Everyday, innovative campaigns and tactics emerge from all sides of virtually every issue. At the same time, it's encouraging to see corporations increasing their level of experimentation in the digital space around the areas of reputation management.

Here's just a few recent examples of highly visible campaigns designed to both challenge and reinforce the reputations of leading corporations:

• Few organizations understand how to trigger a response better than PETA... and their latest MTV-style video campaign is no exception. The campaign - including the site itself - is reminiscent of the recent spate of cinematic gorefests - think the Hostel or Saw series - and, as such, primed for the youth segment that it's attempting to reach. It reinforces the importance of the "extraordinary" idea (and the power of video) to be heard above the "noise", while also effectively demonstrating - as any activist campaign should - how to bridge seamlessly between entertainment, education, and engagement.
• On the other side, Southwest Airlines has recently taken their already impressive "Nuts About Southwest" social media campaign up a notch and added a slew of new features - including a Flickr group, video blog, and links to their Twitter feed and Facebook group - to further connect with their massive community of fans and advocates (and to directly address emerging issues as they've done with their blog in recent months). 
• Lastly, in the footsteps of Ideastorm and MyStarbucksidea, American Express has launched Cardmembers Voice as a way to solicit ideas on how to improve their products and services, and to strengthen their engagement with cardholders. [update: Amex is an H&K Canada client]

More to follow in the weeks ahead.

Another Third Tuesday is behind us and, like those before it, generated some interesting and healthy debate. And although intended to focus on "Shiny New Objects" (SNOs), last night's discussion really did anything but - to the consternation of some, but not I think to others (myself included)... Key takeaways? In no particular order of importance, I felt they were as follows:

1. It re-affirmed that while SNO's are emerging every day, the reality is that the majority of our clients are only now taking their first steps into what might best be described as the "tried and true" - blogs, Youtube, Facebook etc. - for the most part because it is these tools that align best with their objectives, and where the most examples of success exist.
2. It highlighted the challenge of co-organizing a meetup that attracts a broad cross-section of people who not only represent communicators experienced with social media, but also newcomers, designers, advertisers, developers, enthusiasts, those who work in the private sector, those who represent start-ups and not-for-profit, and those in government. Personally, I'm not sure we can continue to try to be all things to all people. At the same time, the networking is always fun.
3. It hammered home that social media - within the context of my work (and that of many others) - must be viewed for what it is: an enabler of communication and interaction. More important still is the quality of the content delivered by that technology (be it a video, a blog post, a comment etc.) that makes that communication relevant, or simply turns it into "white noise".
4. It begged raised the question as to whether social media will ever be adopted in a significant way, within an enterprise context, so long as the application is in "permanent beta"?
5. Not surprisingly (though I would certainly argue this fact), it demonstrated that social media in a corporate context remains, for many, an apparent contradiction (in their eyes) between the "motivations" that drives corporate behaviour and the social media ethos of transparency, engagement, and community.
6. It clearly showcased the hunger among public servants to expand the use of social media more broadly within government, despite the apparent roadblocks (political and otherwise).
7. It revealed Joe Thornley's fascination with video - particularly when witnessing his attempt at getting those low-to-the-ground angles (double-chin, anyone)
8. It gave as good as it got - and that's something I think we don't do enough of in this space. Glad to see we challenged each other.

I spoke at an IABC event last night on crisis communications and social media, and it prompted an interesting question (particularly given that many of the audience hailed from government organizations): How do you reconcile the importance of timely communications with the need to communicate in both official languages?

The question was posed by a communications advisor at a prominent federal agency. But it's also a topic that has arisen several times in discussions with clients around the development of their crisis dark sites.

It's an important question, as strict adherence to "official language" regulations could impact an organization's ability to respond quickly to an issue.

Ultimately, my position - based on discussions to-date - is that  stakeholders will forgive uni-lingual communication if the effort is focused on pushing out vital information in as timely and transparent a fashion as possible. What they will not forgive is knowing that you intentionally withheld critical information for the sake of political expedience.

