Google image promotes artist themes

I’ve always thought the way Google changes its logo to connect with a particular event is a really nice touch.  It doesn’t necessarily serve a purpose, but I find you always stop to check what the graphics indicate.

Today’s image is by Jeff Koons and serves to promote the new artist themes you can use to personalise your iGoogle homepage.  The 70 themes can be viewed geographically - for example Australian artists.

A time limited cafe was set up in Japan earlier in April to promote Artist iGoogle, although not everyone thinks the brand should seek a real world presence.

Apparently:

The goal, said Marissa Mayer, Google’s vice president of search products and user experience, is to give people a chance to connect with artists they like. Few artists turned down Google’s offer to participate, which offers an opportunity to reach a giant audience that isn’t necessarily plugged in to the gallery, rock and catwalk scenes.

Google didn’t pay the artists. It made a contribution to a charity in each of their names.

I’m not quite sure of the value of the themes, but I’ve opted for the Lance Armstrong one (I know he’s a cyclist not an artist) because the Tour de France this year is passing through Lavelanet which is near to my mum’s house.

Why should you trust me?

I know that I often argue for robust research, but I’ve also presented an argument many times that online ain’t that different to “the real world”.  That’s my reaction to all the fuss on the topic of who people trust. [Link via Judy Gombita]

I’m surprised that bloggers seem surprised by recent studies indicating most people trust people they know and friends and family are key influencers on attitudes and decisions. 

Source credibility theory has long proposed a number of dimensions of influence:

1. trustworthiness
2. competence
3. objectivity
4. dynamism
5. expertise
6. physical attractiveness
7. similarity

Trust is a key factor.  But it has been publicly seen to have been abused in recent years by traditional “expert” influencers, such as journalists, corporations, scientists, politicians, doctors, lawyers, banks, celebrities, etc etc. 

We are less and less impressed by those claiming expertise or status in society.  We’ve few real role models in public figures to look up to.  We question objectivity knowing that corporate cheque books often buy endorsement.

Trust is something that has to be earned, and this involves a consistent believability that is established over time.  So no wonder we look to those we have built genuine relationships with when making important decisions.

Whether bloggers and virtual social media friends are influential will similarly depend on the relationships and trust that is established. 

The rules that public relations practitioners need to reflect when counselling organisations in the area of credibility, trust and influence are pretty basic.  I’ve written about it before - do as you would be done by.

That means that big businesses, such as oil companies, are unlikely to be trusted when they report record profits, while motorists struggle to afford petrol at £5 a gallon.  Banks are bailed out and pay big bonuses, yet many ordinary people face the threat of losing their homes. 

Politicians lie, scientists twist figures to suit their cause, celebrities are vacuous and self-interested.  Hardly the characteristics of people who should be trusted.  So why all the surprise?

Deciding what’s useful for PR online

The MIPAA new media workshop is taking place on Friday, our 3rd year of focusing on developments in the online arena.  I’m looking forward to hearing the latest thoughts of Antony Mayfield of iCrossing whose presentation at our first event in 2006 stimulated my plans to launch the Greenbanana blog.

This year, I’ve also devised some case studies on PR and new media as a group exercise.  Drawing on real life PR disasters - or opportunities to learn - I’ve identified typical situations practitioners may face in order for the workshop attendees to develop effective solutions. 

Often the new media focus in PR, and marketing, is on using various tools; setting up Facebook groups, getting a presence in SecondLife or establishing a blog.  But the real challenges are in deciding if these are relevant, likely to generate interest, or if they could create more problems than they solve.

The final element of our course is an expert panel with media representatives from The Car Enthusiast, Parkers and Auto Express.  The debate will no doubt range from  how PR practitioners should best interact with media sites to issues of evaluation - how do you decide which are the best sites to engage.

I was interested to see the Daily Telegraph has published a list of the 20 most useful car websites.  Equally interesting is the press release from 4Car, claiming to have topped the list.

The Daily Telegraph list does not appear to have any scientific basis - and doesn’t actually (on the website at least) present a ranking of “most useful” or “best”. 

Okay, being first listed might technically enable 4Car to state it topped the list - but was it the intention of the unnamed author of the article to rank the sites? 

And, what exactly does “most useful” mean?  It is lazy journalism, in my view, to simply come up with a list without any attempt to have a methodical approach of analysing the sites.  In this case we can’t even say it is a personal choice, as the author isn’t identified.

