Hill+Knowlton Strategies

And I don’t mean the “bad” and “ugly” only in the context of PR… you know, the oodles of examples of corporate bad caught on video, audio or in photos and blogs, the one’s we can’t avoid rubber-necking and which we use to populate our Social Media 101 decks.

What I mean is the kind of experience shared by Danah Boyd (of whom I spoke in a recent post) about the response to her earlier ”blog essay/public musings” around social networks, teens, and class divisions.

It’s relevant. Why? Because it serves as a clear example of both the positives and negatives that occur in a much more “conversational” world. From the positive standpoint, it highlights the opportunity that exists when a discussion such as this expands beyond traditional barriers of communication such as time and location. As Danah herself states: “Because of the publicness of this article, I’ve had unbelievable conversations with academics and practitioners and parents and ministers and others about issues that I’m trying to address. I can’t help but wonder if they would’ve had time for this conversation if it weren’t so publicly visible. (None of us academics ever have time.)”

And that, I believe, is a good thing. Where once the “publishing” of a piece of work signalled the end of a true two-way discussion, this no longer needs to be the case. Danah goes on to say: “When studying post-structuralism, I was utterly fascinated by the idea of the death of the author. The idea is that once a text is put out there, the author matters not because the author has no control over how that text is interpreted. The weird thing about blogging is that the author is pretty darn present. I’m here. No one seems to realize that but I am.”

And it is the last line that serves as a warning to where things can get ugly:“I’m very fortunate to have the opportunity to have thousands of people read my writings and ponder the questions that I put out there. My peer group extends beyond the academic walls. It’s not without cost though and I couldn’t help but wonder if the academics I know could’ve handled some of what I received this month. Not all of it was what we would call a review. I’ve had to practice deep breathing as I went through detailed discussions of whether or not I was cute enough to **** or look through bulletins that had decided to gather photos of me for analysis (they concluded that my arm bracelets prove that I’m a cutter). I know the Slashdot/Metafilter community well enough to not take the personal threats on my life or body seriously, but that doesn’t mean they don’t suck. Emails from parents accusing me of destroying their children’s lives suck. PR campaigns to discredit me suck. In general, being mocked isn’t any fun. Many of my dearest friends can’t stand even the slightest personal attack online; I’ve learned to take it for granted while being continuously disappointed by it. If online peer review is going to be this personal, few are going to be masochistic enough to want it.”

Personally, I believe – and will continue to believe in the positive power of social media. But it is examples such as this which also highlight the risks associated with playing in this space. Would, for example, the recent CNN/Youtube debates have been as civil had there not been the “professional” buffer separating the citizenry from the politicians, or would it have degenerated rapidly into verbal fisticuffs? Will the loudest voices always win out in the digital space, drowning out quieter and more measured dialog, particularly around important issues such as this. Was it Danah’s responsibility to ensure misinterpretation was avoided. Or is it the responsibility of the masses to acknowledge the potential for misinterpretation and thus temper their vitriolic responses?

Most certainly, any foray into the social media space requires a willingness to take the bad with the good. But will there come a time when the bad and ugly gets so bad and ugly that organizations ask “what’s the point?” and individuals decide the risk of being flamed just ain’t worth it?

I think David has it right… so I’m stealing shamelessly. The future of marketing and PR is about getting “Fuzzy“.

Granted, I’m tending to look at this more from a PR perspective than from his ’digital experience’ POV (though I know he could easily and eloquently expand beyond the confines of what he presented to his colleagues). That fact remains: the business of PR (and marketing overall) has a lot of unlearning to do. But it’s not simply a challenge for PR. It impacts our clients and their partners too.

What’s “Fuzzy”? Like David says, “Being fuzzy … is about unlearning everything we think we know—so we can actually learn and adapt.  It’s about less focus on rigid tasks and job descriptions and more focus on bringing our efforts together in the overlaps—where our skills compliment each other.  It’s about being more nimble and adopting “fuzzy” processes to compliment our tried and true methods that have served us well in the past… It’s about putting aside egos, getting out of silos and mixing it up with each other—I mean really mixing it up.  Planners who think like designers—designers who obsess about business—information architects who write—writers who act like strategists—project managers who can direct creative and creative directors who are willing to let them.  People who are willing to let others play in their sandbox. ”

In a recent client meeting, it became abundantly clear that the ‘real’ value of PR is achievable only in an environment where “Fuzzy” rules: where advertising, digital, PR and direct not only co-exist in the proverbial “sandbox”, but feed off each other, sharing ideas (that spur new ideas) and “mixing it up” in ways that deliver campaigns and programs greater than the sum of the individual parts.

Because when we mix it up, we find ways to make campaigns – regardless of where the idea is born and nurtured, be it advertising, PR or digital - not only more holistic, compelling, memorable and engaging for the audience, but also more attractive for mainstream media consumption, more participatory and interactive, more viral… and ultimately more valuable from a business context.  

And while the new PR (and the new marketing) is very much about being “Fuzzy”, it’s also about figuring out how to make “Fuzzy” work. Would it be chaotic, rambunctious, argumentative, painful? Absolutely. Drop the gloves and have at. Vendors will still fight to the proverbial death for their share of the pie and for the right to claim the idea as their own, fuzzy or no. In the words of Che Guevara: Silence is argument carried out by other means. That fight is already happening and, from the perspective of the client, the opportunity is being lost before it’s even identified.

Managing Fuzzy will undoubtedly require a tight rein - and that’ll be, in large part, the job of the client. At the same time, it is the client who most needs to understand the value of “Fuzzy”, in order to benefit from it. And that’s our job, to blur the lines even more.

The times, they are a changin’… at least when it comes to Ontario politics. As the provincial election approaches, political parties on all sides are firing up their digital bunsen burners, experimenting with new ways to deliver their messages, engage supporters, and build grassroots support for their respective campaigns.

Take, for instance, Dalton.ca, a fascinating exercise by the Ontario Liberals to showcase the Premier’s ‘human’ side, as presented in his (and his family’s) own words. Excessively saccharine to some, the site – which presents Mr. McGuinty speaking direct to the camera, (apparently) unscripted and with no props – is also highly novel in its attempt to directly address some of the more volatile issues around the Premier’s first term in office – namely his controversial decision to implement the Health Premium after promising not to increase taxes, and his promise to shut down Ontario’s coal burning generating stations by 2007.

But even in this new era of transparency, is the decision by the Liberal’s to tackle these issues head-on the right one, particularly in what is expected to be an intensely-fought campaign? Has the political wind changed so significantly that openness and honesty such as this will appeal to voters? Or is politics still fundamentally more evolutionary than revolutionary, and will this attempt to fight fire with fire simply remind voters of promises unkept. The risks are considerable. Without question, opposition parties will raise these same issues in an attempt to discredit the Liberals. Which begs the question, why feed the fire by raising these issues yourself?

No matter the number of Youtube videos we watch, the politicians we befriend on Facebook, and the blogs we read, politics and the web is still very much in its infancy. And it likely won’t be until October 10, 2007, that we’ll see if the Liberal’s made the right choice.