Why do we call it ‘word’ of mouth? I can’t remember the last time somebody recommended a product or service to me with one single word; there’s almost always a story – and it’s this story (and it’s authentic delivery) that sells.

Think about the last time a friend suggested something to you… there was a story, wasn’t there? Maybe they didn’t tuck you up in bed and read it to you, but it was conversational and it contained hooks that resonated with you and convinced you they were a good company for you too.

"Please miss, tell us a story and we'll tweet it, promise."

The same is true of social media. If you expect people to be online brand advocates you need to arm them with your brand stories. The kinds of story that get told every day inside your business, but for some reason never make it onto the company website. You know the stuff that hasn’t been smoothed within an inch of its life, the real stories you tell new employees about the business, the reasons that make your people proud to work for you. These words of mouth start from within but quickly spread through social networks, become embellished along the way and ultimately become your brand proposition. Remember, your brand is only what people say it is.

Google is a great company because it delivers an excellent search product but so does Bing.  Google, however, is a brand we want to associate with because they have a great story, one that we love telling and embellishing. You know those stories, the one about the Google chefs that cook staff gourmet meals, the one about the allowance given to Google engineers to work on a project of fancy for one day a week, whether it’s commercially viable or not. The story that Google really does try to be fair, that they aren’t really into placing cookies on our machines and tracking the shit out of our web behaviours.

These stories, in turn, give us a story to tell – and oh how we love telling them. Sharing such stories now comes at the click of a retweet and boy do these words travel fast. So start thinking about the stories you have to share, just the process of thinking like this will open up your business, make you more authentic and give your advocates something worth talking about.

Prologue

Part 1 of this post outlined some ways to avoid a social media debacle; but, hindsight is 20/20 (…just ask Nestlé) so this second part looks at some ways of handling/diffusing an ominous social media shit storm looming on the horizon.

Be good.

Companies have always had naysayers and critics, but with social media they are much more capable of connecting, mobilising and plotting their attack. So, if your company isn’t doing the right thing (as related to fair trade, employment, the environment), now might be a good time to reassess.

This is obviously easier said than done (particularly when it involves modifying major components of a business), but just realise that if you continue using unfavourable practices that you’ll likely come under fire for it.

If you can’t be good, at least be prepared.

Don’t get caught with your pants down – know who your critics are, monitor conversations, anticipate backlash. (see part 1).

In either instance, be present.

Avoiding social media isn’t a solution – people will talk about your brand with or without your complicity. Furthermore, having your own presence actually gives you a home field advantage:

• you already have an open dialogue, which may serve as an early warning system
• you have a voice to tell your side of the story
• you’re able to put your best foot forward and share all the good things your brand is doing (the best offense is a good defense)

The Storm

What’s the real issue?

Sometimes the root of the problem is glaringly obvious (i.e. a customer’s had a bad experience with your company and is pissed off about it), but vague ranting, satire and trolling mightn’t be so evident. Take some time to make sure you really know what’s going on.

Stay in control.

It’s essential that you maintain control of yourself and the situation – don’t lose your cool, don’t get defensive and never let ‘em see you sweat.

Be personable.

Introduce yourself, use your real name, communicate like a real person. It’s much easier to fling poo at Mr. Anonymous Douchebag than it is Dave, a likable guy who lives a couple of suburbs away.

Welcome Utilise feedback.

Yes, you should absolutely welcome feedback and comments (particularly from a PR perspective) – but why not go one step further and actually do something with this intel. Lots of companies use social media as a ‘listening device’, but few actually do anything with what they hear.

Ignore & monitor.

I’m not saying that if you ignore Greenpeace they’ll go away. However, not all backlash is created equal so pick your battles. Suzie in Nebraska bagging your new product on her LiveJournal ≠ Greenpeace/mommy bloggers/other frighteningly powerful groups declaring social media war (check out Jeremiah Owyang’s backlash categorisation scale).

Collaborate on a solution.

If people tell you that some part of your business sucks, ask them to help you improve it. Not only does this make them feel like you’re really listening, it also refocuses their attention on something other than a smear campaign.

Epilogue

Image Credit: Lee Lowery Jr. (http://lowery.tamu.edu/)

Debrief.

After you’ve rode out the storm, spend some real time dissecting the situation. When did things start turning sour? How could you have better anticipated this? What did you do well? What needs to be improved? And, most importantly, how can you avoid this from happening in the future?

Use your findings to make real changes within your business. And for god’s sake, get some contingency plans and procedures in place!

