products, highlight behind-the-scenes activities, promote sales or coupons and share relevant user-generated content. This last one is great if you don’t have a consistent flow of your own content.

> Reach New People: It’s the same with any social network. There will always be new audiences to reach that are unattainable on other social websites. This one in particular caters to the young crowd of 13-to-25-year-olds.

> Promote Through Mobile Advertising: In addition to ads on the website, companies will soon be able to promote their posts and blogs to larger audiences via Tumblr’s mobile application.

> Take Full Advantage of the Best Part: Step aside Facebook Timeline. Tumblr lets you customize everything from colors to your theme’s HTML!

> Don’t Let Its Current Audience Turn You Off: While Tumblr is currently set up to better cater to consumer-facing companies, there is potential for B2B to get involved, as well. When will that be? Only time will tell. For now, we’re keeping a weather eye on the horizon.

If that still hasn’t convinced you, maybe these guys can. Here are some brands that are making a home on this increasingly popular website:

> San Diego Zoo: Forget goats and kittens. The San Diego Zoo uses Tumblr to highlight all beasts found on the Zoo’s grounds. From baby pandas to orangutans, followers can catch a glimpse of what’s new at the Zoo, one adorable image at a time. They can also submit their own zoo images for posting on the feed. Talk about some wild user-generated content!

> Sharpie: With the Tumblr tagline “Uncapped and unplugged. Bold and behind-the-scenes.” it only stands to reason that their stream is going to be a kaleidoscopic of color. From posting crafts to fan artwork, Sharpie is making a permanent mark on Tumblr.

> Norton by Symantec: How exactly does an antivirus software company position itself on Tumblr? With customer feedback driven surveys and eye-catching photographs and videos, like a hand grenade made out of computer keys.

> Target: Need we say more?

The list goes on and on! Feel free to peruse and gather more intel for your own Tumblr account because, hopefully, we’ve convinced you it’s the next best place to be. Is your brand game?

— Rory Mohon

Under the heading of “Only in Silicon Valley” comes a new salvo from the Mommy War Front.

For those who have been living under rocks for the last few days, Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer is eliminating what amounts to a sacred totem in high tech: working from home; and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg has written a book which sends a message to many that women don’t take the hard assignments that lead to professional success because of personal aspirations (i.e. they want families and to just be a mom).

Everyone is lining up on this one, including me in my role as controller for McGrath/Power Public Relations.  Some pundits are quick to point out that Mayer built a nursery next to her office with her own money so she can spend time with her newborn.  In my opinion, Sandberg appears to be coming from the attitude of “I did it. What’s wrong with the rest of you?”

Both women look woefully out of touch with good reason.  Let’s start with their realities:

Both came from expensive Ivy League schools. Mayer taught  undergraduate computer programming  classes while studying  at Stanford.  Sandberg has an MBA from Harvard.  As the adage goes, when you start ahead you usually stay ahead. Both were fortunate to catch on with a little known start up called Google. In 2012 Sandberg’s net worth was $1.6 billion thanks to her hop to Facebook.  By comparison Mayer’s net worth is a mere $300 million.

Bottom line:  Sandberg and Mayer have the power to order their worlds any way they want them to be.  They have the power to impact the worlds of others, too.  This is particularly true in the case of Mayer.  Her decision to halt telecommuting will affect her employees’ lives in ways she will never have to deal with personally.

Would the media reaction have been as strong if Mayer and Sandberg were men instead of women?

In the case of Mayer I submit it is the old fashioned double standard.

I doubt we’d be talking about the disruption to employees’ lives and work-life balance if it had been a new male CEO who announced that in order save Yahoo! he needed his engineers to be on site.  He would have been applauded for thinking outside the box.  No one would have asked, “But what about the children?”  Instead the analysts would have responded with “Buy the stock!”

