I’m sure you’ve seen all the ballyhoo around McDonald’s #McDStories campaign that has backlashed in a big way.   Designed to get followers sharing their favorite stories about the brand, people took to Twitter to share instead their disgust and distaste for the Big Mac of fast food.  There’s a public relations lesson here, and not just for one of the world’s biggest consumer brands.

From a PR perspective, it’s hard to blame McDonald’s for going out and trying to engage consumers in a way that would stir up nostalgia or charming anecdotes.  However, for a brand that has struggled with its brand perception and with America’s obesity rate higher than ever, it becomes easier to blame them for not being more thoughtful about the channel.  I’m not saying things wouldn’t have run amok if this was only done on Facebook – but I do think they would have had more control on their own page.  I find it hard to believe that no one brought up the possibility of a Twitter campaign going negative, fast.  And, if that’s the case and they thought it was worth the risk – well, then, they are probably realizing now the risk was far greater than the reward.

McDonald’s has had a ton of people piling on them for this – but I do see a bigger lesson here for brands on social media and their strategy for each channel.

It’s easy to say that every consumer brand should be on the biggies: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google+.  But it’s not the “where” in social media that is the most important, it’s the “what” and “how” they engage on each channel that is critical.  Brands need to realize that every channel comes with its own risk and it’s important to weigh the pros and cons before embarking on a campaign aimed at engaging a large number of consumers.

On Twitter, the negative campaigns and social media missteps “go viral” in the blink of an eye.  People want to be in on the joke – so they pile on – even if they don’t necessarily have a negative perception of the brand.    With hindsight being what it is, I can confidently say it would have been far better for McDonald’s brand not to be on Twitter at all than to have this campaign go the way it has.

So, what should brands do? Research and identify the channels that make the most sense for your brand. Weigh the risk vs. the reward of running a campaign on each channel.  And, listen to skeptics who bring up the “what if” scenarios.

Chances are, if you have one skeptic on your team, you’ll find a million of them on Twitter.

As PR professionals, the First Amendment is not only crucial to our business, but something we truly feel passionate about protecting. Today, we have all inevitably run into at least a handfull of blacked-out sites in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011(PIPA), two bills under consideration by  Congress. If this legislation is made law, it would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods.  Sounds like an easy thing to support, right?  Not so fast.

People for the bill (major motion picture companies and record labels among them) say it protects the intellectual property market and their industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to be able to enforce copyright laws, especially against foreign websites. One example is Google’s $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to illegally import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.

People against the bill say that it violates the First Amendment, is Internet censorship, and will threaten free speech. It will hinder the efforts of small businesses and independent artists who rely on the ease of communication the internet provides. Today you’ll find a great number of websites hosting their own virtual protest, such as Wired, Wikipedia, Social Media Today, The Oatmeal.com and Google. Mashable says this will take us back to 1994, before the World Wide Web launched:

“When you turn copyright infringement into a felony and say that anyone can accuse a website of providing ”infringing” tools (and apply severe penalties whether or not you do something about it), you are essentially making it impossible for anyone to do anything online without fear of retribution.”

There is definitely an incredible amount of information available and passionate advocates both for and against it. As PR professionals, we have to be aware of how this bill would affect our clients and the work we do. Take some time to get familiar and let me know what your thoughts are.

Happy New Year! During 2011 we had the opportunity to work on many exciting, creative video projects with clients in a wide array of industries, from high tech to consumer products. Each project had unique technical and creative challenges, and this video gives just a taste of that work. Matter is a results-focused agency and our video production services help our clients reach their goals – and that makes us pretty proud. Please enjoy this short highlight video:

These comparative posts are often presented as PR vs. advertising as if the two were in a Thunderdome of marketing budgets. At their best, both disciplines are very powerful, and neither does the other’s job particularly well. The time to consider which practice to use is well before you hit budgeting — it’s when you identify the need. While both are effective means to influence public perception, the effects are not similar. You can see it pretty clearly for yourself in the story of how Santa Claus took his modern form.

Santa Claus — the large man with the snowy-white beard in a red suit that lives at the North Pole — is the result of two efforts to meet two distinct needs. The success in each resulted in a character with near global recognition and centuries of staying power.

The archetype of a solstice visitor bringing good cheer (in various forms and with various names) sprouted to help dispel the gloom of winter in the near arctic regions of western Europe. Some versions were children, some were religious, some were gift-givers. The need was not global agreement, but making the bleakest part of the year a bit more hopeful. You might call it a stretch to say Santa was a PR stunt, but none other than Martin Luther (who knew how to create a stir with the written word) co-opted the local and increasingly secular St. Nicholas traditions, celebrated earlier in December, to draw more attention to the feast that marked Jesus’ birth.