My presentation on the business application of location-based service Foursquare from last week’s AMI FutureComms workshop:

My Kitchen Sucks!, an IKEA campaign we’ve been working on with Market United launched earlier this week:

Shoddy, dated or just not functional — tell us why your kitchen sucks and you could win an IKEA kitchen to the value of $10,000.

With my partiality duly noted, I’m still gonna say that this campaign is pretty damn awesome.

South Australians and West Australians simply own up to their avocado green appliances, stained and kettle-burned laminate countertops and harvest gold linoleum tiles for the chance to win a brand new $10,000 IKEA kitchen (one to be awarded in each state). Voting is open to the public, and entrants can earn extra points by uploading evidence (photos and floor plans) and by publicly shaming themselves (sharing their entry on Facebook, Twitter and email).

My Kitchen Rocks! is running simultaneously, the only difference being that S. and W. Australians tell about their ‘tasteful’ kitchens for the chance to win $2,000 to spend at IKEA. (But let’s be honest, this is really more about the suck – seeing people’s flash, functional and well-appointed kitchens is not nearly as much fun.)

Note the background image on Kevin's Twitter profile...

*By ‘some’ I mean a PR agency who you could argue has a profit motive for fear mongering; but nevermind that, I’m going for dramatic effect here.

Regardless of whether this prophesy comes true, I’ve seen many branded social media endeavours that have a definite lack of contingency planning, so a little extra prep won’t hurt.

3 things to help you avoid a Y2.01K crisis:

1. Plans

• add an addendum to your existing crisis management plan that outlines procedures, concerns and considerations that are specific to social media (i.e. public visibility, timeliness, communication channels)
• mobilise an internal response team; stack it to include a PR person with crisis management experience, a social media person who understands the space and a lawyer who can reduce the risk of you getting sued

2. Policies

• create 2 sets of policies:
  • Rules of Engagement: outline employees’ rights, responsibilities and repercussions of engaging in social media
  • Community Guidelines: set rules for users to follow if they wish to participate in any of your online communities (i.e. Facebook Page, forum, comment on your blog)
• ensure both sets of guidelines exist in document form (‘understood’ policies don’t cut it) so that they can be published, distributed, referenced, called upon as proof in a court case – you get the idea

3. Systems

• implement systems that monitor online conversations:
  • keep an eye on your critics and naysayers
  • watch for mood swings
  • create alerts to notify you when sensitive keywords are used in conversations about your brand (i.e. palm oil in Nestlé’s case)
• connect with / enlist your advocates; anticipate issues before they blow up

Prevention is key, but in my next post I’ll outline some ways you can diffuse a mounting crisis.

I traveled over 20,000 kilometers to attend SXSW interactive – a conference referred to by some as ‘spring break for nerds’. Two weeks ago, when I started writing this post (apologies for the delay, family emergency), I had this grandiose plan that I’d write one brilliant post summarising all that I’d seen and learned. I now realise that’s not going to happen because 1. I’m sober now, and 2. SXSW is more about the people you meet (usually over margaritas: see #1) than the panels and keynote speakers.

BUT, since that isn’t much help for the handful of you that weren’t there, here are 4 of my takeaways:

Photo credit: Caroline McCarthy/CNET

Location, Location, Location
(no surprise here)

In the main event of the ‘Geolocal Showdown’, location-based-services (LBS) Foursquare and Gowalla competed against one another not only for publicity and check-ins, but also for top honours in the mobile website category of the 13th Annual Web Awards Ceremony (Gowalla won). Bragging rights and egos were put on the line as both companies hosted parties on the same night just down the block from one another (IMHO, Foursquare totally won for bringing Ashton Kutcher to the party).

At the same time, smaller LBS providers such as Loopt, Brightkite, Plancast and Whrrl quietly fought their own battles for attention in the geolocal space. This all sounds overwhelming, huh? Never fear, SimpleGeo launched Vicarious.ly which aggregates check-ins from all these services into one place! And for those that want to know before they go, two Digg employees launched Wheretheladies.at.

Everyone has their own loyalty, so it’s difficult to discern who came out on top. What is clear, however, is the fact that location is the place where everyone wants to be.

Who are all you people?

Apparently I’m not the only one who’s a sucker for hashtags and guacamole… the interactive portion of the conference attracted over 14,000 people (a 33% increase from last year), surpassing music in terms of attendees for the first time ever.

All the usual suspects from the NYC, San Francisco and growing Austin tech scene were there, but who were the rest of the people? Although the increase in size wasn’t all good (crowded hallways, overcapacity panels, way too long of a queue at the bar), it was interesting to meet the different sorts of people that attended – client side, agency side, academia – and of course the aspiring fameballs. I think Vanity Fair is partially to blame for the massive crowds. Or maybe it’s hip to be square, again.

