ResponsAbility

A good law gets better

 

by Chad Tragakis, Senior Vice President, Hill & Knowlton, Washington

 

The United Nations has declared 2010 to be the International Year of Biodiversity.

 

There are many definitions for biodiversity, but the one adopted by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity is: “the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, ‘inter alia’, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems”.

 

Preserving the world’s ecosystems and the web of life they each support is a good and noble goal in and of itself.  But by preserving biodiversity we are really ensuring our own health, safety, economic security, and our very way of life.  So this year, global institutions of all kinds, government agencies, and even corporations are coming together to celebrate the variety of life on planet Earth, and the value and importance it has for us humans. 

 

From supporting and advancing agriculture, medicine and tourism, to combating climate change, biodiversity has real bottom line benefits for our global society.  If you’ve never seen it, The United Nations Environment Programme issued a great report on the topic, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).

 

But how do we make the goal of protecting species and ecosystems real?  How do we preserve biodiversity?  One way is through policies and laws with teeth, and through the rigorous enforcement of those laws.  One such law is the Lacey Act.

 

Named for Iowa congressman John Lacey (1841–1913), the politician who introduced the conservation measure in 1900, the law made it illegal to transport certain species of game animals, particularly ducks and other waterfowl, across state lines.  By the late nineteenth century, professional market hunters were killing hundreds of thousands of migratory birds to supply the nation’s growing taste for wild duck and to satisfy the millinery industry’s demand for feathers (fashion at the time called for feathers of all shapes, sizes and colors).  The Lacey Act was a direct response to this wanton and unsustainable slaughter.

 

The Lacey Act was subsequently amended and strengthened several times over the years, but almost 108 years to the day it was signed into law by President William McKinley, it was granted far greater significance.  The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 expanded the scope of plants and plant products protected under the Lacey Act (think: timber, wood and paper).

 

This change caught many companies off guard, and this past November, in the first major enforcement action of the newly strengthened Lacey Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents raided the Nashville, Tennessee facilities of the Gibson Guitar Corporation.  According to various reports, federal agents and local police seized raw wood, guitars, computers and company files – all stemming from allegations that Gibson was in possession of illegally harvested rosewood, a popular hardwood used in crafting guitars.  It’s unclear if the wood itself was a protected species of rosewood, or if the issue was its source, since Madagascar’s forests are home to several species of critically endangered lemurs.

 

What is perhaps most puzzling about this incident is that Gibson was a recognized leader in responsible sourcing.  They are a major purchaser of Forest Stewardship Council-certified wood, and obtain FSC-chain-of-custody certificates for much, though not all, of their raw material. Like their competitor C. F. Martin & Co., Gibson even launched a series of environmentally-conscious guitars, including the SmartWood Les Paul model.  And Gibson’s chairman and CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, was a member of the board of the Rainforest Alliance (he has since stepped down in the wake of this issue).

 

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the investigation for Gibson (and any fines, lawsuits, protests, or boycotts – not to mention lost sales that result), this was a public relations headache that the company did not need.

 

The World Resources Institute has developed a Lacey Act fact sheet designed to give companies an overview on the expanded law and a primer on compliance and risk.  Business leaders tasked with managing corporate responsibility and sustainability would do well to familiarize themselves with this resource.

 

The true value and importance of biodiversity is elegantly and succinctly expressed in this ancient proverb, translated from Malagasy, the national language of Madagascar:

 

Without the forest, there will be no more water, without water, there will be no more rice.

 

I’m sure the lemurs (not to mention the ducks), would wholeheartedly agree.

   

by Chad Tragakis, Senior Vice President, Hill & Knowlton, Washington

 

Our hearts are with Haiti.  The 24-hour news coverage is arresting, but at the same time, it is difficult to watch.  For each glimmer of hope – each miraculous rescue more than a week after the initial earthquake – there is the grim reality of despair, desperation and dire need.

 

The world is coming together for Haiti, hoping to fill that need.  Individuals, community groups, civic organizations and corporations are displaying levels of interest, compassion and generosity not witnessed since the South Asian Tsunami five years ago.  People are marveling, and rightly so, at the seeming speed and ease with which the Red Cross has received more than $22 million for Haiti relief efforts via text.