There are a lot of questions facing PR practitioners in deciding which online tools to use and which bloggers, websites, etc to target. Of course as individual readers/consumers we might comprise our own top 20 lists, which may be idiosyncratic to us.  But as professionals, our approach ought to be more robust - so I hope there aren’t too many taking the Daily Telegraph list as having any great relevance.  Despite 4Car seeking to use it as endorsement.

Another year older

Yesterday was my birthday, so technically, I am a year older today.  Of course, like most changes in life, the process is not a discrete change, but more continuous - we age second by second, rather than year by year.

So older, yes.  But am I any wiser?  The process of gaining wisdom does require discrete change in many aspects as we gain new knowledge or change our understanding.  Although at the same time, skills can be gradually improved - in the spirit of kaizen, continually improving.

Unfortunately as you get older, everything isn’t about improvement and there’s a huge PR and marketing effort focusing on “anti-aging” or as the Dove campaign puts it more positively, Pro-age - who they define as “women in their best years”.

Although encouraged to embrace wrinkles, curves and other demonstration of the aging process, this is within the context of cosmetics and products to make us feel better, even if we can’t turn back the hands of time.

Or there’s the likes of Nintendo eager to keep my little grey brain cells active with their pointless “brain training” games. 

Whilst the government is promising health tests in the over 40s to detect “killer diseases“, apparently, there is a baby-boom among such “older” women.  Does this coincide with the higher incidence of binge-drinking in the age group too?

Are we now just another market segmentation?  Must we accept the marketing pressure, grab our fat pants and fight the signs of aging?  Can we really have it all in being older, and wiser?

Are PR graduates ready to be their own boss?

On his PR Placements site Richard Bailey kindly features a communications job that I’d been asked to promote by Honda Motorcycles. 

What interested me about this opportunity is that it is a full-time job, but available in a freelance capacity.  It is increasingly common in my experience of the motor industry PR world for in-house headcount restrictions to result in the use of “embedded” consultancy staff.  Indeed, I used to manage a team of 19 of “contractors” undertaking PR roles within Ford when I worked at a PR agency some ten years ago.

Here though, the contract is open to a graduate recruit as it could “potentially be a great role for early professional development”.

Are graduates open to the idea of freelance work - or do they feel they need the security of being employed either in-house or within a consultancy? 

I’ve been self-employed for nearly eight years, having made a millennium decision to stop being a wage slave.  But working for yourself wasn’t unfamiliar to me, as my parents ran a small hotel in Great Yarmouth (as did my mother’s parents before her) and my dad’s parents worked as independent upholsterers.  I was prepared for the downsides as well as looking forward to the upside - which for me is primarily the flexibility to control what I do in life.

Many PR practitioners seem to come to freelance employment as a lifestage decision, particularly those who need to combine work with caring for a family.  For example, via Strive PR I read Sally Whittle’s post on WorkLife balance - where some of the difficulties are evident.

I’m not sure if graduates are being prepared for the option of self-employment by careers services.  One of the things we focus on in the final teaching session of the CIPR Advanced Certificate course is the idea of managing your personal reputation - brand me. 

Regardless of whether you are working for someone else or are your own boss, it is vital that you maximise your “brand value”.  In PR, we are often the commodity being sold - our skills and contacts are the true assets being sought by clients. 

Having an excellent reputation also offers security whether in employment or with clients as a freelancer.  I would recommend the opportunity offered by Honda as a good career move - not only for the experience and its excellent brand name. 

I believe future career strategies, particularly in professions such as public relations, will require greater independence - so starting your career in the driving seat has to be a good move.

Corporate copy lacks compassion

I heard today news that the sister of a motoring journalist contact was killed in a terrible train accident last week.  As the Guardian reported, this was the third such fatality in two days.  Although unrelated, naturally, the tragedies become connected by their proximity in time.

For many of us these incidents are just news.  Something we hear about whilst going about our lives, a story we may discuss with others or that maybe makes us stop and think for a minute.

Like Teresa Mansell, I regularly walk my dogs across a railway line near my house.  It is frightening as you check there are no trains coming, but still have to negotiate over the tracks, knowing there is a real risk to your life.

Such tragedies may help communicate safety messages, making the possible a reality whilst accidents remain newsworthy.  Real life cases communicate very powerfully.

Those involved in communications at Network Rail have a message that “level crossings are safe if used correctly”, but their words seem insensitive in the face of a series of fatalities:

Every year, over 1,800 pedestrians and motorists are reported to have misused a crossing. Tragically some people are injured or killed primarily because they have made an error, deliberately made a violation or have become complacent about using the crossing.