It’s not all about the tech

SXSW is admittedly one big geek show-and-tell, but there was a strong presence from typically “untechie” consumer brands. Pepsi was all over the show, actually it seemed as though they pretty much owned the damn conference (I’m clearly still bitter about being unable to get a simple can of Coke anywhere near the convention center); Chevy sent 8 teams of digerati from across the US on roadtrips from their hometowns to Austin. And as far as swag goes, SoBe kept attendees hydrated and drunk by serving up unlimited free cocktails in the Lizard Lounge, ZonePerfect spruikers were on every street corner trying to ensure the waifish crowd could power through on only a few hours sleep (but we all know it was the free cigarettes American Spirit handed out that really kept kept them going).

Whilst everyone at SXSW wants to know who the new Twitter is going to be, I was also refreshed* by the number of discussions about big picture topics such as media democracy & journalism, online privacy and social change.

*damn you, Pepsi.

Is Twitter the new Twitter the new Twitter the new Twitter?

As you probably know, Twitter launched at SXSW in 2007. When 2008 failed to produce an equally major launch (and the Twitter craze continued), Twitter was proclaimed the new Twitter. Although Foursquare was born at the 2009 conference, it was a relatively quiet launch and Twitter again dominated the scene – making Twitter the new Twitter the new Twitter. Flash forward to SXSW 2010 – who is the new Twitter? Some say Foursquare, others say location-based-services in general, I say Twitter (mostly because I like saying Twitter is the new Twitter is the new Twitter is the new Twitter).

But in all seriousness, Twitter’s been doing some interesting things. During his keynote, CEO Evan Williams launched @anywhere – a framework for adding the Twitter experience anywhere on the web; it’s basically Twitter’s version of Facebook Connect.

In addition to this, Twitter began giving US users the ability to include location data alongside their tweets and revamped their homepage to make it more dynamic by showing real-time info about who is tweeting, trending topics and popular tweets (I don’t actually see this update, so I’m thinking it must be another US-only launch). Twitter added: All of our recent changes embrace the notion that Twitter is not just for status updates anymore. Zing, Facebook!

SO, Twitter’s having launched @anywhere, adding location data and giving Facebook the middle finger earn it my vote for being the new Twitter.

Your totally awesome Facebook Fan Page is all set up and populated with exclusive behind-the-scenes content – you can almost taste the engagement. …except the fans are nowhere to be found. (side note: “build it and they will come” is one of the greatest lies ever told).

So what now? How do you reel ‘em in? Why with a contest of course! Just pick up a few iPod Nanos to use as prizes (who doesn’t love those things?!) and lay out your conditions for entry… all you must do is become a fan, write on our wall, post a discussion topic, upload a fan photo, tag yourself in said photo, ‘like’ our status update and then tell all your friends about it! Then you can just sit back and watch the fans flock to your page.

Not so fast… while this may have been a quick fix in the past, Facebook tightened the reins on contests with the updated Promotion Guidelines released late last year. Three months later, I’m still seeing heaps of renegade Facebook Pages out there, running their illegal contests, with no regard for the laws of the land. So, I thought some cliff notes might be handy.

What does it include?

The guidelines govern the administration and publicising of promotions, contests, competitions, sweepstakes, ‘games of skill’, ‘games of chance’, lotteries (anything where someone gets something for free) on the Facebook platform. (side note: for simplicity’s sake I’m using the generic term ‘contest’ to refer to any of the above from here on out).

What is meant by ‘publicising’ a contest?

‘Publicising’ a contest on Facebook means using any part of the platform to talk about it (regardless of where the user actually enters the contest).

You would probably use things status updates, Facebook ads, wall posts, events, static FBML (custom content), fan updates (private messaging) to do this.

What is meant by ‘administering’ a contest?

‘Administering’ a contest on Facebook means using any part of the platform in the actual execution of the contest.

This includes entry collection, judging/winner selection and winner notification.

3 important rules to consider:

1. You cannot administer a promotion that users automatically enter by becoming a fan of your Page.

• You cannot make the act of fanning your Page the means by which users are entered; that is, anything along the lines of “become a fan of our Facebook Page and you’ll automatically be entered to win…” is prohibited.
• However, you could condition entry on the user becoming a fan if done via a 3rd party application (i.e. the user must become a fan as a step in the application’s entry process).

