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

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

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

Sports talk radio has been having a field day here in California surrounding Justin Combs, son of hip-hop star and business mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, accepting a full-ride athletic scholarship to play football at UCLA. Apparently, sons of music industry giants aren’t allowed to do so.  One article headlined “Taxpayers want Diddy’s son to turn over UCLA scholarship”noted that many of those who are calling for Combs to decline the scholarship money aren’t identifying themselves on the record. That’s not exactly transparent dialogue in this day of supposed online transparency. And, it’s not fair to Diddy’s son, either.

Let’s review some facts for a second:

> Justin graduated high school with a 3.75 GPA
> Justin received Division I scholarship offers from three other schools
> There’s no evidence that his offer from UCLA was in any way influenced by Diddy
> By most accounts, football scholarships are privately funded and therefore are not “taxpayer money”
> Justin does not appear to be one of the many trust fund kids out there riding their parents’ coattails.

Still, we live in a world of perception, fueled by information and misinformation delivered through communications channels that are too many to count. All the positive comments in the world from educational and sociology experts, the sports community, and the faculty at UCLA won’t silence the critics. Where some see a problem, however, what I see is opportunity for Diddy and, ultimately, his son.  In this case, opportunity for Diddy to share in Justin’s success, send a message that he too wants to see others succeed like his son, and serve as an example to others who may someday be in the same position.

Here is my very own Diddy Opportunity Plan – and it even comes with excellent PR potential for all involved because I wouldn’t have it any other way!
> For every year that his son is attending UCLA, Diddy provides the equivalent amount of funds to a scholarship for disadvantaged kids.
> The scholarship would be called the Justin Combs “Strive For Excellence” Scholarship.
> Criteria would include those that mirror Justin’s path to success: GPA over 3.75, varsity athlete, extracurricular involvements, etc.

How do you like it so far?  From my perspective, I see several positives that come from this including:

> If you can’t fight it, feature it – If you’re going to take the bullets that Justin and Diddy are going to take from the haters anyway, you might as well get something out of it. This would be an acknowledgement that there are kids out there who are deserving who actually don’t get scholarships, and Diddy would like to recognize Justin’s hard work and show pride in his son by helping others to attain his same level of success.
> It teaches his son another positive lesson – This sets an example for Justin that no matter how grand your personal success, you should always find an opportunity to give back in a positive way. It also teaches Justin to look for the silver lining and the opportunity in every situation. A very sensible business move?  Sure it is.   A little self-serving? So what. It’s still $54,000 that’s going to some lucky and deserving kid.
>It takes action – Leadership is defined by words and deeds. This actionable step says “I heard what people were saying out there. I understand but I disagree completely. Still, my eyes are open to the heart of the concern (not the merit which is unfounded) and as a leader I am taking action to do something.”

Diddy, we send you our congratulations on having a great son who has accomplished some great things.  Seems like just yesterday we were also sending you shout outs when you rocked “It’s All About The Benjamins” way back in 1997. Well, it’s still all about those same Benjamins in 2012 – only you have way more of them now and many kids don’t.  Here is our address at McGrath|Power  when you are ready to talk about our plan and the communications component to get the word out.

–Roger Fortier

(Editor’s Note: We have been reflecting on the recent CTIA Wireless show since we built a presence for a variety of clients at the event earlier this month.  Today, we have a two part post on the conference providing two sets of perspective on the event itself and how to maximize industry events in today’s world of communications.)

I recently had the opportunity to attend the CTIA Wireless show in New Orleans. Events like CTIA Wireless and RSA Conference are like Mecca– you have to go at least once if you are truly serious about the industry. I have been to half a dozen RSA Conferences in my life (disclosure: McGrath/Power represented the RSA Conference for several years) and never attended a one where I didn’t come away fired up about the security market. I was hoping to come away from CTIA Wireless equally energized. But after spending three days at CTIA Wireless helping out in client’s booths, managing interviews and talking with more than 50 people as part of an informal survey I was conducting, I came away feeling, well, a little bummed and a lot tired. There was so much negativity that I really wondered why people were even there. After reflecting on what I had heard, and reading the coverage from the show, it became clear to me why I felt this way. I had the wrong expectations for the show, as did a majority of the people with whom I spoke.  So to make sure you don’t set the wrong expectations about CTIA Wireless, or any show in the future, here’s my perspective (and the industry’s) on what CTIA is and isn’t and why this should matter to you.

