The blog See What’s Out There is our focus for this round of the Nonprofit Blog Exchange from Emily Weinberg.

…See What’s Out There is the blog of See3 Communications and is an excellent read … go check it out…

See What’s Out There Blog is the dynamic conversation home for the company, See3: Media for Nonprofits.

They have an interesting model for their business. After finding it, I was pleased, because their model mirrors our model. Their approach mirrors our approach. I’m always thrilled to find other nonprofit online resources with similar goals.

The see3 model?

We help nonprofits bring every-day activities to life through a combination of traditional and new media. We create products that use video, audio and high-quality digital photography in engaging and innovative ways for fundraising, education and general communication.

We encourage our clients to document their activities to create media libraries. Once documented, media elements can be repurposed into several different products for targeted events or audiences.

The see3 approach?

1. Consider all the events or activities that you have as opportunities to document with video, audio and digital photography.
2. Make a media schedule and tie it to a messaging campaign. Create products that best suit your audience and your budget.
3. Integrate this approach into your daily business. Create new media, repurpose old media and engage viewers with frequent powerful messages.

Check out the See3 clients list. It is impressive.
One of their more recent projects is DoGooderTV. At their site, you’ll find that DoGooderTV is all about enabling “nonprofit organizations to present new videos and existing media assets to new audiences. Once site visitors see the compelling stories of nonprofits, DoGooderTV gives them a direct way to donate to the organization, join, volunteer or simply find out more information.”

This was part of the philosophy that encouraged Camp ASCCA to revamp their Web site. Although, ASCCA’s primary purpose has been to increase awareness of Camp ASCCA’s programs.

So, our hats are off to see3 and all of their projects. You can tell by their sites that the company is doing great work. Congrats!

Paul descibes the new blog as:

It’s what Yahoo! is all about – the culture, the traditions and some dabbling of current hot topics in the general tech realm. You don’t have to be a Computational Media major at a top 10 public university to understand what’s going on. User interaction is encouraged on Yodel Anecdotal.

Please note that we’re talking about Yahoo! – a corporate giant – giving this kind of responsibility (and opportunity) to an intern. I think that’s amazing, admirable and to be saluted. Now, Paul doesn’t seem like your average intern, so that may play into this a bit. But, the willingness of a company like Yahoo! to offer this to an intern just blows my mind. Yahoo! has won me over in yet another area.

Sounds like a good idea for a corporate blog, too. Looking forward to reading this one.

Paul’s work (and his group) is quite impressive. Congrats!

A little side story is the choice of the blogging platform used for Yahoo’s corporate blog. MovableType’s ProNet discussion group – mostly developers – are a little bummed that WordPress was chosen. But, the unique aspect is that Yahoo! let the intern go with a platform he felt comfortable with – instead of one that was suggested (but not demanded) by IT. I think that’s commendable. Also, Yahoo! offers hosting for both platforms. So, either platform would be fine for the blog.

Is it a coup for WordPress? Sure. WordPress is now the platform of the Official Yahoo! corporate blog. That’s pretty cool. But, both platforms have gained from acceptance and adoption by Yahoo! over recent years. See Yahoo! Web Hosting and WordPress.

I do think that WordPress is continuing to erode Movable Type’s market share and if I were Six Apart, I’d be worried. Even the latest version of Movable Type 3.3 is encountering problems. The rebuild function of Movable Type makes it a “clunkier” platform than WordPress, in some/many instances. We’ll see how Movable Type’s viability plays out in the future.

Links:

The blog and discussion:
Introducing Yodel Anecdotal – PaulStamatiou.com
Yodel Anecdotal
About Yodel Anecdotal
Yet another self-serving corporate blog!

Discussion about the blogging platform chosen (WordPress):
Photo Matt » Yodel Anecdotal
http://www.sixapart.com/mailman/private/pronet/ – Discussion at ProNet (registration required)

Two Reviews:
IMlog: Corporate blog: Yahoo! vs Google 1 – 0
Yahoo Yodels With New Blog

Here is Paull Young’s appeal for involvement. You may read more about the program at the NewPR/Wiki AntiAstroturfing.HomePage.