 

That $22 million is indeed amazing, encouraging, and critically important all at once.  One of the most important lessons the world learned from the Tsunami is that cash donations are the best way to help the victims of a disaster, especially in the initial aftermath.  Cash is immediate, it is flexible, and it provides for culturally and geographically appropriate support.  Most importantly, it allows disaster relief organizations to purchase exactly what is needed, and to procure materials near the affected area, which cuts down on transportation time and cost, supports regional economies, and speeds the rebuilding process.

 

One of my clients, the Center for International Disaster Information, has been tracking and advocating for responsible and appropriate disaster response for more than 20 years.  Over that time, they have witnessed some incredibly insensitive, culturally inappropriate, inefficient, and even harmful responses.  Simply put, when individuals, groups or companies send stuff that is unneeded, supply chains get clogged, boxes must be unloaded and warehoused eating up precious time, personnel and storage space.  Haiti is a powerful case in point for this, as there are extremely limited points of entry for the critical relief supplies being brought in by experienced agencies.

 

Worse still, many people send items apparently without any thought.  Believe it or not, people have sent winter coats to disaster victims in tropical climates; companies have sent stale cookies and long-expired medicines; canned ham has been shipped to predominantly Muslim countries and canned beef to predominantly Hindu areas; in one shipment of donated supplies, a relief agency found used tea bags; party decorations were mailed to disaster victims who had just lost their homes.  And, in perhaps the worst instance of inappropriate disaster response ever, one company sent a shipment of breast implants.  However well-intentioned, it often seems that some companies and organizations don’t take into account the full impact of their donations.  They are in such a rush to act, that they forget – or just plain fail – to think.

 

That’s why in the midst of this tragedy, I am encouraged by the thoughtfulness and innovativeness of corporate response, not to mention the sheer volume of companies expressing an interest in helping.  Some companies, because of their unique capabilities, core competencies, knowledge and expertise, and product and service offerings, are in great positions to bring those things to bear after a disaster.  This is especially true when they establish long-term relationships with relief organizations, and invest in preparedness and contingency planning.  Think of the logistics and transportation know-how of Fed-Ex, UPS and DHL – or Motorola or Qualcomm’s ability to restore and operate critical communications infrastructure for first responders.  In the past week alone, I have read about and learned of some truly responsible and wholly appropriate ways for companies to do their part for the people of Haiti.

 

§  First and foremost, companies are giving cash – lots of cash – and they are directing it to the experienced, credible relief agencies that are already on the ground, the ones in the best position to help and to help quickly.  For example, the Avon Foundation’s $1 million donation is being split evenly between the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders.  Donations tied to Avon’s product sales are also being planned.  Many companies, including Morgan Stanley, which is also donating $1 million, are actively encouraging employee giving through matching and incentive programs.

 

§  Western Union is waiving all fees to wire money from the U.S. to Haiti for a full week; MoneyGram International is making a similar concession.

 

§  Royal Caribbean Cruise Ships operates a private beach on Haiti’s northern coast, and while this is far from the center of devastation in Port-au-Prince, the revenue it generates is critical to Haiti’s economy, and will be vital to the country’s recovery.  For this reason, the ship line has decided to resume and maintain calls on Haiti.  In addition, company ships are helping to transport relief supplies and personnel.

 

§  Timberland is redirecting funds that were earmarked for a reforestation project on Haiti to basic humanitarian relief efforts.

 

§  While Abbott, McKesson Corporation and UPS are making significant cash contributions, they are also making in-kind donations of products and services specifically requested by relief organizations already on the ground, including the Red Cross, World Vision, Direct Relief International, CARE and UNICEF.

 

§  Apparel retailer TJX Corporation (T.J. Maxx, Marshalls) is in a unique position to provide clothing to families that have lost everything, but first, they are donating cash to the Red Cross.  They are waiting for more details on what, specifically, is needed, where and by whom in terms of their planned in-kind donation.

 

§  Target and Wal-Mart have each made $500,000 donations to the Red Cross, but owing to their unique core competencies, they are also providing foodstuffs to be delivered in close coordination with relief agencies on the ground.