The beginnings of Santa Claus were grass roots, word of mouth, owned by the community and earned propagation by sharing value with the audience. It was passing ownership of ideas that enriched everyone. That sounds a lot like PR. As the stories ran into each other — particularly in America, where many traditions from around the world met and mingled — the stories adapted and the versions that best met the goal of keeping up holiday cheer continued.

Coca Cola had a different goal. The drink sold well in the summer when people were looking for refreshment, but in the colder weather, a hot cocoa sounded a whole lot more inviting. The company found its perfect seasonal counterpart in another white and red icon of good cheer. By investing heavily in tying its brand to a similarly bright and rosy Santa, the brand created a globally recognized version of the jolly old elf.

The advertising goal, connecting a product to the holiday season, required everyone to have the same associations with the season — a brute force tactic for a brute force need. A “Father Christmas” in his green robe (as was tradition in the British Isles) wouldn’t do because it was off-brand. Imagine Santa in an all-white robe. I can’t do it, but it’s certainly not less appropriate for a seasonal character that arrives with the snow. That’s how effective advertising can be in forcing an image into our collective heads.

So, as you consider your goals for 2012, consider Santa Claus regardless of the holidays you celebrate, and how you can best get your ideas spread around the world.

Before I started working at Matter Communications, social media was an up-and-coming medium. Facebook was still exclusive to college students and everyone was basing their friendships off MySpace’s top eight. Fast forward to 2011, and social media is a whole new ball game. For example,  I was scanning my Twitter feed today when I noticed that my colleague, Andrew Rodger, had posted an article from Forbes magazine regarding social media power influencers.

I instantly clicked and began reading all about these professionals who are using platforms such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, blogs and Google + to connect with the online world. The part that I found most interesting was that when the influencers were asked which platform they are most focused on, the answer was none. Instead they choose to focus on an integrated strategy that leverages content to connect with a variety of audiences.

The more I read through the article, the more I realized how social media has shaped my PR career over the past few years. When I first started at Matter, Facebook was the only program I was signed up for. I did not have a Twitter account and was also not interested in signing up for one. Today, I can’t imagine my life without it. I use Twitter to scan for breaking news stories and follow reporters. There have been many cases where reporters have tweeted about an article they are writing, and I’ve had an opportunity to pitch a client. Twitter is also a way for my clients to send their own news out. Whenever there is a big announcement, product launch or great article they appeared in, we tweet about it.

LinkedIn has also helped spread news for certain clients, while being a resource for others. Whenever I am assisting with award submissions or in need of a biography, I can look up my client’s LinkedIn page for their full background and develop a bio. Clients can then make a few quick edits or send their approval rather than starting from scratch.

It’s very interesting to see how much social media has grown and changed over the years. Do you find social media as useful as I do?  I know I love being able to log into the different accounts and have an infinite amount of information at my fingertips. Can’t wait to see what they come up with next! Tell me what you think.

I’m a fan of Wikipedia. There, I said it.

Despite all the controversy in recent years, when I want to get an unbiased, jargon-free description of what a company or individual does, I can often find it at Wikipedia which, while certainly not perfect, has really tightened up its standards of quality and objectivity.

Some of us in the PR business have even helped guide companies or individuals through the process of creating or editing Wikipedia pages.

Last week, many of us took notice when a U.K. PR agency was criticized for alleged “unethical” behavior when it made suspicious edits or additions to multiple Wikipedia pages for its clients. The firm denied it had done anything wrong, but the public backlash in the BBC and other outlets was unfortunate.

The fact that Wikipedia can be edited by just about anyone with an Internet connection, and the fact that it’s the sixth most popular site on the Web, makes it a tempting target to add lofty-sounding mission statements and superlatives.

In my opinion, a well-written Wikipedia article has three things:

1. An objective, concisely written 30,000 foot view of the company, where I learn what the company is about, major brands it’s associated with, where it’s headquartered, generally how big it is, etc. If it’s an individual, a fair description of why they’re notable and so on.

2. An accurate representation of “the good” as well as “the bad.” For example, if you read a Wikipedia article on “The Godfather” Michael Corleone, and it ran on and on about his charitable contributions and leadership qualities, but only made a passing reference to his being the head of a criminal organization, it would obviously set off a few alarms. The good and bad have to all be represented accurately, and I’ll draw my own conclusions from the whole picture.