Seeking advocates that will join together in battling this unfortunate practice, Trevor Cook offers this post urging involvment.

Something that spurred on this campaign was Paull’s PRIA post about the sad practice undertaken by a PR advocacy group.

I wrote previously about how Kayak.com’s ad campaign is being called – if only by one person – an astroturfing effort. I don’t believe it is, but the idea intruiging.

Check out the new project from Paull and Trevor. I wish them luck with it. You can even get a cool button for your blog. Transparency requires that I share my discussions with Paull about the project. I helped a teeny bit on some technical issues and am not directly involved with the project. It is an issue that needs to be addressed, however, and I support their efforts.

Something I forgot to mention, who wants to guess how long it will take for someone to claim that this anti-astrofurfing campaign is actually an astroturfing campaign itself? It isn’t, of course, but the irony just struck me.

I still “wonder if any actuarial tables already exist in C-suites and venture capital offices when the purchase or support of a social media site is being considered.” It would be nice to see that addressed in news coverage.

New security measures for young users of MySpace.com won’t be enough to stop online child predators, safety experts warned Wednesday. – Forbes

A recent AdAge article – MySpace Looks for Search Partner – News Corp.’s Chernin: Google, Microsoft and Yahoo Are Contenders speaks to the revenue potential, but also shows that MySpace is still surviving off of “remnant” ads and revenue – from the previous owner’s sales. Does a Google or Yahoo! want to take on the risk of association with MySpace? Well, duh – sure. There is a potential for great revenue. But, will those partners push for greater security measures in order to stop the problems – and the bad publicity? I don’t know. There are a lot of money hungry people out there. Some may see these potential problems as a part of the risk of doing business.

MySpace has – to some degree – really become quite seedy, in my opinion. Recently, while looking through some of the aspects of the site – like video – I came upon the following:

Note: If you upload Porn, your MySpace.com account will be deleted.

Well, if you look through the “Just Added” videos, it is quite obvious that there is porn in there. By my anecdotal snapshot in time count – it was one in five. That isn’t just one person’s idea of what porn is, either. I’m talking about people showing body parts and more. Hey, they obviously go through some sort of approval system, so I’m thinking the process has some flaws. Wonder what age the reviewers are – 12? We won’t even speculate on their maturity.

And, I’ve heard from some people that after uploading videos, their’s take forever to get approved. They state that their’s are clean and just fun goofy videos. This happens to them while others seem to have their videos go straight through – or through pretty quickly. Kind of makes you wonder if they are looking for the outrageous and salacious. One of the most often used tags I saw was “sexy” and there were titles like “bounce dat ass.” Hey, I’m really not a prude – but, I’m just sayin’. It would make sense, in terms of driving traffic, to let it through. But, what does it say about the community – especially when MySpace is facing such bad publicity lately? When I speak to groups of parents, they are usually clueless as to what is happening in MySpace and other online communities.

I’m wondering if MySpace might prove to be (at least in the short run) more of a money pit (think legal fees) than a revenue producer. They have problems and are exposed to a great deal of risk. Social media needs a success story. Despite what others are saying, I’m not too sure MySpace is one – at this point. The 85 million users they claim doesn’t tell us (like Blogspot and Livejournal and others) how many sites are idle or how many are repeat users, either. This story, like blogging, has a long way to go (think years) before proof-of-process pans out – if ever.

Facebook is a bane of my, and other educators, existence. For anyone that deals with computer labs, the site has an addictive quality for students that surpasses crack and heroin. OK, a bit over-stated, but not far from the truth.

Still, all that I can deal with if I have to on a day-to-day basis. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve had to make a student close the site. My real concern? The potential for harm that may come to one of my students is what really bothers me. Students are too willing to share any and all information about themselves. They do not take the precautions they should by making their portion of the site only available to friends – people they actually know and want to interact with online. They do not always leave off personal information. They too often post photos that may attract undesirable attention.

We have our own little goofy stories of students posting too much personal info and then having it come back to bite them. The one we most often refer to is the student that posted her life’s activity schedule from class to tennis playing online. She also had her phone number, home address and class schedule on her Facebook site. Then, one day she was stunned to be out playing tennis and receive an unwanted visitor. She reported to her friends that this “creepy” guy showed up at the tennis court and said he found her through Facebook.

