Today’s guest post is written by Tyler Orchard. 

The popularization of social media has created two very different environments.

On one hand, social media has produced a world of vast connectivity. Consumers and professionals are linked without boundary. Barriers that once limited engagement are overcome with new ways to network.

Social media has offered people unconfined opportunities to tap into conversations that were once hidden.

On the other hand, the technology simultaneously provides others with a shrouded veil behind which they can hide. Social media has offered more power in the form of selection, engagement, and response.

It is possible to seamlessly transition between both of these worlds at our convenience. We can operate in two elements that contrast one another so vigorously it almost seems impossible they were borne from the same revolutionary technology. Continue Reading »

Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix, has had a rough year.

First Netflix hired actors in Canada to pretend they were excited customers. The problem? Canada was dying to get Netflix so the anticipation and excitement was already there and actors weren’t necessary. But the bigger issue was those actors were talking to media, as if they were real customers. And, maybe they were, but that’s not why they were there.

When found out, Netflix had a bit of a crisis on their hands.

Then, in July, Netflix announced a price hike. Overnight. Via email. They lost nearly a million customers and their stock tanked.

In September, they apologized for the price hike and described the reasons they did it, including streaming comes with its own infrastructure issues, such as different taxes and IT. They also announced they were splitting the DVD and streaming businesses. Now you could have access to DVDs through Qwikster and streaming would remain Netflix.

Earlier this month they decided they weren’t going to split the businesses, after all, and claimed to have learned their lesson. Continue Reading »

We are happy to introduce our very own Crister DelaCruz in today’s guest post.

I’m known amongst my friends as the one who had a digital life even before Facebook (or MySpace) became popular. They think I’m an online “media techie” which cracks me up. I’m far from it, but I see where they might think that.

I’m the one who “posts a lot on Facebook,” “does the Twitter thing,” and checks-in everywhere I go. I even got involved in online dating way before it was common.

Naturally, I get a lot of questions about privacy concerns. And my response is always, “It’s not the platform that’s revealing, it’s your use of it.” Continue Reading »

Tom Garrity is the president of The Garrity Group Public Relations, based in Albuquerque, New Mexico

Let the sunshine in…

For years, the private sector has been preaching social and new media advice to government; “Come on in! The water is fine!”

The government responded by creating websites, posting pictures of elected officials, some even ventured out with (gasp!) electronic newsletters.

Many states and municipalities are taking it even further by using this opportunity to increase accountability through “transparency.” A few examples include Illinois’ Sunshine Project and New Mexico’s Sunshine Portal which provide basic information about public salaries, contracts, and related items.

It’s great fodder for residents, reporters, and politicos who are curious about how many contracts a company has or how much government employees earn.

One thing these sites don’t do, however, is weed out the incompetence of bureaucrats. Continue Reading »

I’ve been meaning to write this blog post all week, but I’m a bit behind. I guess that’s what happens when you sleep all weekend, instead of being a responsible adult. I’m told I needed it. Now I don’t need to sleep for another three months.

Not the point. The point is, the Wall Street Journal last week wrote a story about entrepreneurs hiring outside consultants to help them with their social media. Then Beth Harte wrote a blog post about having someone else tweet for her during the PR 2.0 chat on Twitter.

And it all has me thinking.

For the past two years, I’ve been saying that the point of social media is to have one-on-one relationships with your customers, not to have someone doing it for you. I know this philosophy eventually works me out of a job, unless I can continue to stay ahead of the curve and teach people how to have those conversations using the newest tools available. Which, by-the-way,  is the strategy.

Why is this different, the above mentioned articles ask, than writing a speech for the President, ghost-writing a column for your CEO, or writing a review about a product you received, free-of-charge?

The difference is this: All of those examples have an approval process. They all have “canned” PR messages. The person whose name goes on each of the pieces has the opportunity to review, make changes to fit their own voice, and post as their own.

Social media is instant. It’s immediate and there isn’t an approval process. There isn’t time. It happens in real-time. It’s not your slick marketing brochure. It’s not canned PR messages. If someone is pretending to be the CEO on any of the networks, people eventually are going to find out.

That being said, the person  (or people) handling social media doesn’t necessarily have to be the CEO. But it has to be someone who has the ability to speak on behalf of the organization without having to get approvals. If that’s your internal communication department, great. If it’s your external PR firm, great. But you have to give up control to that person(s) in order to be transparent and authentic.

People want to have relationships with the people who work inside organizations. That’s why, when companies do it really well, people are more inclined to work with certain brands more than others.

So think about it less on using the tools, and more about who you want representing your brand. Who is the best person to turn your detractors into buzz agents? Who is the best person to build your community, intuitively? Who is the best person to work with your brand ambassadors and turn them into referral network? Who is the best person who will be as passionate about your business as the stakeholders, online and offline?