From a public relations perspective, Mayer would have come off better if she had made the announcement herself at an all hands meeting instead of using the human resources department to issue a memo that was leaked to AllThingsD creating a public relations nightmare. She could have acknowledged  that the policy would profoundly change employees’ personal lives.  She could have also offered more than the standard FSA  dependent care accounts that employees use to pay for family care.  What about an on-site daycare center or company matching? After all, she has her office nursery, which, by the way, just reinforces how special she is compared to other Yahoo! employees.

Instead we have Yahoo!’s official reaction to the ruckus outside the company.  “We don’t comment on internal policies.”  That always works well – just ask Applebee’s.

As for Sandberg, I believe she’s only guilty of having a viewpoint that is different than the majority of the population.  I doubt if Sandberg’s opinion would have stirred the water at all if Steve Jobs had said it about anyone, regardless of gender.

Many women are decrying Sandberg’s opinion because we expect more enlightened thinking from our female leaders. She’s not supposed be blaming  women for career shortfalls due to the fact that they want to have a family life as well as a work life.  But to me she is, painting women as a group with a broad brush of old, tired stereotypes.  And she’s doing it from the perspective of one who has the control and power that $1.6 billion brings.  If she’s late for a meeting because she’s driving the kids to school, then people will wait for her.  It’s not going to show up negatively in her performance review that she took off  too many sick days to care for her aging parent.

As a working woman and a working mother I’ve seen all perspectives.  I’ve been an employee, worked part-time, been a stay-at-home mother, and an entrepreneur.  I was one of two women in my business school class.  When I started my career there were no women in engineering and women in finance were rare.  I am pleased that women in Mayer’s and Sandberg’s generation take for granted that no door is closed to a woman simply because she is a woman.  However, I am dismayed that there doesn’t seem to be anyone (like their own mothers) reminding  them that one  thing hasn’t changed yet.

There are still too few female executives functioning at their level and they are role models whether they want to be or not.  Sandberg and Mayer should know they  are scrutinized more simply because they are women in a male dominated field. They are naïve if they think otherwise.  Both have been around Silicon Valley long enough to see what happened to other women who make public mistakes.  Remember Carly Fiorina and Carol Bartz?  Mayer had to have known the memo would get out; there was significant coverage when she gave employees smartphones.   Sandberg’s comments seem timed to promote her book and her “brand” not help other working women, from my perspective.

Marissa and Sheryl, it might be a good time to have lunch with your moms.  They can provide you with some perspective.

— Sherry Witt Snow

I saw this collision coming far more clearly than the New York Times.  Two major forces in a head-on collision – smack in the middle of the cross walk of credibility.  Neither came out of it unscathed.  And, one has to wonder if journalism and public relations will ever be the same in the aftermath.

Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk publically took on The New York Times and iconic auto reviewer John Broder after the Gray Lady published a less than flattering review of the new Model S.  Broder’s test drive recap painted a poor picture of the flashy Model S’ battery range a few days prior to Telsa’s quarterly earnings call.  With the electric car industry (and Tesla’s credibility) at an inflection point, Broder’s review was a potential match to the fuse of a firestorm for the company, sales of the Model S and Musk’s vision of the future.

Soon after it ran, Musk aggressively and openly fired back at Broder and the Times, asking the publications’ senior staff to “please investigate this article and determine the truth.”  Musk also claimed that Broder was attempting to “sabotage” the test drive, the electric car industry, and all that went along with it.  And, surprisingly, the Times both listened and responded.  I say surprisingly because bad reviews appear all the time often with little recourse for a course correction on behalf of the company/product in question.

This time, however, the editor of the NYT, Margaret Sullivan, weighed in with a response entitled “Problems with Precision and Judgment but Not Integrity in Tesla Test.”  She cleared Broder of purposely undermining the test drive but, also raised questions on his “judgment” regarding how he went about formulating his opinions on the Model S, his “casual and imprecise notes” and decisions he made while on the test drive that negatively flavored the article. That is pretty strong stuff from the editor of what is widely considered to be one of, if not the leading, daily newspapers in the world.  It is also something I have never seen before in 30 years of public relations and hundreds of product reviews.