My point? We have no idea if any assaults may have already occured via this kind of online stalking. I don’t want any to take place and therefore try to educate my students about the potential dangers. Facebook should be doing it, too. Collleges, high schools and parents – all of us – should be doing this, as well. The danger is too real.

I wonder if any actuarial tables already exist in C-suites and venture capital offices when the purchase or support of a social media site is being considered. The risk is high, I’d bet. It is untested in court, I imagine. Can Facebook and MySpace, etc. show that they have (a) provided enough cautionary advice to users and (b) made them go through enough hoops to assure the users have read all that cautionary evidence? I doubt it. Is it encumbent upon them to do so? I think it is. But, they likely won’t do it until forced to by a court case or overwhelming bad publicity. So, until then, the duty must lie with us to help protect the students.

Read Fred’s article and take it to heart.

Technorati Tags: Facebook, Education, Risk

posted using performancing firefox

In today’s Los Angeles Times, we learn:

“A former Fleishman-Hillard employee … testified she padded bills to the city on orders from her former bosses … (she) admitted Wednesday to making misstatements to investigators, but held firm to her basic story of fraud by the international public relations firm (Fleishman-Hillard).”

The Los Angeles Daily News reports:

“The former head of Fleishman-Hillard’s Los Angeles office was told in a 2003 meeting that Department of Water and Power bills were being inflated but did not stop it, a former colleague testified Tuesday.”

and… “Under questioning by Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Kamenstein, (Monique) Moret said (Doug) Dowie didn’t tell anyone at the meeting that the process ‘has to stop.’”

Now, contrast these accusations with the following:

From Todd Defren, we learn of Fleishman-Hillard’s statement of “Principles” where they claim “Quality service is first and foremost in everything we do.”

“To make ourselves as valuable to our clients as they are to us.”® We live out this goal by adhering to the following ten basic principles:

1. Respect for the individual
2. Teamwork is everything
3. Quality service is first and foremost in everything we do
4. New business drives the firm
5. Results make us grow
6. Existing clients come first
7. Fleishman-Hillard requires a personal commitment
8. Entrepreneurship is a way of life
9. Personal success is measurable and attainable
10. We are committed to the highest ethical standards

Source: Fleishman-Hillard’s statement of “Principles”

So, I’m just sayin’ an’ paraphrasin’…

Well, either you’re closing your eyes
To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge
Or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated
By the presence of PR conglomerates in our community.
Ya got trouble, my friend, right here,
I say, trouble right here in PR City.

(More apologies to the “Music Man) In fairness, we must remember, the case is in progress. There are only allegations. Nothing has been proven, yet.

Hey, lot’s of people are saying it. PR Week has been reporting on it, too. (Subscription required)

“These bills are quite long, aren’t they, Miss Moret?” asked Stodder’s attorney Jan Handzlik, resuming his line of witness questioning cut short by Tuesday’s end-of-workday recess.

Collected, and dressed in a sophisticated black business suit for her initial day on the stand, Moret, witness for the prosecution, described her role in preparing monthly invoices on behalf of the firm’s lucrative LA Department of Water and Power (LA DWP) account. After employees entered their billable hours in a computer program called PeopleSoft, she explained, a billing worksheet would be generated in Fleishman’s St. Louis headquarters. That sheet, Moret said, would be used by her and her assistant to prepare a detailed activity and project-code report to be sent to the client for payment.

It was after the ‘first run’ of the billing worksheets when allegedly fraudulently worked hours would be added, Moret explained. Under the direction of her supervisor, John Stodder, Moret said she would add hours to various employees’ entries, then re-submit to St. Louis before compiling invoices.”

O’Dwyer’s PR/Marcom even went so far as to allow an anonymous character blogger to write an article about it (Subscription required). That is something they have never done before, and stated they likely never will again. (Thank goodness.)

Allow me to make this clear. I like agencies. I like agency practitioners. They have certainly been nice to us in our blogging activities. I’m just offering my own version of clarification here. If you think I’m wrong, please tell me. (Like you wouldn’t anyway?)