 

§  The nation’s wireless companies – AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon – are waiving standard text-messaging fees for their subscribers’ donations to the Red Cross.  No doubt, this is helping to drive that $22 million.  More than that, they are transmitting the funds to the Red Cross in advance of collecting them via their customers’ monthly bills.

 

§  My own company, in addition to making financial contributions to the Red Cross and Water.org’s Haiti relief fund, is making information and resources available to all employees offering assistance locating family members in Haiti, tips on how best to contribute to relief efforts, guidelines for talking to children following natural disasters, and tips for coping with traumatic events.

 

There are many other great examples of companies not only doing the right thing, but responding in the right way.  The bottom line is that sending cash donations is the very best way to help the people of Haiti, especially right now.  CIDI and the State Department are directing people and organizations interested in helping to InterAction, a large coalition of U.S.-based international non-governmental organizations. 

 

Haiti has a rich history and an equally rich culture.  The country’s flag includes the motto (in French), Strength through Unity.  That will serve as a fitting national mantra in the difficult months and years ahead.  In the center of the flag, is a palm tree – strong and tall, fresh and full of life.  The world will watch and pray as the people of Haiti work to get through this epic challenge.  Let us hope that they re-emerge from this tragedy as a stronger nation – and like the tall tree on their flag, proud and full of life.

 

By Andy Cuneo, senior account executive, Washington, D.C.

 

For those not living in the immediate DC area, many lunch goers are now forced to pay a $0.05 sales tax should they ask for a plastic or paper bag to carry their lunch. The move signifies a city-wide push towards a cleaner, greener environment. According to Treehugger.com, the tax will be used by city officials in an effort to increase revenue to combat pollution in local rivers here in the area.

 

Other cities are beginning similar programs, such as this one in Seattle. Brownsville, Texas has taken another route.

 

Though the program in Washington DC was just implemented in the first week of January, many lunch customers around the city have been forgoing the plastic bag in favor of keeping the five cents…and hopefully, the environment in mind as well. In time, with the money headed toward cleaning our rivers and streets, DC will be an even more pleasant place to walk around in.

By Chad Tragakis, Senior Vice President, Washington, D.C. Office

It’s great that the word sustainability is in such common usage today. It suggests that people, organizations and institutions have accepted that environmental responsibility matters, and that we all play a role in achieving and ensuring it.

Still, I know plenty of people (both within the broader community of CSR thinkers and doers as well as outside of it) who find the word problematic. Few would argue that the term is overused, and much has been raised and written about the limitations of sustainability as both a word and a concept. Despite these limitations and challenges, though, usage of the term persists.

There is great diversity even among the most often quoted and widely used definitions of sustainability, among them, those developed, adopted or advanced by the United Nations, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Business for Social Responsibility, and the World Resources Institute. Looking at these and at other definitions of sustainability collectively, a common theme emerges. There is a strong focus on maintaining, preserving, and ensuring the continued viability of a process, product, resource, system or state. Many would argue that, in terms of the environment and natural resource management, achieving this level of performance by business would be incredible. It would certainly be a good start.

The notion of becoming truly sustainable and having no impact on the environment is becoming an increasingly popular mantra for business. It could even be considered de rigueur for today’s CSR reports and global citizenship communications. But what if a company were able and willing to go beyond simply sustaining, beyond having a neutral or zero impact? What if, instead of just maintaining the status quo, they could have a net positive impact? What if business could actually restore the damaged and broken elements of our environment?

Household and personal care products company Seventh Generation prominently lists “restore our environment” among its global imperatives. And in its code of basic working conditions, Ford states that it seeks to become “an environmentally restorative and truly sustainable company in the long term.” I love the fact that both Seventh Generation and Ford use the notion of restoring. They are among the only companies I have seen who are using that term.

Many companies are in strong positions to add to and enhance the world around us - to rebuild, refresh, replenish, and repair. This is the thrust of Ray Anderson’s concept of the Restorative Enterprise. Anderson is the founder and chairman of Interface, an Atlanta, Georgia-based carpet and flooring company. As their Web site explains:

Interface committed to become the first name in industrial ecology worldwide. Ray set before his global team the challenge to convert Interface to a restorative enterprise. As a first step, this means reaching sustainability in our own business practices. To become truly restorative, however, will require Interface to ultimately return more than it takes. We will meet that higher goal by helping other organizations achieve sustainability.