If that’s an external consultant, expert, or company and you’re willing to give up control, that’s great. But be ready to let them do their jobs and ask for forgiveness if they have to make a real-time decision. And be transparent about it – let people know they’re talking to someone who doesn’t work within your four walls. It can work. If done correctly and honestly.

What do you think?

When the Zappos/Amazon deal went through on July 22, my friend Travis Dudfield asked my opinion on the communication to Zappos employees. I told him to let the media storm die down and I would write a blog post about it.

So here it is!

There was A LOT of criticism about how Tony Hsieh communicated the sale to his employees, beginning with the fact that he told everyone they still have their jobs and that he used email, video, and Twitter to spread the message.

I’m not there every day, and I don’t know what it is he is legally allowed to say, or what he’s not allowed to say, but I will tell you that in his letter (see it here) he is as transparent as he can be with an acquisition of this size. And using the social networks to spread the words goes to what he believes in and the core values of the company. So why would he do it any differently?

Let me tell you something that happened at Arment Dietrich at the beginning of this year. Before Thanksgiving last year, there were some insecurities among my colleagues that there might be lay-offs. The rumors were not warranted and I put the kibosh on them, telling all in a staff meeting that there were not going to be lay-offs.

But on Christmas Eve (Christmas EVE!), I received a certified letter from a client stating that, because of the ecomomy, they were terminating our contract effective immediately. Then, right after Christmas, but before the new year started, I received another letter in the overnight mail stating that our largest client was cutting their budget by 65 percent.

I got through the holidays without further incident, but went  back into the office right after the first of the year and knew something had to change or we wouldn’t be able to make payroll by the end of February.

So we laid off. We cut deeper than we probably needed to, but I wanted to be sure the business was in a position to survive any more cuts so we didn’t have to go through that again and so my colleagues could focus on the job at hand and not worry about lay-offs later in the year.

It was not fun. And I got a lot of flack for telling everyone before Thanksgiving that we weren’t going to have lay-offs. Some even called me a liar.

The fact of the matter is that, before Thanksgiving, I was transparent and honest and gave them all of the information I had at the time. No one considered I went through the entire holiday season knowing I was going to have to make a hard business choice after the new year because some of our clients were inconsiderate about the timing of their decisions (even though I understood they needed to happen before year’s end).

I didn’t lie. I didn’t withhold information. I was transparent with all of the information I had at the time.

So even though I’m not in Tony Hseih’s shoes, and my situation was not a major and public acquistion, based on what I know about him and the culture he’s built, the information provided in his communication is what he knows now and can legally tell his employees.

Will they lay off? Maybe.

Will the culture change? Maybe.

Will Tony, Fred, or Alfred leave? Maybe.

Did he share all of the information he could within legal boundaries, as soon as he could? I think he did.

When I learned Steve Jobs had a liver transplant two months ago, my first thought was, “Wow! If I were on his PR team, I’d quit.” Talk about no transparency or honesty.

So I decided to look into the reasons behind Apple not disclosing his health issues before jumping to conclusions.

Turns out I still feel the same way I did initially…and following is why.

* On July 31, 2004, Jobs had surgery on his pancreas, nine months after being diagnosed and keeping it a secret from everyone but a small group of confidants.

* At the time, Apple entertained no questions about Jobs’s health, citing his need for privacy.

* In early January of this year, Jobs said he had a hormone imbalance that was “relatively simple and straightforward” to treat.

* A week later, he announced the issue was more complex and said he was taking a leave of absence.

* Two days ago we learn that the complex matter required a liver transplant.

* Jobs is notoriously secretive and controlling when it comes to his relationship with the media.

* Apple has drawn criticism from some shareholders over what they have called “limited disclosure of Mr. Jobs’s health problems.”

* Jobs is a leader, an executive, and a celebrity, who is widely viewed as the company’s irreplaceable leader, personally responsible for everything from the creation of the iPod to the selection of the chef in the company cafeteria.

I disagree that Apple and its board think Jobs’s health is a private matter. He has made himself a public figure synonymous with the brand; he is the face of the company. Many believe his health is instrumental in the stock performance of the company. While the U.S. has strict medical privacy laws, Jobs’s role as the company’s visionary trumps his right to privacy.

Avoiding questions about his weight last year. Telling employees, stakeholders, and his board he had a hormone imbalance. Announcing, just a week later, he had to take leave because it’s more serious than they thought. Then disclosing a liver transplant just days before he returns to work. And this is all in the past 12 months.

This screams dishonesty and non-transparency – especially in a day and age that we all are focused on transparency and authenticity – while using his right to privacy as an excuse.

As a communication professional, I recommend they focus on honesty and transparency, especially if Jobs comes back as the chief executive. If he really wants privacy and refuses to be transparent about both his personal and professional lives, it’s time to provide a clear succession plan and put other spokespeople in front of the cameras.

Until then, I quit if I’m on his executive team or am at his table as his communication professional. This is dishonest communication, no matter which way you cut it.