CTIA Wireless is about big issues, not big booths.  I said not big booths! Though I can tell you, there were plenty of exhibitors that clearly thought taking a booth approach that resembled COMDEX circa 1996 was the right way to go. But I digress. Tara Seals of Vision2Mobile hit the nail on the head when she wrote  “there’s no doubt that CTIA remains an important, dare I say critical event when it comes to North American policy and carrier strategy…it was a successful event from the point of view of advancing the industry conversation around a few key themes: spectrum policy; small cells and heterogeneous networks (HetNets); the value of wireless to economic development; T-Mobile’s future plans; carriers’ relationship to subscribers in a post-smartphone world; and mobile payments.” As a highly regulated industry, it makes sense that there would be a large focus on government’s plans for the wireless industry and the issues impacting the major carriers from a policy and business perspective.

At CTIA Wireless, the real value was in the sessions that took place in the mornings and evenings, not the activity on the show floor. What you didn’t see at the show was a vibrant, business-driven show floor, at least from what I experienced and the conversations I had with people in attendance. Seals also noted “Some industry-watchers have opined that CTIA is simply ‘one trade show too many’ after the hugeness that CES and Mobile World Congress bring to the event schedule, and the foot traffic did seem a little light.” Let me weigh in here Tara. I would say extremely light, especially if you were there after 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday (show ended Thursday at 2:30 p.m.)  There seemed to be more people approaching vendors on the show floor to pitch their own services and events than there were people looking for actual new solutions to evaluate or purchase. I had one conversation with a vendor who told me that he did not have a single good conversation with a prospect. Ouch. The resounding sentiment from everyone I spoke with on the show floor was that they really didn’t feel like much was getting accomplished, that there wasn’t much buzz on the floor, and that most companies were seemingly just going through the motions of “yet another tradeshow.”

So what does this all mean to your company?  For starters, when planning your communications activities around a tradeshow, you have to take into account factors beyond the size of a show’s brand, the number of attendees and the names on a media and press list. You must align your communications objectives to what is actually achievable at an event. If it’s a show where the only meaningful result is gathering new content that can be used as part of future PR activities, then make that the goal and execute as creatively as possible.  It’s also critical that you define metrics for success that go way far simple deliverables like the number of briefings you secure at a show. At McGrath/Power we believe that briefings at a show that have no chance of netting tangible results (coverage, future media or blogging opportunities, stronger 3rd party endorsement) are a waste of time for the company and not fair to the influencers.

To close on CTIA, if you read the industry coverage, you get a sense that the show served its purpose.  If you talk with people that were walking the show floor, you get the sense that the show was more or less a fail. So it appears one group clearly had a set of expectations, and those were met, while the other group had the wrong expectations, so they could never be met.
For a great take on the winners and losers from the show, I recommend this analysis from the editorial team at FierceWireless.

–Roger Fortier

As my colleague Roger Fortier discussed in his blog post today on CTIA Wireless, industry tradeshows have changed significantly over the last five years. This means companies need to evaluate each show on a variety of factors, beyond just size, if they are to get any real value out of spend associated with these events.  Answering the followings questions correctly can yield tremendous benefit for your company’s communications program, while answering them incorrectly could mean a significant waste of budget and missed expectations

Here are some things to take into consideration before you plan your next show:

> Is It News If Nobody Is Listening?  While many companies love to drop news during show week, the volume of noise at most events make this a waste of time.  Very few companies or announcements can cut through the noise effectively and very few influencers will take the time to truly listen at a company’s booth for a middle of the road news discussion.  Look internally with a critical eye when discussing whether to announce a new technology or other company initiative during a tradeshow. Often, it is more effective to announce the news a couple of weeks prior to the event and then use the tradeshow to further amplify the announcement via demonstrations of the new technology or influencer meetings.
>Connecting Or Expecting?  Many companies look at conferences as a venue to meet with industry influencers.  While the concept makes sense – they are all at the same location, after all – it is important to look at the desired end result prior to attempting to make appointments.  Are you simply looking to connect with a hand full of key influencers and provide a casual company update or are you seeking a news generating, full court press on a broad swath of media and/or analysts?  If you have the brand gravitas or associated news to attract attention during a crowded event, then expecting a big return on the time investment may be warranted. Otherwise, keep expectations realistic, undertake short and simple discussions, and re-connect after the show to cover broader subject matter.
>Is The Event A Conference Generation Opportunity? At McGrath/Power, we Content and Context are King and Queen of communications today. Tradeshows are the perfect opportunity to gather and develop content that can be broadcast live from the event used as part of your communications program.  Video from the show floor of product demos or customer testimonials, live Tweeting, and surveys of attendees are all examples of simple and effective content generation opportunities.  We recently collaborated with our client LiveOps to deliver a “Social Tradeshow,” communicating perspective and point of view live from a major industry event. The LiveOps Social Trade Show included pre-show communications to drive awareness of speaking sessions; at-show attendee video interviews, live Tweeting from keynotes and sessions, daily recap blog posts (that were SEO optimized); and post-show analysis.  We also used social channels to monitor show sentiment and trending topics so LiveOps stayed on top of the social discussions when meeting with analysts and media.