Of course, it didn’t have to get to this point.  The situation represents a combined failure on the part of Tesla’s PR team, the reviewer, and the product reviews process in general.  Product reviews – especially high stakes product reviews – need to be properly handled by all involved and that means a company’s PR team and a reviewer.

How exactly does Broder get himself stranded in a vehicle drained of its battery life during a make or break test drive?  I doubt he purposely did this and I also fully believe that it was avoidable.  If Broder was the problem in this equation, he should have taken responsibility.  Certainly he could have prevented the NYT from running his review with a sensational photo of the car being pulled onto a flatbed tow truck.  I believe he should have known better.  He got called out by Musk – perhaps in an overly petulant sort of way – and perhaps rightfully so.  Broder’s “little red notebook in the front seat” clearly didn’t capture everything that took place on the test drive and paled in comparison to the data collected by the digitally recorded driving logs in the Model S. One also has to wonder if Broder read the manual (the bane of a PR person’s existence during a product review) or even listened to instructions that most surely had to have been given to him prior to the test drive.

As far as the Tesla PR team goes, they have a hand in this as well. I don’t know them, but I have to assume that they solid.   Musk is one of the Valley’s most ambitious visionaries. He wouldn’t settle for a poor quality communications department.  However, something surely stalled in the PR team’s work with Broder.  Communications pros generally can feel (or know) that a bad review is forthcoming and could have likely prepared for it differently.  They also could have attempted to rein Musk in a bit as his ongoing digital protestations didn’t paint him in a fully flattering light.

In my career, the product review process has remained pretty consistent.  But that doesn’t mean that it always runs well.  Companies want the attention, writers want to write and provide opinions.  Rarely is everybody happy when reviews reach the public eye.  Virtually every company believes their product is a game changer.  Virtually every reviewer believes their opinions are spot on.  Unless you are Apple, the two often do not coalesce. This is especially true in Silicon Valley where hubris over today’s next biggest thing can cloud reality in the minds of those who gave birth to the product in the spot light.  As a former journalist, I believe that reviewers have the right to give their unvarnished views.  As a communications professional, I have seen gross irresponsibility in the product review process too many times. Over the past five years as social media has enabled broader, open discussion on just about everything, additional scrutiny has been placed on the opinions expressed in the review along with opinions on those who disseminate them.  That scrutiny, regardless of what product, company or service is in the spotlight, often leaves ruffled feathers and jammed comment boxes all over the Internet.

The Tesla-NYT kerfuffle is an example of a social media “conversation” spilling out into the street and resulting in a fight for all to see. That has happened quite a bit in the last few years but the participants this time around and associated volume level created a seminal moment in communications.
It makes one question is this will become “the new normal” in the product review process.

On one hand, I sure hope not.   On the other hand, I sure hope so.

Neither Musk or the NYT looked particularly great in the aftermath of this public dust up.  Musk came across as the ranting and raving stereotypical Silicon Valley CEO up in arms because somebody called his baby ugly when he felt it wasn’t.  Some could argue that Musk only brought more attention to a bad review (although given the reach of the NYT, I would say he couldn’t let this one lie).  Others could argue that there was a more refined way Musk could have handled this, say taking his gripes (assuming legitimate) to a news outlet with equally broad reach and credibility – perhaps CBS’ 60 Minutes – where he could have reframed the issue.  Broder, well, he looked like a reporter who may want to reconsider his “little red notebook” approach.  More of all of this doesn’t do anybody any good.

However, open communication is a good thing and generally welcome in most quarters today.  Social channels and today’s social mores allow everybody an opinion and that too is generally a step forward.  Companies have every right to defend their products, especially if facts are not fully present.  Nobody is ever too old or too important to change how they do things and that includes reporters. Any change that serves the greater good for the largest number of people is positive.  Even the biggest of collisions can result in beautiful outcomes.  A more accountable product reviews process would be a welcome change. That would be a huge victory for the new age of communications and that would be a positive for everybody involved.

–Jonathan Bloom

It’s 2013, right?

