FIR Interview: Stuart Bruce and Phil Gomes on PR and Wikipedia

FIR co-hosts Neville Hobson and Shel Holtz host a Google+ Hangout with Stuart Bruce, principal, Stuart Bruce Associates, and Phil Gomes, Sr. VP, Edelman Digital, to discuss efforts to improve the ability of corporate representatives to make ethical, transparent, disclosed and factual revisions that are independently verifiable to Wikipedia entries.

(If you don’t see the video embedded above, watch it on YouTube.)

Currently, a host of communication professionals report having revised entries to reflect accurate financial numbers, spellings of executive names, new or departing board members, employee headcounts and the like. Yet because they are identified as “paid editors” without a neutral point of view, their revisions are often reversed and many are banned from the site.

Gomes posted an open letter to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales on his blog at the same time Stuart Bruce posted on his. Within days, the UK’s Chartered Institute of Public Relations announced it would engage in talks with UK Wikimedia representatives. At John Cass‘ urging, Gomes created a Facebook group, Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE), to host a conversation on the subject.

In this interview, Gomes and Bruce discuss the various dimensions of the subject and potential outcomes of the discussion.

Connect on Twitter with Phil Gomes at @PhilGomes; reach Stuart Bruce at @StuartBruce.

Get this podcast:

FIR on Friendfeed
Share your comments or questions about this podcast, or suggestions for future interviews, in the FIR FriendFeed Room. You can also email us at fircomments@gmail.com; call the Comment Line at +1 206 222 2803 (North America), +44 20 3239 9082 (Europe), or Skype: fircomments; comment at Twitter: twitter.com/FIR. You can email your comments, questions and suggestions as MP3 file attachments, if you wish (max. 3 minutes / 5Mb attachment, please!). We’ll be happy to see how we can include your audio contribution in a show.

To receive all For Immediate Release podcasts including the weekly Hobson & Holtz Report, subscribe to the full RSS feed.

This FIR Interview is brought to you with Lawrence Ragan Communications, serving communicators worldwide for 35 years. Information: www.ragan.com.

Podsafe music – On A Podcast Instrumental Mix (MP3, 5Mb) by Cruisebox.

(Cross-posted from For Immediate Release, Shel’s and my podcast blog.)

TFL’s stop-start approach to combating vehicle pollution

switchoffyourengine

As someone who drives into and out of central London quite frequently, I’m as conscious as any road user of the huge traffic congestion that’s a feature of a typical journey, along with consequential environment issues like exhaust emissions and air quality.

So many vehicles, an overloaded transport infrastructure – these are points to ponder as you sit in a rush-hour traffic jam with engine idling, windows shut to insulate you from all that stuff out there, and probably with the climate control set to recirculation.

Although I don’t often suffer the serious jams that are a fixture of the rush-hour traffic reports on Twitter (and on the TV and radio) – I try not to travel during the rush hours so, yes, I’m the luckiest person on the motorways! – whenever I am in one, I’m increasingly thinking of the probable negative environmental impact from vehicle emissions.

You don’t need statistics to tell you that traffic jams + engines idling = something not good for the environment as well as all the creatures that live in it.

So an email the other day from Keith Gardner, Strategy Director at Transport for London, was a timely attention-getter on this subject with a clear call to action:

If you know you are going to be stationary for more than a minute, turning off your engine will reduce harmful emissions. This small change can have a big impact so please help by turning off your vehicle’s engine whilst parked or waiting at the roadside. By doing this we can all breathe cleaner air.

A link in the email leads to a section on the TFL website that contains an infographic, displayed in sections so you can read each element (see the full infographic at the bottom of this page).

A number of things caught my attention about this communication approach to an issue that needs broader awareness:

  • It’s timely and addresses the matter in a way that encourages you to at least take a look at the attractively-designed infographic, and then download a copy yourself or share it with your online networks via the social web including Twitter and Facebook.
  • It talks about a driver-behaviour change – turning off your engine if you’ll be stationary for more than about a minute, addressing some popular myths (stop-start doesn’t damage the starter motor in a modern car, for instance).
  • It presents statistics that will reinforce what you’ve already likely seen elsewhere about the consequences of exhaust emissions, pollution, etc.