Do you still see value in tradeshows? What PR tactics do you find to yield the highest return-on-investment?

–Derek James

As some friends of McGrath/Power know by now, we are proud to have been named a finalist in the Consumer Electronics Campaign of the Year category by The Holmes Report Sabre Awards for our work on behalf of Fusion Garage.  The Sabre Awards receive more entries from agencies and in-house communications teams around the world than any other public relations award program.

We are one of five finalists in the category and made the short list for our entry “Bringing a Brand Back From the Dead.”  The campaign, which ultimately enabled the embattled tablet manufacturer to receive a second chance in the market after an initial false start, was based around “TabCo,” a snarky, opinionated parody tablet company.  The program captured the industry’s imagination by promising a breakthrough new tablet through a gradual unveiling of features and associated teaser content.  TabCo also offered market commentary from the brand’s fake CEO, viral-esque video content covering everything from a remake of Apple’s legendary “Lemmings” commercial to the stolen iPhone caper involving a tech industry blogger, “special deliveries” and Twitter Tweet Chats.  The campaign opined that the tablet market had become stale, was about to receive something completely different and get people asking the question “Who is TabCo?”  And, wow, did they ever.

The campaign kicked off with professional sky-typing planes hired to spell out “Forget the Fruit” above the Apple Worldwide Developer’s Conference as attendees cued for entrance.    From that point, the market’s attention was captured.  Millions of consumers hit the TabCo website, Twitter followers surpassed 70,000 and TabCo TV videos received widespread views on YouTube.  The media followed the campaign as well with Fast Company, AllThingsD and numerous trade publications covering TabCo.  Consumers speculated online about the brand behind the brand (Nokia was often mentioned) and contemplated the new features of Fusion Garage’s then forthcoming Grid-10.

We also had to conceal Fusion Garage’s identity during the campaign.  As all activity would take place online, hacker attacks on TabCo digital properties were expected to unveil the brand behind the campaign.  To combat this, we retained one of the world’s foremost “white hat hackers” to cloak the campaign in an attack-proof cocoon.  We also implemented a Tor browser to enable email communication and content uploading/distribution without leaving “digital tracks.” Tor is a network of private virtual tunnels developed by the U.S. Navy to protect online government communications.  To also conceal our identity during phone communication with media and analysts, we implemented “drug dealer phones.”  These disposal phones had diverse area codes and no user name or ID associated with them.  Thus, they weren’t traceable.   Thanks to HBO’s “The Wire” – a popular series focusing on a drug dealing gang – for that idea.

We had a great time with the TabCo campaign and look forward to learning the decision of the Sabre Award judges in early May!

—Jonathan Bloom

It would be an understatement to say it has not been a good year for Costa Cruises. Earlier this week, there was an engine room fire on board their Allegra cruise ship that ended in a power outage, as well. The bigger story, though, happened in January. Now that things are settling down, we want to take a step back and look at the situation from a PR perspective.

Ironically and tragically, on Friday, January 13th, right before “Titanic” was supposed to make its way back to theatres, history repeats itself. The Costa Concordia, a 114,500-ton cruise ship carrying more than 3,200 passengers and 1,000 crew members, set off from Rome on a seven-day journey. No more than four hours after it set sail, the Concordia ran aground four miles off course, hitting a reef and opening a 160-foot gash in the hull. This incident was the cause of at least 25 deaths and even more questions – How did the ship get so far off course? Why did the captain abandon ship before everyone had been rescued? And what does this tragedy have to do with public relations?