I want to write about this story from several angles in days to come, but I’m starting with the two aspects that bother me the most (after the alleged overbilling, of course). I’ll try and deal with it from (1) a personal practitioner (or student) standpoint and (2) what this scandal may mean to public relations overall.

First of all, let us deal with the issue and how it relates to students about to join the world of PR. Some – note that I’ve said some, please – of you will go into agency/corporate public relations practice. For you, an important rule of thumb is to beware and steady yourself. (We actually do talk about this in classes, by the way.) You may well be asked to do something by a client or supervisor that is unethical, dishonest or even illegal. I know you are stunned.

So, “just say no” is the simple answer and advice, right? But, is it really that simple?

No, of course not.

It gets difficult. Out of school things seem to flow in many directions, like these…

You get a job. Then, maybe you get married. Oh, then comes the house. Ooops! Children. How’d that happen? So, as you can see the responsibilities and the ties keep accumulating that may keep you from feeling so free to say, “(Manager), I’m not comfortable with doing that.” Or, when supervisors are pushing you to meet your quotas, can you really feel comfortable saying “I will not lie to my clients.” You want to keep your job. You have car payments, mortgage payments, saving for the kid’s college and on, and on…

Not everyone is strong enough to take the stand and say something they may be penalized for, think bonuses and promotions, or even fired for down the line. Sad, yes, but true. I hope we see you leave the comfort of college with the steel it takes to say no. In fact, we hope you will be the change agents for a segment of the profession (probably less than 1/4 of the overall practice, actually) that causes some harm to the overall reputation of PR. We’ll talk more about this one, later. Maybe our readers will see this and offer their suggestions about how you can deal with the situation, should it arise.

Also, I am not certain that overbilling is rampant in agency PR. So far, to be fair, the evidence is anecdotal. Hey, it may be happening a lot, but there isn’t any significant public evidence to prove it. Know of some? Please share. Remember, there are a lot of firms.

Second, it seems that there is a perception that over-billing is rampant in the world of PR overall – not just in corporate and conglomerate owned PR agencies. Unfortunately, the claim often comes in a statement like this, “PR overbills all the time.” The generic PR statement is important and it bothers me.

In my first post on this issue, I want to cover some simple thoughts about what PR is, or better stated, “Is conglomerate PR, or agency PR, representative of the entire industry?”

My feelling is no. It is not representative of the industry as a whole and, in fact, does not make up the majority of practitioners. You see, most PR practitioners don’t bill. Yeah, that’s right. Most likely don’t do time sheets and fill out billing reports. Most are salaried and it just doesn’t relate to their jobs.

Now, corporate/agency PR may account for a tremendous percentage of the billings that do take place. For instance, the top 10 independent firms accounted for $1.7 billion of the revenue out of the 135 firms in 2005. (Source: O’Dwyer’s PR)

The Economist reports (Jan 19th 2006) that PR spending in the U.S. has reached $3.7 billion (compared to $475 billion for advertising). The article also reports, “Many of the big PR firms have been consolidated into the giant groups that now dominate the advertising industry. Two of these are American: Interpublic owns GolinHarris and Weber Shandwick, and Omnicom owns Fleishman-Hillard and Ketchum. Britain’s WPP owns Hill & Knowlton and Burson-Marsteller.”

Don’t you just love WPP? “‘WPP’ stands for ‘Wire and Plastic Products.’” Ah, and here you are — our future “Graduate(s).” Is big time agency PR (those bonuses and promotions) your Mrs. Robinson? It may be trying to seduce you. Will you be asked to compromise your ethics to get ahead? It could happen.

But, back to the real story, are revenues really the key factor in determining where PR practice is taking place? Is agency PR where the real excitement and fun is found? No, of course it isn’t.

That same article in The Economist reports:

Of course, not all PR people are selling products or services. Indeed, marketing PR—or “brand communications” as it is sometimes called—is still considered by some in the industry as something of a Cinderella business. A recent study in Britain by the Centre for Economics and Business Research found the PR industry there employs 48,000 people. More than 80% were working “in-house”, for companies or other organisations. Just over half of Britain’s in-house PRs work for the public sector, health organisations and charities. These organisations are also the biggest users of PR consultancies.