3. A clearly written description of what the company or individual does. This is probably the hardest part and what generates a lot of the editing. The best articles make minimal use of words like “solutions” and “leading” and get straight to the point. A mish-mash of industry jargon and catch-phrases is going to be flagged.

I think it’s also helpful to keep in mind a June 2011 survey of Wikipedia editors by the Wikimedia Foundation, in which 53 percent of respondents said they edit Wikipedia because they find incomplete or biased articles.

The Wikipedia editing process is certainly tricky and controversial, but those who build a reputation for making fair and accurate edits will have more success as Wikipedia contributors in the long run.

Do you trust Wikipedia, or is it the Wild West of the information world?

For years it was called the B.O.D. or Building of Death by employees of the Clear Channel stations inside. An afternoon talk show host had adorned the seven floor office building with the name after the light tan façade had been painted charcoal black with purgatory grey accents, but the name stuck for a variety of reasons. As I pulled up in my rental car for the first time in six years, a smile crossed my face upon discovering that the entire edifice had been painted purgatory grey and this subtle change was just the beginning.

Armed with as many bags of Chick-fil-a as my arms could carry I walked into the WGST/GNN newsroom with my mentor and subtly greyer News Director Matt Cook and on the surface little had changed in the room since I had anchored and reported there a decade earlier. The news desks, carpet and news booth were frozen in time from the days when I’d open a newscast with the time and temperature, but the second I closed my eyes a different story unfolded. In that half second I noticed that the scanner noise that still haunts my dreams was gone and the room was exceptionally quite. The acrid smell of the running cart eraser could not penetrate the smell of chicken and biscuits because it just wasn’t there.

In the News Directors office I listened to him tell me that they didn’t need scanners anymore because the Twitter newsfeed from surrounding police, fire and EMS had principally replaced the need for them. The AP was important, but following other reporters and anchors on Facebook and Twitter also ensured that they had every morsel of information that the competition did.

The news staff of close to 25 people was now a meager six, two of them part-time. There was little opportunity for anchors to do interviews as each of them were cranking out newscasts for at least  three  or four stations scattered around the southeast.  The few times they reported live from the field, they employed 4G technology for crystal clear transmission back to the studio instead of using a giant bag phone or bringing a giant Yagi antenna with them.

The  former clutter of noise that used to fill that room was now replaced with digital white noise. Sans the bags filled with buttery biscuit goodness, how would a Public Relations professional cut through these new barriers? After we discussed ways to better use social media and technology to get on the radar of editors and reporters, one of the news anchors of the station poked his head in and thanked me repeatedly for making the effort of bringing food in and listening to him rant.  He went on about how everyone wanted something from him and it was nice that I would just introduce myself and want to get to know him.

I left the Building of Death with a most valuable piece of information that I will resolve to employ in 2012. Not the new social media channels for outreach (though important), but the reminder that in this New Year I can’t just ask and take from reporters and anchors (friends or otherwise). That as with any relationship there needs to be give with the take. I need to make time to chat and get to know those I work with before I can expect to take of their time. This sounds like a “duh” moment, but when you are juggling multiple projects with multiple clients and reporters are juggling multiple stories for multiple media outlets it is easy to let these simple, personal gestures disappear.

Earlier this year, I blogged about who public relations professionals are, the many different roles we fill and my ongoing challenge to explain to family and friends what I actually day in and day out. It seems my relatives, though, aren’t the only ones struggling to understand the definition and purpose of public relations.

You may have heard by now that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) recently launched an initiative to “modernize the definition of public relations and increase its value.” The initiative, aptly named ‘Public Relations Defined,’ aims to re-define public relations with input from those of us in the industry.

As it turns out, PRSA last formally updated its definition of public relations in 1982. More recently, a new definition was proposed but never officially adopted:

Public Relations is the professional discipline that ethically fosters mutually beneficial relationships among social entities.

Pretty vague, if you ask me.

I’m not sure the heart and soul of PR has changed dramatically over the years, but the ways we communicate and execute successful campaigns sure have evolved. And with ever-changing technology, social media and the 24-hour news cycle, that evolution is continuing at a rapid pace. Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites not only provide new ways to communicate with reporters, consumers and other audiences and stakeholders, but their effective use is nearly required. Video news releases are in; faxed press releases are out. Public relations is now mobile, social, visual. It’s out of the box.

So, how do we incorporate all that public relations is and all that we do as public relations professionals into one clear and concise definition? Will the industry come up with a definition that will finally help us answer that nagging question about what do for a living? (Please, before I head home for the holidays and face the masses would be great!) Last week, PRSA released a “snapshot” of what the Public Relations Defined initiative has gathered so far. You can find the list of top words generated from the submissions here. Front-runners include, “organization,” “public,” “communication” and “relationships.”