While people worked around the clock to save the passengers and crew members on board, Costa Cruises also had a team of public relations professionals working to address the situation. In this crisis communications mode, Costa Cruises had to deal with a multitude of problems ranging from travelers talking about their experience on Facebook to the harsh reality of a 13-deck cruise liner running aground, tipping over, and killing passengers and crew members.

When in crisis communications mode, compassion for those affected, timely and accurate dissemination of information, and transparency are critical. So, from the communications perspective, how did Costa Cruises fare during this catastrophe? Let’s take a look…

25% Under Water – What Costa Cruises Could Have Done Better
>Costa Cruises did not have impeccable timing. They issued the first statement acknowledging the shipwreck approximately three full hours after it occurred. They then waited an additional 14 agonizing hours before providing a contact phone number for the loved ones of passengers and crew members so that they would be able to obtain information. They waited even longer to provide support numbers for individual countries. By that time, the story broke in every major publication across the globe, alerting loved ones before those same people had a solid line of communication with Costa Cruises.
>Costa Cruises also waited two and a half days after the wreck to hold a press conference with their CEO. During that period, the world and the world’s media speculated and created their own set of perceptions surrounding the disaster. At that point, they were rapidly losing control of the situation and making it even harder for those affected to fully understand what had taken place.

75% Above Water – What Costa Cruises Did Right
>Costa Cruises eventually stood up to take responsibility for the situation in the form of placing a human face on the situation in the form of CEO Pier Luigi Foschi’s who acted as the official voice of the company at a press conference on January 16. At that time, he shared the company’s condolences and addressed key issues regarding the wreck.
>Costa Cruises issued several press releases over the course of more than a month in order to update the passengers, their loved ones, the press, and future customers. Through those statements, they addressed issues and inaccurate statements.
>Costa Cruises also used the power of social media, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to communicate updates and company statements on the wreck. (Note: While their North American Twitter account didn’t provide updates for more than two weeks, their Italian account continued to remain transparent. (https://twitter.com/#!/costacrociere)
>Costa Cruises has addressed major accusations brought against them, including offering discounts on future cruises to guests and having no plan of action to recover the reserves of fuel from the Costa Concordia.
>Costa Cruises followed up with the passengers, making personal phone calls to make sure they returned home and are well, and to confirm that they will receive a refund for the cruise and all material expenses relating to it.

How do you think Costa Cruises handled the situation?

– Rory Mohon

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) have been items of hot debate in the tech world this month. According to Christina DesMarais of PC World,  this may “possibly be the most contentious uproar seen on Capitol Hill and in the tech world ever.”

Originally, the bills provided a primary means of fighting online piracy. By forcing service providers to block infringing domain names, it would be more difficult to access file sharing hubs or other copyright violating websites. Furthermore, according to Jared Newman of PC World,  the bills would seek court orders “requiring payment providers, advertisers, and search engines to stop doing business with an infringing site.” Although this may hinder many online pirates from downloading with ease, it would also open the door to a new type of online censorship. Governmental control over Internet access could snowball into general censorship over opinion, content creation and social media. After public discovery of SOPA and PIPA, protests flooded many blog sites, Twitter, Facebook and news channels as technophiles around the world voiced their opinions. The uproar culminated into a 7,000-site blackout on January 18, 2012 and support from the Internet hacktivist group Anonymous.

What specifically caused the commotion and how it could have been handled differently? I believe that there were two core fallacies behind SOPA and PIPA that created a whirlwind of bad press. These fallacies could have been easily fixed by applying very basic PR principles.

Communication Failed From the Top Down
Those of us in PR know how quickly opinions can sour if communication is not handled in a professional way. SOPA and PIPA supporters were at a loss with communicative explanations for the bill and its intended purposes. Mel Watt (D) North Carolina, ranking member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee stated that he was “not a nerd and didn’t understand a lot of the technological stuff.” This sentiment was soon followed by Zoe Lofgren (D) California, Darrell Issa (R) California and Jason Chaffetz (R) Utah, who all stated that they were not enough of a nerd to understand the issue. One step that could have helped mitigate the social upheaval would have been better communication with stakeholders. Obviously, congressional members had spoken with lobbyists from Hollywood’s powerhouses, but hadn’t discussed the issues with bloggers, online journalists or the technology industry at large. Worse yet, congress retaliated to the protests with public name-calling. The generalizations were astonishing. Apparently, all those in the technology industry, anyone who publishes online content, as well as general Internet end-users are, for all intensive purposes, “nerds.” Jon Stewart,  host of the Daily Show and news comedian, stated it perfectly when he responded, “Really? Nerds? You know, actually, I think the word you’re looking for is ‘experts.’” Communication is key. Communicating professionally, early and often could’ve alleviated this issue.