Granted, this deviation from "regulation" would tend to apply more to situations such as accidents or disasters whether man-made or natural, and where risk to health and safety requires rapid communication. Whereas, with a crises of confidence where a few hours spent ensuring communication in both official languages is coordinated, timing might be less of an issue. Likewise, this holds true in situations where you're communicating more than a few lines or paragraphs that could easily be translated within minutes.

But when you look to how Northern Illinois University was, for example, rapidly updating their site as events of the shooting unfolded (see attached image), would anyone have complained if (and were this a Canadian institution obliged to abide by Official Language laws), they had only communicated in one language? 

Naive, perhaps? You tell me.

Transparency is a term oft-used in the web 2.0 context. Typically, however, it applies to the application of social media by consumers/citizens to impose a previously-unattainable level of transparency on corporate behaviour. Examples are legion - Sleeping Comcast Technicians, battlin' AOL client service reps, breakable bike locks, leaking toilets on aircraft, astro-turfing - and many more (just check out the Consumerist for the latest juice).

But from the perspective of crisis and issues management, mainstream media are also facing increasing scrutiny (as they should) from the ranks of citizen journalists. Ever since the Dan Rather hullabaloo over reporting of George W. Bush's war record, otherwise known as Memogate or Rathergate, the impact of bloggers as media watchdogs has only intensified. 

The implications are significant and should continue to be discussed. A recent email exchange purported to be between an activist and a BBC reporter over perceived "inaccuracies" in a story on climate change offers a fascinating insight into today's news environment, and raises some interesting questions:

Regardless if the changes made the story more accurate or, in the words of one blogger, "(morphed) the article's tenor from dialogue to lecture with a minimum of extorted word processing" (and that's not the point of this post), should the reporter - for the sake of transparency - have made the changes as a discrete "update" to the original with an adjusted timestamp, or was he within his rights to make the changes into the existing story without reflecting the fact that the original story had in fact been altered?

Secondly, does this not speak to the importance of including a comments section (as many media outlets now do) on all stories or features in order to allow interested parties to address perceived inaccuracies without injecting their potential bias into the actual story. A less optimal solution, perhaps, but could the journalist not simply have continued the story based on the email exchange that ensued?

In a crisis environment, where media are already under incredible pressure and where the need to be first often overrides the need to be accurate, incidents such as this (assuming that this is an accurate reflection of a real exchange - and I tend to believe it is) are worth considering. From this writer's perspective, it compromises the trust that many place in the mainstream media to be as accurate and unbiased as possible, potentially leading those audiences to seek information elsewhere. At the same time, it acknowledges the need to work closely with media to ensure that what you provide in times of crisis go beyond soundbites and are substantiated by credible information and defensible proof points (since, clearly there will be pressure on the journalist from all fronts to "get it right"). And it further reinforces the importance of relying on your own channels to communicate versus relying solely on a "filtered" media. 

When it comes to the inter-relationships between professional and amateur creators of content, the smart folks at Wharton have it right.

"Pitting amateur and professional content against each other makes a good storyline, but it's misleading to see them as fundamentally opposed," says Werbach. "User-generated content will never match The New York Times for the overall quality of coverage of the Iraq war, for example, but reading Iraqi blogs, or political blogs about the war, provides some perspectives you won't get from any newspaper." And, he adds, "There's no way a traditional encyclopedia will ever match the coverage of Wikipedia, because there are so many more contributors. On the other hand, while the quality of most Wikipedia entries is surprisingly good, there are times you want the certainty of a reference work that is professionally edited and vetted, or a smaller set of resources that have been pre-selected by experts."

For PR professionals, understanding the interplay between amateur and professional journalism is critically important. And as we counsel clients, we need to be sure that this interplay is reflected in our strategies as neither should work in total isolation of the other. Each offers a unique value that can further elevated when appropriately integrated. 