In the U.S., I believe the percentages are similar. Still looking for those numbers, so please bear with me.

My point? Perspective, please. Do not take this story about one trial about one conglomerate’s practice and apply the perception to all of PR. It isn’t fair. It isn’t valid. And, it is foolish. May we all, when referring to this case, not make the blanket “PR” statements, please.

And, story teasers and headlines like these may serve to perpetuate the misconceptions.

“…Overbilling is rife in the PR biz because it’s getting pretty tough to feed the corporate monster..” O’Dwyer’s PR

“PR Overbilling Case Heads To Court” Center for Media and Democracy … Why not Fleishman-Hillard Overbilling… (OK, that’s being picky.)

Next time, we may talk about possible solutions to the problem. Hey, I can at least try. Certainly management needs to change. Congomerates need to clean up or break up. But, to truly change this culture, someone – a lot of someones – do need to say no.

Also see Ethics on Demand, by Mark Johnston, at FPRA Blog Week. (Hat tip to Jeremy Pepper at the Blog Run for the link.)

This is a wonderful opportunity to revisit a project that I think has promise and virtue for everyone that chooses to participate.

Let us revisit Operation Link Love – PR Bloggers “Pay It Forward” and Give Back. Read that post and the associated links to see what the project is all about. Or, go straight to The NewPR/Wiki page for all the details.

This is a project all about links that can serve a positive purpose. I hope you will get involved. Write about the viability of social media for nonprofits. Find a nonprofit blog that you can add to the wiki list. Link to them, and I bet they will link back. So, everyone wins.

I’m working on a fix for the image code. For now, feel free to hotlink to the image above.

Our discussion revolved around language and how its use may perpetuate stereotypes of people – who happen to have a disability – as “unable.” And, those who know better realize that people with disabilities are actually quite able. This issue of language use has tremendous implications for public relations.

For instance, some research has shown that someone that has a disability is likely to be a more loyal employee and will actually present their employer with fewer sick days than average employees. This depends upon what you define as a disability, of course, but it is those definitions – used casually by all of us in everyday conversation – that set the tone for how we perceive disabilities.

One aspect of Camp ASCCA that I have always enjoyed and appreciated is how people without disabilities react when they are exposed to the recreational activities the campers engage in from high adventure to something as casual as swimming. It changes your perceptions of what is a disability. It actually removes the stereotypes.

When you see how an appliance – like a wheelchair or an adaptive harness – can enable a tennis game or climb up a treehouse or tower, you realize that these are not confining devices (as Dr. Martin points out) but really devices of liberation. Another aspect of this is the barrier-free architecture of camp. When people see that the cost per square foot is minimal to create such an environment they may think twice when building their own facilities. A little thought and consideration can be liberating for millions of citizens.

Of course, above I used the term “appliance” and that also is an unfortunate word. But, what do we call these things and these conditions? That is one area I hope the Camp ASCCA online community will address in the months and years to come.

Length of the podcast is 18:39 and the file size is 17.0mb.  Listen below.

Someone sent me a link to Steve Rubel’s blog where he posted a notice about Matt’s site – Buzz-o-phone. So, I thought I’d go look at what she was talking about.

Since Steve and Edelman have recently announced he “will be charged with helping the team win new word of mouth business as well as in developing/executing client programs” in his new role as a Senior Vice President for Edelman Worldwide, I thought he would be the perfect person to speak about the good and bad of these types of sites.

I thought an SVP would likely have some opinions about this kind of tactic. So, I commented on the post with some questions.

No commentary on the value of this? Good or bad?

How will businesses deal with the WOM this may generate? How would you counsel businesses to approach this new feed of consumer backlash for their product(s), service(s), brand(s) or company?

I would like to hear your counsel on these issues. I bet others would, too.

Richard Edelman believes Steve knows about WOM. He wrote, “I have always been impressed with his honesty, his passion for his craft and his commitment to changing the public relations business.” Even more important, in relation to this post – Edelman wrote, “What do we hope to achieve together? In short, we want to persuade our corporate clients to commit to the blogosphere.”