Research Didn’t Exist
Another PR101 lesson that would have helped the SOPA and PIPA bills would have been better understanding of the dialogue and audience. Had the congressmen understood the terminology in the bill and read the bill as a whole, they would have better grasped the consequences and the possible infringement on the 1st amendment it could cause. One of the first lessons learned in PR, either in school or on the job, you must understand what your client does. How can you represent your client if you don’t understand what they do? How can a congress represent the citizen-base if they don’t understand what we do? Lack of research and comprehension can be devastating in any field.

Through research, shared vision and communication SOPA and PIPA could have helped prevent the expansion of online piracy, along with protecting the rights of online content creators. According to Eugene Lee, the CEO of Socialtext, SOPA and PIPA identified and targeted the wrong side of the issue. Lee asks, “how would we solve the problem if it were analog? Would we shut down video stores if an independent film company made a movie that violated copyright? We need to start with a rational assessment of the problem and propose solutions that make sense for both the protection of copyright and the protection of innovation.”

With thorough communication around the issue and research backing the solution, PR basics (and a little common sense) can make problem solving more effective in any field.

—Majhon Phillips

Over the next two weeks, three teams will be gearing up for Super Bowl XLVI. You read correctly, three teams. Not only will the New York Giants and New England Patriots be battling it out at Indianapolis’ Lucas Oil Stadium, another team will take to a different field – the social media field.

This past Monday, the Super Bowl committee announced that the most watched sporting event will have the first-ever Social Media Command Center. In the lead up to the game, a local digital marketing firm will send a team of roughly 50 strategists, analysts and techies to monitor the digital fan conversation on various social media channels. The people in the command center include college journalism, public relations and telecommunications majors from Ball State University, Butler University and Indiana University and they will work out of a 2,800-square-foot space facility that utilizes over a mile of Ethernet cable.

You might be asking what are these people going to do all day? Troll around on social media channels? Essentially, yes. But there is very good reasoning behind this approach. This social media super team will monitor the Web for the 150,000+ football fanatics who will descend on Indianapolis for the game. The team will specifically be looking for key words and phrases to help the out-of-towners maneuver around Indy, providing directions, parking information, things-to-do around town provide alerts should an emergency arise.

The super team concept is pretty novel, if you ask me. Indianapolis is effectively utilizing the social media super team as virtual tour guides. With cash-strapped cities looking to lure visitors in order to jump-start local economies, this is a cost-effective tool that can be used for future events as well.  If well-executed, it could have a profound effect on the people attending the event and enhance their experience. The super team concept could very well catch on with other major sporting event such as the Olympics, World Cup, World Series, and NASCAR – all major events with significant online interactivity. The beauty of the super team concept is not limited to just sporting events as it could also be applied to big tradeshows such as the Consumer Electronic Show, or even multi-day music events like Coachella and Stage Coach.

Many of you may be shaking your head and saying sure, this is a great concept, but the mobile networks will get bogged down, fail to support the increased online traffic and kill the experience? Not so fast. Recent reports indicate Verizon and AT&T have spent millions of dollars to prepare their networks for the influx of data usage in the Indianapolis area. AT&T has also deployed nine COW’s  (Cell on Wheels)  which will boost high speed 3G and 4G LTE service to the surrounding area to help alleviate the added stress on the networks. The city of Indianapolis will most definitely benefit from these advances in the long run.

Sports fans are without a doubt that are the most rabid in social media posts as record-setting Tim Tebow tweets clock in at a solid 9,420 tweets per second  and last summer’s Women’s World Cup finals approached that with 7,196 tweets per second. The Super Bowl’s groundbreaking Social Media Command Center is more proof that people, especially sports fanatics, prefer to communicate via social media than any other outlet available today.

Do you see Social Media Command Centers catching on? What events do you see this concept being adapted for?

— Marta Weissenborn