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.

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

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

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

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

Like many sports fans throughout the world, I am gearing up for the upcoming Summer Olympics in London.  Unlike the athletes, my training for the Olympics is researching the possibility that this event could shatter some social media records. What has now been dubbed by the media the “Social Media Olympics” is expected to bring the biggest social media activity of any event in social media’s short history.

This may not seem shocking to some but when you take a look at the numbers, the likelihood that this year’s Olympics could destroy social media records is a good possibility. Let’s take a look back at the social media numbers of the last summer games in Beijing. In 2008, Twitter had six million users while Facebook had 100 million users. During the last summer games, athletes, coaches and other participants were prohibited from social media activities surrounding the Olympics. This time around, the flood gates have been opened and Olympic participants will be able to address over 900 million Facebook members and over 140 million Twitter members. The increase in users is astonishing: 800% growth in Facebook subscribers and 2,233% growth in Twitter users.

While the International Olympic Committee is aware of the pitfalls of social media, they also know this year social media will have a profound effect on the Olympics. What kind of an impact could this have? With society increasingly becoming more mobile with tablets and smartphones, it will be interesting to see which companies and advertisers take advantage of this opportunity to launch social media campaigns and incorporate mobile strategies. Big name sponsors of the Olympics such as Coca-Cola, McDonalds, and Visa are all expected to rely on event sponsorship or affiliations to generate an impact via social media.

To offset some of the pitfalls made by athletes and celebrities previously on social media, the committee has issued a set of guidelines that participants must follow. Below is a sample of the guidelines

> Postings, blogs and tweets should at all times conform to the Olympic Spirit and fundamental principles of the Games as contained in the Olympic Charter, be dignified and in good taste, and not contain vulgar or obscene words or images.
> Participants are not permitted to promote any brand, product or service within a posting, blog or tweet or otherwise on any social media platforms or on any website.
> Guidelines for persons staying in the Olympic Village include: any posting, blog or tweet must be in first-person, diary-type format only; photos of the athletes or other accredited persons in the Olympic Village can be posted, however if additional people are in the photo, permission must be obtained by the person posting such picture. Video taken inside the residential area can only be used for personal use and not broadcasted or posted to any social media platform.

While some feel these guidelines silence Olympic participants, some of these guidelines are to preserve the integrity of the games, as well as broadcasters and advertisers’ investments. Some of the guidelines are clear-cut and leave little room for misinterpretation however, there are some of the guidelines that leave a gray area and left to interpretation as to what may or may not offend the committee.

And if you violate these guidelines, the consequences are steep.  If found by the IOC in violation of these guidelines you can be withdrawn from the games without notice. Although it seems like a pretty tough punishment, in today’s catalog of social media blunders it makes sense. Let’s also keep in mind that being an Olympian is a privilege not a right; a privilege that can be revoked at any time. Some can argue public figures have jeopardized or in some cases, jumpstarted their careers with careless and provocative posts. The list of social media faux pas is ever growing and includes the infamous Charlie Sheen, Alec Baldwin, and most recently Chris Rock.

Could similar guidelines become adopted by major league sporting organizations? What is your view on Olympic participants using social media? Are the Olympic guidelines too rigid? In the coming weeks this blog will take a look at the impact this year’s Olympics are having on social media. Will social media strike Olympic gold? We will soon find out.

-Marta Weissenborn

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

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

My phone recently called it quits on me. While it may not have been the end of the world, it was the end of my mobile world; for a week at least. After the tech specialists deemed my phone unfixable, I had to get a new one. Lucky for me, I had insurance. Unlucky for me, my phone model was no longer sold in stores and a replacement had to be ordered. ETA: One week.

While this was quite an inconvenience to live through, it was also an eye opener to see how much one person relies on that little electronic we toss in our purse or tuck in our pocket. I was left without any form of mobile communication or information flow, and I quickly realized how much we rely on our smartphones to interact with people and the world around us. I also quickly realized how hard it is to find a payphone, but I digress.

When I say communicate, this not only includes voice calling, but extends to sending emails, posting on Facebook, shooting out text messages, checking in on Foursquare, browsing the web, Tweeting and more. While I was out and about, I had no idea what was going on and nobody knew where I was. I wasn’t able to call my mom from the road to tell her  I was on my way to visit and I couldn’t text my boyfriend to let him know I would pick up dinner. I couldn’t check my emails so I felt a little lost as to what was happening at work while I was away from my desk. I wasn’t able to login to Facebook, and as odd as it is, I missed a dinner invite from one of my girlfriends.  I couldn’t browse the internet for local news, traffic and weather updates, and I wasn’t able to “check-in” to my current location.

Earlier this year, Pew Research released a report on how mobile phones have become a near-ubiquitous tool for information seeking and communicating. The research revealed that 83 percent of American adults own some kind of mobile device. Text messaging and picture taking topped the list of ways that Americans use their mobile phones, shortly followed by content sharing and going online. A similar report from Current Results showed that people spent half the time on their smartphones to keep in touch with others through emails, text messages and phone calls.

The shift towards mobile in the way we communicate and consume information has had a direct impact on how professionals interact with each other and how businesses engage with consumers. People being mobile and constantly online have influenced when and where we can communicate with other professionals, whether they are colleagues, clients or journalists. We can answer urgent emails from the grocery store and take conference calls from the airport. I have even received text messages from a reporter about a meeting.  Moreover, news outlets themselves have begun publishing stories differently and creating apps so they are more reader friendly on the gadgets we view them on, thus creating a direct impact on the way information is packaged.  From a business perspective, there has been a shift toward mobile marketing because consumers are acquiring their content differently through mobile devices. This includes couponing, advertising, QR codes, app development and social media.

There is a lot of information online about mobility, smartphones and the way we communicate. I highly suggest that you check out this great roundup of infographics that shows just how big the world of mobile marketing and communications is, and how fast it is growing. You may be surprised to find that two hundred trillion text messages are received in America every day.

–Katie Peterson