Well, I think this discovery of yet another WOM site is worthy of Rubel’s commentary – as a leader online. It deserves more than just a mention … a link. As of today, no response from Rubel.

But, I did hear from the site’s creator – Matt Galloway. His site is getting attention. Today Matt made it to RocketBoom with Buzz-o-phone.

Matt saw my comment and contacted me. Matt wrote, “I saw your comments on Buzz-o-phone over on Steve Rubel’s blog. You ask some great questions. It will be interesting to see if Buzz-o-phone gets enough momentum to be taken seriously by marketers. If you write about this in the future, please let me know. I’d love to read your thoughts.”

So, I wrote back with some questions. The questions, and Matt’s responses are below. I appreciate and respect his open and honest sharing of information. I have only edited for some stray characters that were created by the email transmission. His responses, and my questions, are in their original form.

A Note: There are some references in here that might offend the truly faint of heart, but they are – compared to some of the things I hear students say – quite tame by comparison. Nonetheless, I offer that warning. Some might say, “Robert, that’s silly.” However, I think about audience a lot. And the audience for this post could be anyone in the world. So, there ya’ go.

Danger, Will Robinson. This is long.

Q: Are there any liability issues at stake here for you, or those that call?

Matt’s Answer: Probably. If somebody gets way off topic then I suppose it could be a problem, but you have to look at consequence and recourse. First off, libel and slander go out the window as long as the speaker is clearly stating an opinion. I think, almost regardless of what the speaker says that the context of the site itself clearly demarcates the “rant” as just that. Secondly, if someone gets too far off base, I’ll probably pull the opinion (more on this later). Thirdly, if someone does get miffed to the point of legal action it will likely start with a cease and desist, which I would probably obey – at least until I could seek legal counsel on that particular issue. As long as the site is framed as opinion, and I comply with cease and desists, it would be pretty hard (and expensive) to pull me into court. And if they did, what are the _real_ damages? But let’s say they did. Buzz-o-phone is not a business. It’s just me. I’m not a wealthy guy. Someone _could_ go after me but we have a blood from a turnip situation.

This is one of the points that I’m trying to make with Buzz-o-phone. In regards to free speech, in most cases the consumer is more free than the companies. Consumer can and do say anything they want in any forum. As long as we stick to opinions and anecdotes that are honest, they are very defensible – no matter how damaging. Companies, on the otherhand, are much more resticted in what they say – by regulation, by stockholders, by culture – and they have much more to lose.

Think of the Jeff Jarvis-Dell thing. Form a practical standpoint, can Dell openly bad mouth Jeff Jarvis? No. Can Dell refuse to sell Jeff Jarvis computers? Not really. Can Dell tell HP and Lenovo and Apple not to sell stuff to Jeff Jarvis because he’s a “bad customer”? Of course not.

Jeff Jarvis, on the otherhand can publically denigrate Dell to his hearts content – as long as he’s clear that it is only HIS opinion and that his accounts are accurate. Who has the power here?

Q: Did you consult an attorney before beginning this project?

Matt’s Answer: Nope. I talked with an attourney a few times when I started blogging. I also did some research on slander and libel. My general strategy at this point it to monitor for clear attacks – stuff that’s beyond heated opinion – and proactively pull it. I hope that I don’t have to do this but I am prepared to. Also, if I got a cease and desist, I’d pull a recording and then seek legal counsel.

Q: What safeguards (if any) have you installed to assure that no slander occurs using your service? Or would it libel because, although spoken words, they are actually data files? I don’t know.

Matt’s Answer: First off, I _think_ it’s slander. Second, no safegaurds other than faith in the consumer. I know that sounds silly but because of the reasons stated above, I haven’t risked a lot here. Since Buzz-o-phone was created in about 15 hours with a total investment of about $65, I can shut the whole thing down without losing any sleep if I have to. And again, as long as folks stick to clear opinion – there is no recourse. Of course someone could lie – and if that’s brought to my attention I’ll respond. I have caller-id info on all the calls and, if needed, I can pull the call.