The key line to me is “return more than it takes.” Anderson and Interface recently celebrated the 15th anniversary of the launch of Mission Zero, a promise to eliminate any negative impact the company has on the environment by 2020, and the first part of their commitment to becoming truly restorative. Since that time, the company hasreduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30%, reduced total energy intensity by 45%, powered seven of Interface’s facilities with 100% renewable electricity, reduced water consumption in modular carpet facilities by 74%, and diverted over 100 million pounds of materials from landfills.

I am firmly in the camp that subscribes to Anderson’s ideology. But the best part is that regardless of your opinions or beliefs about environmental responsibility, you can’t argue with Interface’s cold hard business numbers. Since launching Mission Zero, Interface has enjoyed a 60% increase in sales and a doubling of its profits. By eliminating waste, the company has also avoided more than $400 million in expense, more than enough to cover the costs of all of the other parts of the initiative. And product quality, overall efficiency, and employee morale have all increased.

I continue to be fascinated and encouraged by the Interface story, and by the charismatic and pioneering Anderson. Interface is the first and arguably only real poster child for the notion of the restorative company. I hope this won’t be the case for too long.

On outdoor hikes and fishing trips when I was young, I remember my father instilling in me an ethic that has been popular with outdoors enthusiasts since time immemorial - that is to leave the natural places we visit better than we found them. Clearly, this was instilled in Ray Anderson somewhere along the way. And if he has his way, he will instill this approach in an entire generation of business leaders, so that other companies can follow down the restorative trail that Interface is so successfully blazing.

by Chad Tragakis, Senior Vice President, Hill & Knowlton, Washington

 

No, this isn’t the new ad slogan for the Danish board of tourism (fortunately for them).  Copenhagen is a beautiful city, and they have certainly done a better job than that in marketing themselves to the world.  I’m talking about the need to make a personal, human connection between the bureaucratic and technocratic workings of next month’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, and the planet’s 6.8 billion people.

 

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (or COP15, as this will be the 15th Conference of the Parties), will host political leaders and top government officials from 192 countries who are coming together to develop a new framework to combat climate change.  The new agreement will replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

 

Most of what has been written thus far about the conference has focused on scientific, political and economic considerations – namely, what must the world do to slow and reverse the effects of climate change, what kind of an agreement can be reached, and what impact will it have on the global economy?  Less has been said about the efforts of individuals and small groups who have been working to humanize and personalize the issue.

 

I’m encouraged by the sheer number and wide variety of efforts to engage and inspire average citizens – in America and all over the world – to make their voices heard leading up to the conference.  Youth groups, women’s groups, civic organizations, labor representatives, environmental groups, clubs and student-led efforts from colleges and universities, and all manner of NGOs and civil society organizations are launching online petitions, Facebook groups, virtual bulletin boards, YouTube videos, letter writing campaigns, rallies, student delegations, and flash mobs.

 

And this week, I am delighted that my own company, Hill & Knowlton, and our parent firm WPP, have announced some additional small parts in support of this effort.

 

Hill & Knowlton was selected by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to serve as the official media sponsor for COP15.  As our announcement on this states, Hill & Knowlton will support an information campaign to encourage climate conscious behavior by delegates and others to help reduce GHG emissions during COP15.  The campaign will also ensure that knowledge from the conference regarding climate conscious behavior will be communicated more broadly, locally and internationally.

 

WPP has launched the UN ‘Hopenhagen’ campaign, which aims to generate worldwide public support for an agreement in Copenhagen.  As the Hopenhagen site aptly states:

 

Hopenhagen is a movement, a moment and a chance at a new beginning.  The hope that in Copenhagen this December – during the United Nations Climate Change Conference – we can build a better future for our planet and a more sustainable way of life.  It is the hope that we can create a global community that will lead our leaders into making the right decisions.  The promise that by solving our environmental crisis, we can solve our economic crisis at the same time.  Hopenhagen is change – and that change will be powered by all of us.