By the way National Signing Day went Wednesday, you would think college athletics spent another year stuck in 1990.

Nowhere else will you find a group of grown men and women eagerly waiting in front of a fax machine. Step back from the fax machine, please. You all look clingy and desperate.

Sure, it’s exciting. And sure, it’s part of tradition. But like a beautiful ex-girlfriend you dated four years ago, it may be time to move on.  There are others out there waiting for you.

They have many names. Email. Picture messaging.  Scanners. They are called using anything other than a lame fax machine that ruins any good interior decorating momentum going on in the athletic department building.

It seems like the transition will happen eventually (yes, there will be a time when they stop making fax machines – just like the time when they stopped making floppy disks), but every school is afraid to be the first one to give in.

From a junior in high school to the day before National Signing Day, technologically current communication is in full force with high school recruits, parents, coaches and university officials. Calls are being made wirelessly, texts are being sent and recruiting trips are being arranged through the Internet and smartphones.

We’re not in a world relying on collect calls anymore; we’re dealing with LTE, 4G and Wi-Fi technology. Yet, colleges are still dealing with a fax machine.

Don’t think this is the way the NCAA set it up. According to NCAA recruiting rules, the NCAA allows recruits to scan and email the paperwork into the university, even though most recruits decide to avoid that route.

Colleges are still trying to be a part of the in-crowd with fax machines. It’s like high school insecurities all over again. Let’s see what “big” college will be the first switch to only email. That’s the day we find out what college will become as cool as the guy that first wore the skinny tie on campus.

Honestly imagine the NFL Draft using a fax machine. I’m sure ESPN and Roger Goodell would be thrilled to have the No. 1 pick of the NFL Draft be postponed on national television because of a faulty fax machine.

But fax machines don’t falter, right? Fax machines can keep up with the times, right? Just ask Florida State University. Head coach Jimbo Fisher basically had a mini panic attack on the phone Wednesday when one of his top recruits couldn’t get his fax machine to work.

Nobody wants to see a guy named “Jimbo” with high blood pressure.

Everything about recruiting involves communication. In fact, the NCAA set regulations to stop over-communication. Universities will get penalized for texting/calling an athlete too much while still in high school.

In the midst of all of the instant information we can get from Twitter, a recruit can take 30 seconds and 140 characters to tell millions of people what college just got a signature of the letter of intent.

College coaches will fly across the United States to see ESPN’s top ranked defensive end on ESPN’s 300 but they can’t make the extra effort to get rid of a fax machine.

Colleges, join the new world order of communications. Kill one of the few collegiate traditions whose time has come.  Forget the fax machine and forget it now.

Change is a good thing.  Just text one of your new recruits on a smartphone.  They will tell you the same thing.

— Marshall Hampson

What a great opportunity!

Who wants to work with three compelling new clients, each of which offers true innovation, a fun story to tell and big mover status their markets?  All of us at McGrath/Power Public Relations do, that’s for sure.  And, we get to do just that as we welcome INXPO, Moovweb and Monkeybars to our agency roster.

INXPO is poised to reshape how businesses communicate by actually delivering on the promises made by so many other brands dating back to the early 1990’s.  We have seen the evolution of different forms of online communication and the promise of interactivity but we have never seen a company bring all of them together like INXPO will.  We can’t tell you what it is just yet because we are in stealth mode.  Hang tight; it is a great product and a great storyline.

Moovweb has a killer vision: The “Agile Web.” They enable a single, unified, cloud-based Web platform that makes developing and delivering amazing customer experiences online faster, better and smarter.  They are at the epicenter of the mobile web experience and we are excited to be able to show brands of all sizes how they can go mobile in a big way.