Both bring value," says Kendall Whitehouse, senior director of IT at Wharton, in the article. "The latter brings quickness and a personal viewpoint and the former provides analysis and consistent quality (hmmm?). The world I want to live in includes healthy doses of both categories." (Amen)

But to think that this is simply about old and new media would be a mistake. As Joseph Turow, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, states: "The digital environment is putting an enormous responsibility on the consumer." No doubt. But I would also suggest that this notion of responsibility also touches organizations as well, although less from the consumer perspective of becoming better judges of content, and more from being the providers of authoritative and credible content. In the same way media have, for years, held governments and corporations to account, and as the media themselves are now being held to account by bloggers in terms of ensuring fair and accurate reporting, I wonder if it's not time for organizations to re-think their own responsibility to their own stakeholders - customers, employees, partners alike - in terms of addressing issues of inconsistency, inaccuracy and lack of context that could flow from traditional and new media alike. 

For example, to assume that 300 words in a newspaper or a 30-second clip on television is enough to provide sufficient context and clarity around an issue of critical importance, no matter how accurate the reporting, is as flawed as putting one's faith and trust in an "anonymous" blogger. At the same time, many organizations have access to subject experts whose commentary could help bridge the link between these various media in a highly credible way.

And this, in my view, spells opportunity for many organizations who get it. Appropriate and transparent outreach, built on a commitment to authoritative rigour and timely, proactive engagement, can provide organizations with the means to play a more visible role in helping stakeholders and consumers make more discerning judgements on specific issues being discussed in both the mainstream and citizen media.

Update: What do I mean by this? Primarily, strategic use of digital tools to provide deeper insight on specific issues being discussed in both traditional and online media, to reinforce messages through substantiated examples supported by video or imagery, to showcase interviews with subject matter experts posted online, to provide FAQ's and visualizations that either expand upon, refute or clarify discussions taking place in the traditional or online media, or to support engagement in forums and sites external to the organization itself.

It's a role that organizations need to be prepared to step up to. 

Is it all about growth? That's certainly a big part of it. 2007 was a pretty good year. But it also has to do with a combination of many other factors: new business, pending parenthood, evolving skillsets and the like. All that to say, there's a few offices here in Ottawa looking to be filled.

So here's what Hill & Knowlton is looking for (in a nutshell): Experienced mid-level (Account Director) and junior communications consultants with solid track records of experience and education. People who "get" traditional PR but who also get the changes currently afoot in the world of social media and the internet, and can connect the two together in ways that make sense for our clients. We're talking team players who can think on their feet, and who can get the job done without a lot of hand-holding.

Solid writing skills are essential, as is, of course, attention to detail and the capacity to think and deliver both strategically and tactically. And in this town, bilingualism is always an asset.

What do you get in return? Opportunities to work with some of the smartest folks in the business, cool clients, beer cart every Friday, good benefits, and all the fun stuff that comes with working in a high-pressure, high-expectations environment. 

Show us what you've got. Send me a message via my blog, or contact Jackie King, VP Communications at jackie(dot)king(at)hillandknowlton(dot)ca. We're also online at www.hillandknowlton.ca.

Don't be shy.

Perhaps one line says it all amid the reactions (or less than) to the recent shutdown of the Halifax Daily News.

Though you'll have to make it to the end for the punch line. (Hat tip to Martin)

Once more into the breach! H&K Canada has today unveiled the newest edition of its highly popular Election Predictor franchise in time for the March 3rd election in Alberta, home to much of Canada's oil and gas industry, and key driver of Canada's economy.

As with previous versions, we're giving Albertans (and anyone else with an interest in Alberta politics) to test their predictions and view how those predictions translate into seats.

You can also register to save your prediction and share it via your own blog or Facebook profile, and to see your predictions and the saved predictions of others via our Google Map.

As bloggers of all stripes jump into the debate, we hope the election predictor will provide an informative and entertaining perspective on the numbers. As always, we look forward to your feedback.

Update: Those of you seeking a good summary overview of the election platforms of the various parties, current polls, and links to a variety of relevant sources, can find it here and here.

Kerry Diotte at the Calgary Sun is also seeking your predictions on his blog here.

Check out the Globe & Mail's Alberta Election blog (Alberta Votes) here.