 

Most scientists agree… Copenhagen represents our last, best chance for world leaders to address global warming in a comprehensive way before its effects become irreversible.  If our leaders and representatives at COP15 are to make the difficult decisions required to strike a meaningful agreement, it may just take our collective 6.8 billion voices to give them the political will to get it done.

By Andy Cuneo, Senior Account Executive, Washington, D.C.

The University of California is making moves to be more sustainable as well, just as Catholic University in Washington, D.C. did last week.

Drawn up from the encouragement of the student body, more than 10,000 strong wrote in, the University of California is offering greener food choices and building a greener campus.  According to a report on Greenbiz.com, more than 10,000 students sent postcards in demanding the school offer more sustainable and green food choices. Because of this, California is now offering 20 percent of its food as “green food” throughout its 15 campuses. They are also building greener at the university as well, noting the constant effort to build more sustainably as well as keeping the campuses clean.

I’m greatly encouraged at the recent movements of both California and Catholic University and I’m equally as excited by the enthusiasm and environmental awareness today’s college students have. With this passion for sustainability in both past and current students, I’m truly optimistic we’re going to see more students take a stand and move their institutions to a greener future.

By Andy Cuneo, Senior Account Executive, Washington, D.C. office

Catholic University is seeing the sunny side of electricity production by unveiling this week that more than 1,000 solar panels will be installed at the school in Northeast Washington, D.C.  A Washington Post article noted that by installing the 1,088 solar panels, the school expects it will save more than 340,000 kilowatts of energy each year. To put that in perspective, that totals less than one percent of the annual energy needs of the school but is enough to power at least two radio stations for a full year.

This is a great step in making the university more environmentally friendly and one others should take a close look at.  More colleges and universities, particularly those based in urban areas, should view to the progress being made at Catholic University as a stepping stone to their sustainability as well.

 

 

 

Anyone who has followed my posts on apologies will know how important I feel they are as a way to manage reputation in a crisis. (Forgive the self-reference, but two of the most recent posts can be found here and here.) A colleague in my firm's Seattle office, Drew Arnold, sent me an article from the Oregon Business Journal referencing a June 2009 discussion paper called 'The Power of Apology' from the University of Nottingham's Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics. Here is the paper's abstract:

After an unsatisfactory purchase, many firms are quick to apologize to customers. It is, however, not clear why they should do that. As the apology is costless, it should be regarded as cheap talk and thus ignored by the customer. In this paper, we test in a controlled field experiment whether apologizing influences customers' subsequent behaviour. We find that apologizing yields much better outcomes for the firm than offering monetary compensation."

Based on a study of customers using eBay in Germany, the study found among other results:

1. "Customers who receive an apology instead of a monetary compensation are more than twice as likely to withdraw a (negative) evaluation."
2. "When money is offered, a higher purchase price makes it less likely that a customer withdraws his (negative) evaluation. An apology works independent of the level of the purchase price."

Why then can't we assume that the propensity to consider legal action when harm has been caused by an accidental event, even if negligence is involved, just might be mitigated by a genuine (and the key here is the word 'genuine') apology?

Strategic communication for business will be critical as President Obama ushers in a new green vision for America and the world.

By Chad Tragakis, Senior Vice President, Washington, DC Office

 

“We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050. We will continue to promote renewable energy and efficiency, and share new technologies with countries around the world. And we will seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a cooperative effort with the entire world.”

From President Barack Obama’s Address to the United Nations General Assembly, September 23, 2009

 

As mentioned in my previous post, President Obama is ushering in a new green vision for America and the world.  Each company will need to take a close look at its current strategy, and determine where, when and how it makes sense to introduce or expand environmental sustainability programs, partnerships, policies and processes into its operations.  But in terms of strategic communication and stakeholder outreach in support of business goals, there are some clear and deliberate actions that every company, regardless of size or sector, should be actively considering.

 

Get moving!  This is a unique point in time, a confluence of public sentiment favoring all things green, a public policy environment that supports it and marketplace opportunities that are rewarding it.  The business benefits of a genuine commitment to environmental sustainability are now well established and early movers will have distinct advantages.  Corporate communications may be the quarterback, but every division of your company has a role to play, and nearly every facet of your operation can take advantage.  This starts in the executive office (with board level oversight and encouragement), and includes sales, marketing and advertising, government relations, investor relations, operations, R&D, product groups, finance, legal and HR.  Integration is critical – get everybody on board, on target and on message.