2. You cannot require a user to do something on the Facebook platform to enter the contest.

• This means you cannot condition entry on a user performing actions such as commenting, posting status updates, ‘liking’, uploading photos, changing one’s profile image, RSVPing for events.
• But you could condition entry on the user providing content if done via a 3rd party application (i.e. require the user to upload a photo to your 3rd party app but not directly to your Facebook Wall or photo album).

3. You can’t use the Facebook platform to notify winners.

• This means you cannot use any of Facebook’s inbuilt communication tools like messages, chat, status updates and wall posts to contact winners.
• But, if you were to use one of those 3rd party applications I keep mentioning, you could put in a field that requires users to provide a contact email address or phone number where they can be reached if they win.

4. You must get approval for any contest you wish to administer on Facebook.

• You cannot administer any contest on Facebook unless you’ve gotten the OK from your account rep. Speaking from personal experience, Facebook reps are usually pretty unresponsive unless they think there’s $ involved (we’re talking like >$10k ) – think about (or perhaps feign interest in) taking out some ads.
• However, you can publicise a contest without obtaining Facebook’s written consent.

Disclaimer: The rules outlined above are accurate at the time of posting, but it’s Facebook… they love changing things up without notice. In addition, whilst this post addresses some of the more common violations, it is by no means an exhaustive guide to administering or publicising contests on Facebook. Be sure to read the Promotion Guidelines in their entirety before initiating any promotions on the Facebook platform.

Slideshow of what you can and can’t do with promotions on Facebook:

OK so this is a tad self promotional but there’s something in it for you so don’t be too quick to judge. I will be presenting at this year’s Sydney ad:tech and if, despite this announcement, you were still thinking of attending (16th and 17th March) then drop me a line (marc@thinqdigital.com.au) as I can send you a code that scores 20% off your ticket(s). Here endeth the promotion.

"...Mum’s no fool and she’d never shell out more money for less milk."

It’s generally accepted that a litre of milk gets more expensive every year, an unfortunate economic reality we call inflation. But can you imagine how angry mum would be if an additional $0.10 in price was inversely matched by a 50ml reduction in volume? This is all hypothetical of course because mum’s no fool and she’d never shell out more money for less milk.

But this is exactly what’s happening in the world television and press advertising. Less milk (audience) is starting to cost advertisers more money.

A recent article by Lara Sinclair in The Australian claims TV advertising rates have risen 63% since the year 2000. A further rate rise of 10% is being sought by some networks this year despite a 5% decline in audience numbers across the 3 major free-to-air networks.

And it’s not just TV faction wanting more for less; the inky finger folks are also in on the act. The latest Audit Bureau of Circulation report paints a sorry looking picture for press media with national newspaper circulation down 2.28% for the 12 months to December 2009. The main contributors being The Australian Financial Review (-10.08%),  The Australian (-4.2%), The West Australian (-2.69% Sat/-2.46% weekly) and The Daily Telegraph (-2.66%). With these kind of audience drops you’d think it would be embarrassing to ask for more money. Not so, a 3-5% annual rate increase is par for the course in the world of press advertising.

But asking press and TV media buyers to pay more money for less product maybe starting to wear thin.

The latest Internet Advertising Bureau’s numbers certainly suggest so. Another year of growth for internet advertising revenues, up 9% (2009 compared to 2008) clocking $513m for the 3 months ending December 2009, the largest fourth quarter result in the industries history. Where did this 9% come from? Certainly not from an overall increase in all media advertising spend, remember last year? It was horrible. The growth in online most certainly came at the expense of press and to a lesser extent TV.

There is no doubt that this growth in online media is partly due to the shift in media consumption habits; but there’s another force at play here, it’s called the online media revenue model. Put simply, it operates more fairly. The online media industry will never charge you more money for less milk. In fact many publishers won’t even sell it by the litre – hey you might not want a whole litre this week. “That sounds fair”, says mum. “They only charge me for the milk I drink, maybe I should shop there more often”.

Traditional media channels, particularly press, will continue to lose ground to online media (trust me on this one) but how long will it take before online media surpasses press in Australia? Paul Fisher, CEO of the IAB seems to think this will happen as early as 2013. Usually I find these predictions by the IAB too keen, the result of the youngest media channel getting a overly excited by some good early results, but this time I tend to agree. By 2013, press and TV buyers will have seen three years of increasing rates and reducing audience numbers.

Mum will have had just about enough by then don’t you think?

Facebook began six years ago today as a product that my roommates and I built to help people around us connect easily, share information and understand one another better. We hoped Facebook would improve people’s lives in important ways. So it’s rewarding to see that as Facebook has grown, people around the world are using the service to share information about events big and small and to stay connected to everyone they care about.