Monkeybars is addressing some of the most significant pain points in the music industry for artists while also rewarding fans for listening and recommending.  Our work with Monkeybars has begun and today’s story in the Los Angeles Times and leading music industry blogs positioned them nicely as an innovative company to watch.  In tandem, our Soundcheck artist development campaign is bringing new music to Monkeybars and consumers directly from small clubs in and around San Francisco and Los Angeles.  And, this is just the beginning.  With several industry names involved including Akon and Timbaland, this is shaping up to be not only a fun program but one that we can truly move the needle on a company’s business goals.
We are proud to be working alongside these dynamic organizations!

—Jonathan Bloom

The most profitable professional sports league, the National Football League, is taking a page out of the Olympics’ social media playbook. After introducing a social media policy in 2009, the NFL is now in a position of enforcing it – this time on a referee. As most NFL fans know, the league started out the first few weeks of the season with “replacement referees.” While many fans felt the replacements were lacking in overall knowledge of the rules of the game, it appears the referees were also unaware of the NFL’s social media rules they were contractually obligated to follow.

NFL replacement referee, Brian Stropolo recently posted multiple photos taken of him at a preseason New Orleans Saints game and listed himself as a fan of the team on his Facebook page. As it turns out, Stropolo was scheduled to referee the Saints versus the Carolina Panthers the Sunday following his posting the fan-photos. When I first read this story, I couldn’t help but think Stropolo couldn’t officiate that game and be impartial.  The NFL – also known in some quarters as the No Fun League – agreed.  Stropolo was not allowed to be part of that contest.

In a recent post here on Pass The Mic, we looked at how the International Olympic Committee planned to regulate athletes’ use of social media. During the Games, a handful of uncouth athletes were disqualified from the competition for social media guideline violations. Unlike other sports, the IOC set precedence for social media guideline violations and didn’t allow the offending athletes to buy their way out of the mess via a paid fine.  They were sent home from the Games.

In the case of NFL replacement official Stropolo, you could argue that he is not an actual player. True, but as a referee, he is expected to uphold the standards of the league. In fact, many social media guidelines in professional sport organizations, include personal not on the field of play, including cheerleaders.

The actions taken by NFL against Stropolo pushed me to take a closer look at the social media guidelines in various sports. Here’s a look at those used by the top U.S. three professional sports and some offenders:

Major League Baseball

Policy: The MLB enacted its social media policy in March of this year updating its “electronic equipment use guidelines” from 2006. MLB has both are time restraints on posts and rules prohibiting content denigrating a major league umpire or other derogatory or insensitive comments based on, but not limited to, race, color, sex, age, disability, or religion.

Offenders: Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen was fined $20,000 and suspended two games for a post-ejection tweet that was offensive towards the ejecting umpire.

National Basketball Association

Policy: The league’s policy is applied to players, coaches and operations staff and also includes MLB-like restrictions on the appropriate timing. The NBA treats social media commentary in the same manner as comments made in the traditional media, meaning league personnel can be fined for posts that are deemed out-of-bounds by the league.

Offenders: Perpetual NBA headache Gilbert Arenas, then of the Orlando Magic, was fined for his insensitive and profane comments made on Twitter.

National Football League

Policy: The NFL’s social media guidelines are very similar to the NBA. Time restrictions are in place for for players, coaches and operations staff. Like the NBA, the NFL is the arbiter of what is deemed offensive. The NFL can penalize a player for distasteful comments made on social media in the same fashion it punishes players for off-color comments made to traditional media.

Offenders: Antonio Cromartie was fined $2,500 by his-then team, the San Diego Chargers, for a criticizing the team’s catering spread.

All of the aforementioned guidelines are open to interpretation by each league and teams. The guidelines established by the Olympics, left no room for misinterpretation. If an athlete posted an offensive, off-color, or tasteless comment on social media, that athlete was ejected from the remainder of the Olympic Games. If professional sport organizations in the U.S. implemented stiffer penalties like the Olympics, players could comprehend the gravitas of their actions. Offering players and personnel social media training would be a step in the right direction to ensure that they further understand the rules and ramifications of their posts. Being a professional athlete comes with the responsibility of representing the established sport organization. Professional athletes have long been revered as role models and they need to act like it both on and off the field – including social media.

— Marta Weissenborn