Although not mentioned, the TFL’s communication highlights new automotive technology that’s now coming into the mainstream of car offerings – automatic stop-start systems where your engine automatically switches off in specific circumstances and restarts itself when you press in the clutch on a manual-transmission car (I’m not sure how, or even if, that works on an automatic). First introduced some years ago, the tech is being embraced by premium-brand cars (Audi, for example), and is making its way down the pricing chain.

But most people still drive vehicles that don’t have such features, requiring you do it all manually. And that requires a big commitment from drivers to actually do it. Imagine the reaction if you’re the only driver, or one of very few motorists, who has turned off your engine in a traffic jam and it takes you just an extra second or two to get the engine started, into gear and move off. Add road rage to the environmental impact!

Still, communication exercises such as TFL’s must be a good thing as an integral part of other communication and awareness-raising activities if they help raise awareness of the big-picture issue, link it to the local impact of your car’s emissions, and give you an easy solution to actually do something that can make an environmental difference (think of your wallet, too). Whether the TFL’s call to action will be heeded in sufficient numbers to make a measurable difference is another matter.

But what a good (stop-)start!

See the full infographic:

Continue reading

Can you really control who says what about the 2012 Olympics?

london2012hashtag

Reuters reports that 70,000 unpaid volunteers recruited for the London Olympics this summer have been warned not to give away breaking news about athletes or disclose the location of politicians and celebrities through online comments or pictures posted on social media sites.

Clearly, it makes sense to establish the ground rules on “social communicating,” as you would expect any responsible organization to do. What’s allowed and what isn’t. But also the positive: what’s encouraged, how to do it, from whom and where to get get help, etc.

Yet on the face of it according to the Reuters report, it’s rather black and white. I can’t imagine a more challenging task for the Olympics organizers than policing this blanket restriction. This is the age of mobile devices, point-and-click (or -tap), check in here, instant sharing online. It’s Twitter and Facebook and Google Plus and Foursquare. It’s about freeing up the means of connecting online with free wifi expected across London.

In any case, isn’t this “you must not” attitude somewhat counter to the spirit of inclusiveness and community that embody the Olympic games?

Writing in Forbes magazine, Ewan Spence gets to the heart of the matter:

[..] I wonder if the Olympics have an inkling of just how connected the games are going to be, how much activity there will be online, and how much conversation will be going on. And those most keen on the games have had their voice snuffed out. These rules bring on an image of a digital King Canute trying to hold back the flood of genuine opinion that will flow out of London in July and August this year.

Why not enable people to use their common sense? Seek out leaders within the volunteer community, Help them develop the guidance for their peers. I bet that would be highly effective and foster a far closer community spirit than “you must not.”

Let go the control, Olympics organizers.

Related posts:

Trust in Twitter takes a knock

wendidengspooftwitter

If Twitter says a Twitter account is authentic, you trust it, don’t you? That little tick on a blue background you often see alongside accounts of prominent politicians, celebs and others is your symbol of confidence that the account belongs to the person whose name appears on it, and not someone else.

After all, Twitter has verified that it is so. Indeed, Twitter says of its verification:

Verification is currently used to establish authenticity of identities on Twitter. The goal of this program is to limit user confusion by making it easier to identify authentic accounts on Twitter.

The bold emphasis is Twitter’s own.

The trouble is, no one is sure how Twitter verifies the identity of an account nor how verification as a whole actually work, something that assumes some importance when a verified Twitter account turns out to be a fake. Such an eventuality challenges your assumption of trust.

That’s what happened this week with Rupert Murdoch’s wife Wendi Deng Murdoch and the spoof Twitter account set up in her name during the Christmas holiday period by a still-unknown prankster.

Among the many reports and opinions about it, Mathew Ingram‘s assessment for GigaOm on why Twitter’s “verified account” failure matters is a credible one.

[...] Twitter has refused to speak publicly about what happened with the Deng account, or to explain why it was verified and then suddenly un-verified – and the company has also repeatedly refused to talk on the record about how the verification process as a whole works, and why some accounts are chosen for verification and others aren’t. Even if the Deng verification was a simple screw-up due to reduced staffing levels over the holidays, Twitter’s radio silence on the issue makes it even harder to trust the entire process, and that could have ramifications that go beyond just the Murdoch case.