Q: Where does the ‘responsibility’ for ethical practice fall here …. with you … the callers … both? Or no one?

Matt’s Answer: Well, I certainly strive to act ethically and I feel that I have a responsibility to do so. We’ve been talking about detractors here – and I admit I’m afraid that Buzz-o-phone will skew negative – but so far there have been lots of positive calls. This whole thing is predcated on trust and also that CGM tends to be self-correcting. So I place a lot of trust on callers. If someone abuses that trust, I’ll take action. There are all kinds of things that I _could_ do to prevent abuse but I wnat to see if this can be done without those measures. If someone is out of line, I’ll pull their call.

Now, there is one call so far that I’ve gotten email about. The call sounds to be from a teenaged boy and he’s going on about getting a rash from applying K-Y Jelly to his “pecker”. I’ve chosen to leave this call alone. Why? Well, first off – as silly as it is – it represents how teenaged boys really talk about K-Y Jelly. Second, it’s clearly a prank – this is different from a shill or stealth marketing in that no reasonable person will listen and leave with the impression that K-Y Jelly causes skin irritation. Third, I think by leaving this recording up I create a sense of trust with the individual that left it – perhaps he’ll call back with a sincere contribution. And lastly, because it’s funny in its own juvenille way.

Now, if the boy had been more graphic than “pecker” then I would probably pull the call.

Can I tell when people are lying? Probably not but neither can you when you’re standing in the line at the grocery store and overhear a conversation. I think the platform of Buzz-o-phone is clear enough that people will be able to make up their own minds about what to trust.

As for legal ramifications – I’m taking a hide and watch approach.

Q: Since you are on iTunes, have you considered the inability to “un-ring the bell” in this practice. Once recorded and posted – then downloaded – there is no way to recall or recant anything malicious that has been posted. Do they now have liability in this process?

Matt’s Answer: Well, yes and no. When you have a podcast in the iTunes store, Apple only sydicates the RSS feed – not the MP3 files – they are still on your server. So I can always adjust the number of episodes available in the iTunes store.

However, once someone who is subscribed to the podcast downloads the file to their local computer, there is nothing I can do to “un-ring the bell”.

This is really the same thing that happens, for example, with television stations and ads. Here in Tulsa a while back, SBC ran some DSL broadband tv spots that talked about how horrible cable modem was. The local cable company (Cox Communications) sued SBC to stop airing the ads. Cox won.

Now, the televisions stations were not liable for SBC’s commercial content and all they had to do was stop distibution. The television station is not responsible for the TiVo’s and VCR tapes that now had that content on it. All you can do is stop distribution… and maybe publish a retraction.

To be clear though, I can prevent further distribution – even through iTunes.

Q: Certainly, if anyone gains from the service it will be great. But, like email stock hype scams, how will you defend that occurrence? Do you have any safeguards in place to monitor that?

Matt’s Answer: Right now all I’m doing is listening closely and recording caller ID information. I’ve already called some of the numbers back and talked with the people that left the messages. Right now I only have 19 calls and they all sound pretty reasonable and are all clear opinions. If this thing explodes than I might start thinking about doing something else, but I’ll also have to start thinking about revenue stream. And again, since it’s not a business and is not neccessarily intended to be, I can pull the plug on the whole thing if it all turns nasty.

Q: And, finally … if someone or some company does suffer discomfort (or worse, injury – whether financial or to reputation / brand) by any malicious or mis-stated commentary, do you feel any responsibility for that act?

Matt’s Answer: Well, if somebody clearly steps over the line I feel that I have an obligation to act. I won’t feel responsible if someone does post something out-of-line but I will take responsibility to take corrective action. If the experiment falls into chaos, then I feel that I have a responsibility to shut it down.

At this point though, how much harm could a call on Buzz-o-phone cause? Now, if it grows exponentially, I might have to rethink that. At this point though, I’m getting 2 to 4 calls per day and there is a very small listening audience, it’s pretty easy to stay on top of it.

I liken it to owning a movie theater. I can’t stop somebody from spontaneeously standing up in the front and yelling obscenities at kids. But once they start, the theater owner has a responsibility to react.