 

But not too fast… Don’t rush to your new environmental messaging and outreach before fully understanding the opportunities, audiences, issues, risks and benefits.  Understand what your stakeholders expect.  Conduct research, and then still more research.  You know that policy-makers and NGOs are interested, but your customers and employees care about this too.  Work to understand why, and what it means to your business.  Consumer expectations are increasingly high for all companies to do their part across the board, but they expect more from certain industries and sectors.  The good news is that, in spite of the global recession, consumers still seem to prefer environmentally responsible products, and many are willing to pay a premium for them.  The research here is becoming increasingly clear – consumers want products that are environmentally responsible, they prefer companies whose operations are environmentally sensitive, they want this information available at multiple levels (including at the retail level), and they want companies to be able to prove what they say.

 

Under-promise and over-deliver.  Consumers are increasingly savvy and increasingly skeptical when it comes to the environment.  Your commitment must be real, your product claims must be genuine, and your stories must be authentic.  Green products from a company or industry with a questionable social and environmental record don’t add up. Make sure the company’s left hand knows what the right hand is doing.  Be clear, be consistent, be as transparent as possible, and be ready to prove whatever you say.  Don’t take shortcuts, do not greenwash – you get one chance to do it right, so be sure to do it right

 

But don’t be afraid to tell your green story.  If you have a good story to tell – a great product, a great process, a model partnership with an environmental NGO – talk about it, celebrate it.  If it’s genuine and if it has impact, it’s okay to brag a little.  Your stakeholders want to know, others can learn from your model and no one else is going to tell your story better than you.  Be sure to find the right communications channels and vehicles that will best convey your good story to the audiences and stakeholders that matter most to you – media relations, online, product packaging, integrated with advertising, marketing collateral – whatever works best.

 

In the midst of the worst economy in recent memory, dozens of America’s biggest companies and most storied brands—from McDonalds to AT&T to General Electric to Proctor and Gamble—have launched green initiatives, and are getting their stories out there effectively.  Regardless of what one thinks about politics or about President Obama’s new green vision, it’s clear that the sustainable century is here to stay.  The most successful companies, in America and around the world, will be those that rise to meet it.

 

 

 

A post by a colleague got me thinking about the phrase 'social media' as the lexeme to describe the technologies of web-based self-publishing that have led to unprecedented connection, conversation, engagement and community.

The provenance of the phrase is evidently to contrast user-generated news and comment with mainstream or industrial media in which the 'means of production' to use the Marxist description (also favoured by cultural commentator Andrew Keen) are owned by corporations not the individuals who create the content. The debate about whether 'social media' is the right term has been going on for at least two years.

The problem I have is less with the 'social' element of the lexeme than with 'media' to describe the interface, although a colleague did comment the other day that it would make it easier to sell social media as a communications strategy to companies if it didn't contain the word 'social' which smacks of people-driven rather than business-driven decision making . . . which is the point of course.

Let's do a little academic geekery here. Dictionary.com defines media as "the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely." (The 'reach' is becoming questionable and the 'influence' declining. But that's the subject of a future post.) The Online Etymology Dictionary suggest a derivation from the "notion of 'intermediate agency,' a sense first found around 1605." According to Spiritus Temporis, media refers to "those organized means of dissemination of fact, opinion, entertainment, and other information."

You see the trend: The word 'media' has about it the notion of a channel by which you deliver something to people, not interconnect with them. Some, well many, communications and marketing people have a hard time switching mental models when it comes to assessing social tools for online interaction. They fixate on the term 'media' and apply old public relations patterns and benchmarks to social media strategies.

Doc Searls (co-author of the groundbreaking book The Cluetrain Manifesto), for one, objects strenuously to the limitations and misdirection prompted by the 'media' terminology. I do to . . . but the battle for a new conceptual model may already be lost as usage soon drives definition. Even though the conceits of social computing tools, social interaction software or social engagement strategies seem to collocate better the important elements of the digitally-driven cultural revolution, they still aren't really there yet.

So, can we revive the two-year-old or longer debate? Or has it been resolved and I am just out of the loop?