Writing today in CorpComms Magazine, Clare Harrison asks how reliable is Twitter verification?

[...] Sadly, like so many implausibly good tales, [the Wendi Deng Twitter account] turned out to be false. And The Guardian wasn’t alone in falling for the ruse. The account appeared even to fool News Corp. A spokeswoman confirmed to reporters at both the BBC and The Guardian that the Deng account was real on Sunday, only to change her mind the following day.

People don’t like to be made fools of.

Alongside some good opinions from Stuart Bruce and Danny Whatmough, Clare’s analysis includes this quote from me:

[...] In an age of increasing transparency, it seems bizarre to see one of the key services that shores up the social web acting so opaquely about a matter that’s part of the fabric of the social web.

If you can understand more about how something works, you are in a better position to assign your trust to it. Or not.

Until that happens, caveat lector.

[Update Jan 5]  “The Case of the Unfortunate Underscore: How Twitter Verified the Fake Wendi Over the Real Wendi” – some light on how it happened, from Kara Swisher.

The key word in Carrier IQ is ‘FUD’

carrieriqsolutionQuite a kerfuffle blew up during the past week over privacy and what happens to information about your mobile phone usage that, unknown to you, is captured on your device by logging software made by US diagnostics and analytics firm Carrier IQ and then transmitted to their servers.

The story so far:

1. A security researcher published a report on November 30 alleging that Carrier IQ’s software is a rootkit and secretly transmits data  – including personally-identifiable information – from your phone to Carrier IQ without your knowledge or permission. The researcher made a video illustrating his concerns which he published on YouTube on November 28.

In essence, what the video and the report mean is broadly this: because a mobile phone user hasn’t given explicit permission for such data sharing (and doesn’t even know this software is on his or her phone) and they can’t opt out of it, surely it’s a violation of your rights to privacy.

2. Uproar ensues, with mainstream and social media alike posting critical commentary and opinion on the Big Brother-like evils of such behaviour, which is possibly illegal depending on jurisdiction and matters that could keep lawyers busy for months. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the non-profit digital rights advocacy organization, rallied to the researcher’s support to counter legal threats from Carrier IQ that the researcher had breached their copyright.

Vilification of Carrier IQ was well underway within hours of publication of the researcher’s report.

3. On December 1, Carrier IQ issued a press release “to clarify misinformation on the functionality of Carrier IQ software”:

[...] While a few individuals have identified that there is a great deal of information available to the Carrier IQ software inside the handset, our software does not record, store or transmit the contents of SMS messages, email, photographs, audio or video. For example, we understand whether an SMS was sent accurately, but do not record or transmit the content of the SMS. We know which applications are draining your battery, but do not capture the screen.

Notwithstanding Carrier IQ’s attempt to logically explain what their product does – and perhaps of equal significance, what it doesn’t do – the kerfuffle continues with “yes it does / no it doesn’t” arguments being conducted by pundits and opinion leaders alike that muddy the waters of clarity to stir up a huge amount of FUD.

Interestingly, Carrier IQ isn’t anywhere to be seen in those online conversations: no comments to blog posts, tweets of engagement, or Facebook and Google+ comments.

Observing developments these past few days reminds me of other crises of confidence that threaten reputations that erupted quickly and before you knew it, an unplanned-for crisis had presented itself to you to deal with right now.

Think of:

  • Healthcare company McNeil’s baptism of digital fire over the Motrin Moms debacle - the communicators weren’t paying attention to a groundswell of critical online commentary about a marketing video promoting their market-leading over-the-counter ibuprofen pain reliever that erupted over a weekend until it reached the mainstream media and sucked in parent company Johnson & Johnson.
  • Domino’s Pizza’s education regarding the social media effects from employees doing disgusting things with food products and posting the videos they made to YouTube – company executives were paying attention to increasing criticism in social media and calls for a response from the company but a senior executive had dismissed social channels like blogs as “unimportant.”

To be fair to these two companies, those events happened in late 2008 and early 2009 respectively – a time when many people in companies large and small were still trying to figure out social media. If mistakes were made, they tended to be hugely visible and high profile, as these two cases certainly were (and, in the case of Domino’s Pizza, subsequently resulted in a direct negative impact on their financial results).

Continue reading