One of the amazing things about CGM though is how rarely this actually happens. Jeff Jarvis never seemed irrational when berating Dell. If you listen to the people that have actually taken the time to call Buzz-o-phone so far, they all sound amazingly sincere. Even the detractors seem to be offering suggestions for positive change more so than flat out bitching.

People, especially online posters, seem to be a lot more reasonable and compasionate than marketers tend to give them credit for.

Matt’s closing comments:

Thank you for your interest. You’ve really given me some food for thought.

I do want to re-emphasise that Buzz-o-phone is a hobby experiment and not a business model. I’m not professionally involved in marketing, PR or business communications. Some of the comments I’ve gotten feel like folks overlook this fact. This is really more about consumer empowerment and new media experimentation than it is about the viability of Buzz-o-phone as a business – which, at least at this point, it’s not.

Once you’ve digested this stuff, feel free to call 800-591-5375 and share your opinion about Buzz-o-phone -

good, bad or indifferent.

Thanks for your time,

Matt

My Comments

I appreciate Matt’s willingness to answer these questions. He appears open and honest in his replies.

I have added my thoughts about WOM – in general – in this post from earlier today. Please note that I raise the questions, not only for myself, but for my students to consider in their thoughts about social media and the effect it will have on their future PR experiences.

I do not think that Matt is malicious in his intent. I do think that the site poses risks for him and everyone out there.

There is a saying that comes to mind when I see sites like this. “Just because you *can* do something, doesn’t mean you should.” Now, the reality is that blogs are doing this kind of thing every day. They are spreading word of mouth opinions and claims – often sans evidence or credibility – and I wonder about the consideration given by the site owners (and participants) as to those pitfalls. Matt has simply taken podcasting and blogs and tied it into a social sharing experience not unlike the numerous 1-800 numbers out there today – just a lil’ bit different.

Matt’s site, even if well-executed technically, is also – sadly – just another open hole for juvenile nonsense to be poured into. Can it be postivie? Sure. Do I think it will be a positive experience overall? No.

I think of the possible victims. Who, in their creation of site’s like Matt’s or Facebook or any other site that encourages the sharing of “your recorded diatribe or approbation” thinks about those people – before creating their sites. In PR, this is called continency (or outcome) planning and strategy. I don’t see much of that kind of planning going on here. Yes, it is a reality. This site is here and there will be numerous spinoffs to social communities and sites like this down the road. So, we have to consider how to deal with them. We need strategic thinking from those touted as leaders in the field. And, we need that information shared in the community those experts profess to love, but often fail to use for these types of activities.

I doubt Facebook or MySpace has *really* considered what might happen if someone misuses their sites. Do they have PR counsel? Matt doesn’t. Should they both have it? You bet they should.

Most of these sites have not done much (if any) training – or heightening of awareness – among their users with regard to the possible harm that may come their way.

That, as a person, makes me sad. As a PR practitioner, it scares the heck out of me.

For being shrewd about doing good, for rewiring politics and re-engineering justice, for making mercy smarter and hope strategic and then daring the rest of us to follow, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are TIME’s Persons of the Year.

Bill & Melinda Gates: From Riches to Rags
Bono: The Constant Charmer
Interview with the Trio: “We Just Go Off”

I was expecting natural disasters to be chosen. After all, the year started and ended with them devastating the world – from the Tsunami to Katrina (and other hurricanes) to the Pakistan earthquake. Let us not forget the tornadoes and floods, as well.

But, this at least shines the light on those that do good deeds. How much better would it have been to make “The Good Samaritans” the recipient? I think it would give people more realistic role models to imitate. Honestly, how many Bonos and Gates are there? And, collectively, individual “Good Samaritans” have already done more for others than Bono and the Gates’.

Volunteerism would have been a better choice. Individual contributions of time, money and resources reached a record level for individuals as well as corporations in 2005. The collective “Good Samaritans” are more deserving of the praise as it is more difficult – requires more sacrifice – than it does for the Bonos and Gates of the world. Oh, I don’t mean to diminish their good deeds. They are certainly excellent role models, if only by their volunteer and giving practices alone.