What would you add? How do you define public relations? If you want to contribute your two cents to PRSA, today is the last day to submit ideas at PRDefinition.PRSA.org. Otherwise, stay tuned to the PRSA website next week, when the draft definitions will be published and voting begins.

I don’t know if it’s just me, but I feel like Cyber Monday reached an entirely new level this year.  

Everywhere you turned; it was in your face. It was impossible to grasp what each retailer was doing, because everyone was doing something.  Some did it well, others not-so-well.  But no matter what, they talked about it everywhere  – social channels, TV, online.  Mix in the websites that aggregated and promoted the information to help consumers find the best deals and sprinkle in the ridiculous amount of email I got from every retailer I’ve ever even thought about and, for me, Cyber Monday was a recipe for insanity.  I even heard an older gentleman in the Newburyport Tannery joke yesterday that the coffee was a “Cyber Monday special.”  I muttered to myself yesterday, “Cyber Monday is like COMDEX.“  And then I chuckled.  And then I thought about it and, Cyber Monday IS like COMDEX.

From a public relations perspective, here’s how I figure:

COMDEX was so huge that it was nearly impossible for any one company to stand out and get attention for what they were doing – yet – they spent boatloads of  time and money to make sure they were there.  Because you HAD to be there.   Fast forward to today: no retailer would dare “miss out” on Cyber Monday, right?

Reporters used to be bombarded with requests to meet with companies at COMDEX.  So much so that some stopped going altogether.  Retailers are doing the same thing  by bombarding consumers with invitations to their sales.  In fact, AdAge published an article yesterday on “Why Cyber Monday is the Spammiest Day of the Year.” The sheer volume of it all is overwhelming.

There came a time when we started to counsel our clients not to make any big announcements at COMDEX, because they would fall on deaf ears. You could get a bigger bang for your buck if you strategically timed your news before the show to drive foot traffic and, more importantly, prospects to your booth.

Ultimately, COMDEX  got WAY too big and died off because people realized that they could get more value by going to the smaller, more focused shows that were emerging.

So, it got me thinking, will Cyber Monday just continue to grow in its insanity or will pockets of retailers find other ways to monetize in more targeted, individual ways? Will a  new online shopping holiday emerge and allow retailers to capture more awareness from a consumer perspective?

If these retailers were my client and Cyber Monday was their “biggest PR event of the year,”  I would ask them if all the time and effort being put into Cyber Monday was truly driving sales and repeat customers.  If the answer to that question is a resounding “yes” then Cyber Monday is a no brainer.  But if that question is met with a lukewarm response, I’d counsel my client to put fewer resources into Cyber Monday and find other ways to stand out and drive revenue during this critical time of the year.

I believe some retailers will eventually “opt out” of the Cyber Monday hoopla and launch jaw-dropping sales during less marketing-saturated days, when they can attract more wallet-share.

But maybe that’s my PR mind working in overtime.

Qantas Airlines has a lot going on these days – most notably, a recent employee strike that has caused many delays and inconveniences for its customers.  Let’s face it, a strike is always going to be a public relations nightmare, and this case was no different.

What IS different is that Qantas seemingly decided to operate “business as usual” on its Twitter handle.  So what did they do? They created an “innocuous” little contest encouraging followers to Tweet their dream in-flight experience, using the #qantasluxury hashtag, for a chance to win a pair of Qantas first-class PJs and a toiletries kit.

During any other time, this contest would have come and gone without much fanfare – especially given a pretty lame prize.  But, due to its terrible timing, it incited many customers who were impacted by the strike to use the #hashtag and vent those frustrations.  In fact, #qantasluxury quickly became a trending topic in Australia.  Sadly, Qantas decided to basically ignore the onslaught of criticisms with a (paraphrased) “Keep those creative entries comin” type tweet two hours into the contest.  Needless to say, the contest and the brand received a lot more attention for the incident – from both consumers and news outlets – than they bargained for.

So, what happened?  Did the Qantas public relations team think that this would be a good way to get back into the public’s good graces? Are Qantas’ public relations, crisis communications and social media team operating separately? Or was this just a horribly timed coincidence that wasn’t given much thought?

Whatever the cause, it’s a great reminder that timing can literally make or break a customer relationship, a brand’s perception or, yes, a “simple” campaign.   There are a lot of lessons to be learned on this one – what did you walk away with?