In the past few days, words have been important to me, with friends and strangers equally expressing their condolences with kindness and empathy.  Many people say they don’t know what to say, or simply, state, I’m sorry. 

The words quoted above lack any compassion - they are a cold presentation of statistics and blame avoidance.  They do not reflect any sense of corporate responsibility from Network Rail, with its action all about awareness raising, understanding of correct use and “user behaviour” change. 

Of course, the issue of railway crossing safety is difficult, sensitive, and hard to solve - but producing copy for the website shouldn’t have just been another writing task, just words to be uploaded, a corporate reputation to be protected.  

Writing is a human task, conveying meaning through words and so we should always put thought into their construction. 

A private tragedy

“This was not the plan; it was not supposed to be like this” my dad said when he went into hospital on 3 February.  He loved the life that he had with my mum in France, but despite fighting complication after complication following a supposedly routine operation to remove a tumour from his colon, he died at 3.10am on Monday, 21 April, 2008.

Last week, the plan was that he could possibly go home this week, so I’d travelled out on Saturday, not expecting to be told there was no hope.  His death was our private tragedy, as mum and I spent the last precious hours, playing special songs, and just giving my dad every last ounce of love.  In return, he did his best to keep his heart beating until he simply couldn’t suck any more life into his lungs.

It is an honour to share someone’s final moments - and the nurses bestowed respect and dignity.  They deal with such private tragedies every day - on Saturday a young couple had lost their baby at the 6th month of pregnancy and been told they could not have more children.  Another heart-breaking life story.  My mum and the baby’s father had held each other and cried together.

You won’t read about our stories in the news - my dad was not famous, did not make history, was not involved in a public tragedy worthy of reporting.  There’s no press release, no questions to answer - except the biggest of all - why?

But there are many people who have wept since hearing that Richard Liddiment has died.  The church bells are ringing in Roquefeuil, the tiny village where my parents have lived for the last six years.  This is a French honour, for a true English gentleman.  The villagers asked if they could start a book to pay their respects, and within minutes, so many had expressed their sorrow.  They did not share a common language, but my parents were taken to heart. 

My dad was a quiet man, a kind man.  A man who has passed with a light soul - because he has left so many people with a good feeling when they think of him.  Many happy memories and laughter.

My parents had been together since they were fifteen, over fifty years ago.  We had a perfect childhood and were so loved.  We wanted to be like him, my brother and I.  And, we were not alone in looking up to him, idolising him - I can see him also in Winston and Rick.  Young men who will carry forward a legacy of my father.

Everywhere I look, I feel my dad’s presence - in the millions of little things he did for me, in my manner, my skills, my outlook on life.  These are ripples in the pond of life.

When we left the hospital, nurses cried and hugged my mum as if their own father had died.  They had seen how much he was loved and how he fought so hard to live - they came to love him too. 

I’ll miss him so much - je suis désolé

Long live love

I’m writing this post for me - because I need to write about Nutmeg.  Back in 1986 or thereabouts, I went to a house in Norwich and offered a home to a little tabby kitten no more than five weeks old.  Today, I made a promise to see her in the next life, as I said goodbye to my tiny, bony little 22-year old Nutmeg.

Nutmeg was Tizzy’s cat, not mine but a dog’s cat - and that’s how she lived her life - at home with dogs regardless of their size or familiarity with the feline race.  She was always a small cat, but lived a strong life, her own life, a long life.

Another soul that I’ll carry with me forever, in my memories and in my heart.  Like the many dog souls that Nutmeg outlived.  And, as each one has gone, my heart has been full with ache and love.

Today it feels like the pain will be here always.  And it will.  Time doesn’t heal, but love settles down and finds a space in who we are.  Maybe this seems ridiculous as a sentiment for a cat - but 22 years is a long time.  Nearly half my life. 

So Nutmeg, I’ll miss you.  My desk seems empty without you lying on the keyboard.  This was a long lived love - and I wish you could have lived forever, but I will love you forever.  I can still hear you purring - I hope I always will.

Fragmented discussion on fragmentation

The post PR 2.0: Distributed Conversations and Fragmented Attention by Brian Solis is, perhaps ironically, only one place where the fragmented discussion on fragmented discussions is taking place.

The “conversation” on this topic has revealed several aspects relevant to public relations.  How can the  meandering, disconnected thread of thought and comment possibly be monitored?  What will be the impact of new technology that enables conversations to be hijacked without possibly credit or linkage to the original source?  And how could professional communicators engage in such disparate conversations on behalf of clients?