- Mark Zuckerberg: "Six Years of Making Connections"

I could still feel the warm fuzzies from Zuckerberg’s note when I logged into Facebook and the top post in my newsfeed crapped all over my kumbaya – “I’ve had the new facebook layout for all of 45 minutes and already my fb chat reliability has gone down 90%. F*&$ you Facebook.”

Ah bless, the resistance has begun. But it’s really no surprise; it’s been a tumultuous relationship over the past 6 years…

September 2006 – The News Feed
The News Feed feature was introduced to help users filter through the noise to see the newest, most relevant actions and updates from their friends. However, users felt as though their dirty laundry was being broadcast without their permission and immediately formed groups and petitions in protest.

Response: Zuckerberg posted an open letter on the Facebook blog that began, “We really messed this one up….”

November 2007 – Beacon
Beacon, Facebook’s new social ad system tracked users’ activities, registration and purchases on partner websites and published them to their profiles. Once again feeling as though their privacy had been compromised, users were furious and MoveOn.org, an advocacy group, started a full-scale campaign against Beacon. Facebook and a number of Beacon affiliates were later named in class-action lawsuits over the ordeal.

Response: Zuckerberg again apologised, saying “We’ve made a lot of mistakes building this feature, but we’ve made even more with how we’ve handled them. We simply did a bad job with this release, and I apologize for it.”

September 2008 – The Profile Redesign
Almost 2 million angry and confused Facebookers joined groups and signed petitions when all users were forced to adopt the redesign, which changed the layout of personal Profiles from a box-like structure to the Wall and tabs structure. Common complaints were that it was more difficult to find profile information and add photos and looked ‘too much like MySpace.’

Response: Zuckerberg’s initial response was a blog post thanking everyone for their patience and support throughout the evolution, but it did little to placate angry users. The following day Facebook added Pirate to the site’s language translations (in honour of International Talk Like A Pirate Day) – for a few brief moments, all was forgotten.

February 2009 – Terms of Service
Facebook didn’t tell anyone when they changed the ToS to retain “irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license” even after content is deleted. This made users mad.

Response: Over several posts Facebook tried to clarify that users do own and control their own content. Shortly after, the ‘Terms of Service’ was canned in lieu of the more democratic sounding ‘Statement of Rights and Responsibilities’.

A TechCrunch Post on Facebook's Poll: 94% Of Users Don't Like Redesign

March 2009 – Pages Redesign; Homepage Redesign (Stream + Publisher + Filters)
Brands that had invested in design and creative probably weren’t happy when the layout of Pages suddenly changed to mirror Profiles’ tabbed design, but corporate protocol didn’t allow them to throw much of a stink.

Users on the other hand were vocal about their dislike of the homepage redesign and the disappearance of the iconic “Kristen is … ” prefix for status updates. They created groups and posted angry comments – a handful of the more salient ones were chronicled by the NYTimes Gadgetwise Blog:

• “I hate the ’share’ button. It’s so California.”
• “The images in the status feeds have rounded edges.”
• “Your OWN pic appears every time you post an article on your wall.”

December 2009: Privacy Controls
When Facebook adjusted privacy controls, it first appeared to be done in users’ best interest. However, savvy users were skeptical – and for good reason – as the default on some personal information was viewable by everyone. But this backlash spanned beyond the usual outcropping of harsh words, petitions and Facebook groups – this time the U.S. Federal Trade Commission was summoned.

Response: Facebook changed a few things in response to complaints; Zuckerberg set out to show the Internets that it’s okay to share things about yourself by sharing some of himself with us…

He’s a fan of Taylor Swift and proud of it.

One time he and the gf had a lightsaber duel in the office!

And you know what, even the youngest self-made billionaire needs a tender moment with his teddy bear every now and again.

February 2010 – Present Day
Facebook turned 6 and got another facelift; users are predictably angry.

So what can we take away from examining the trials and tribulations of our 6 year relationship? A few of my observations:

Facebook has and will continue to tread through new territory in terms of privacy, data collection and revenue models for a community of over 400 million people. They will misstep and make mistakes. They might not always have our best interests at heart, but they certainly don’t want to seriously piss anyone off… or get sued.

Facebook users are incredibly irritable and averse to change. We generally can’t identify what we want, but we sure know it when given something we don’t want (although we then sometimes later learn that we actually did want it but didn’t even realise.) This probably won’t improve as seniors and baby boomers continue to join Facebook at an alarming rate.

And with all that said, I think it’s time to pour myself a drink. Cheers to you, Zuck, it’s been quite a ride.