What I find interesting about all this online chatter about chatter is that the Internet is simply echoing what goes on with real people in the real world.  We all talk about all sorts of things to different people - normally individually, but in small and large groups too.  This is the fragmented discussion of life. 

Indeed, if you have conversations with my mother, they are often fragmented in time and place too, necessitating a guessing game about what she is talking about before you can respond.  Because she, like most of us, is engaged in a conversation in her mind before she talks.  So, like most bloggers, her starting point of a conversation could come from anywhere - something she has seen out of the window of a car, music on the radio, doing the washing, or reading a book.

As I wrote in my last post, people are complex - so in getting to grips with fragmented discussions, we need to remember that the web is simply reflecting back the type of conversations that humans have always engaged in.

The difference is that PR practitioners don’t feel compelled to monitor these, or worry about the intellectual property of people telling others about what they’ve read.  We do recognise the power of word of mouth and try to stimulate such conversations, but tend not to muscle in on them like some over-enthusiastic salesman.

Of course, the issue of intellectual property can be more of a concern because everything online can be copied without any reference to the source - but again, the original can be found thanks to the same technology.  Offline, such conversations may rarely offer that opportunity - and it would be rather bizarre if we all peppered our discussions with citations of sources.

Can we monitor real life word of mouth?  Well with talk about listening CCTV monitoring what we say and not just what we do in our everyday lives, how long before the brands want to eavesdrop on what people are saying about them in the supermarket too?

I think we need to retain a sense of perspective about the volume of information and chatter online.  After all, as Oscar Wilde wrote in The Picture of Dorian Grey:

There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.

Is PR a matter of semantics?

Check out The Semantic Web – none of Public Relations’ business? interview with Markus Pirchner who is a fellow contributor to PR Conversations (thanks to Judy Gombita for link).  

Some interesting points regarding the way in which Markus sees online developments impacting on public relations.

He highlights how:

The gate-keeping role of traditional media is shifting, if not disappearing; a plethora of new technologies and applications are disrupting the ways of communicating with relevant publics and stakeholders, enabling direct, unmediated, two-way symmetric communication with people (as opposed to the previously very common “communicating to”).

I don’t totally agree with the implication that PR practitioners’ established gate-keeping skills will be replaced exclusively with management of dialogue.  There will always be a need for mediators, maybe even more so as the volume of available information increases and trust in traditional opinion formers is challenged. 

However, the challenge of “communicating with” is a real one presented online - I’ve heard arguments that direct communications is the remit of marketing rather than PR, but  marketing materials tend to talk at rather than with, in my view. 

There is another aspect here in respect of permission to communicate with - which again brings up the issue of trust and the other dimensions of two-way symmetric; listening, and being prepared to change.

Markus is certainly right about the need for better understanding in theory and practice of relationship building - although I’m sure there are plenty of other disciplines with a long history in this area on which we could build.

Interestingly, Markus claims that PR has always relied on the tried and tested rather than being at the forefront of developments.  Although he is talking about Web 3.0 in particular, I think we need to put this into practice in respect of understanding the nature of relationships further.

We seem to have a very basic understanding of people in PR, somewhat surprisingly, I often feel.  This is most evident in the area of media relations where a simple belief in cause and effect underlies attitudes towards gaining media coverage.  Clippings and publication of key messages is thought to be enough in respect of generating “awareness” or “positive brand associations.” 

Although the effect of communications, direct and mediated, is more complex than this - and we could learn from psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc, many PR practitioners stick with the elementary belief that coverage will instantly achieve cognitive and behavioural change. 

I can also understand the potential, as Markus highlights, of developing PR’s engagement in new technologies, but these often appear to make the discipline less understanding of the people side of communications and more focused on the processes.

Web 2.0 has taught us that relationships can be built virtually and never involve face-to-face (that’s how I “know” Markus after all), but what is most important is the ability to connect as human beings, understand each others’ needs, interests, motivations and perspectives, and accommodate, where appropriate, if we are to build valuable exchange and communal relationships.

Markus says, relationships are “fuzzy” by nature; he feels “So all we’ve got to do to get the PR industry on the Semantic Web bandwagon is to squeeze the fuzziness of relationships into an ontology.”

Of course, the IT world thrives on taking the complex and seeking logical, linear solutions and I respect the technologies this has provided.  But no computer system has yet come close to the complexity or nuance of the human being, and as PR practitioners, we should equally focus on developing an ability to read other people as much as hyper-language.