Micro Persuasion

Three Emerging Digital Careers to Watch

About a month ago, I wrote about three career tracks that won't exist in a few years - at least as I see it. Now let's take a look at three emerging digital jobs that will become increasingly important in the years ahead.

The Chief Customer Experience Officer (and those who work for her)

Want to know if a company is a good witch or a bad witch? It's easy. The web knows. Google, the media and online communities are littered with tales of companies that have exemplary products and customer service. However, it's often easier to find those that have been vilified for the opposite. That's the thesis of Pete Blackshaw's forthcoming book - Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3,000.

Here's an experiment. For fun, enter any company into this special Google search engine I set up and let me know what you find.

Brands are increasingly recognizing that customer experience is everything. They will follow the model that Zappos and others set in optimizing online and offline channels. Digital touch points, for many companies, will be the most critical. Since August 2006, customer experience job listings increased 57%, according to simplyhired. (User experience is directly related and equally important and I believe will increasingly become more integrated with the total customer experience.)

"customer Experience" trends

"customer experience" jobs

Digital Storytellers

Harvard Business Review last month noted that most executives cannot articulate the objective, scope, and advantage of their business in a simple statement. "If they can’t, neither can anyone else," HBR posits. That's not good.

Remember, much of the developed world is coping with The Attention Crash. If a company can't tell pithy, authentic stories in the right places at the right time to the right people, someone else will. For more on this, I highly recommend the book Made to Stick.

Search may change that. Google is downplaying SEO and increasingly rewarding those who create quality content. This includes the pros/media, amateurs and brands. Blended Search - which integrates noteworthy videos, news and images with web results - is winning over users, according to Jupiter Research.

Net, as Jason Calacanis notes, there is a big market for people who know how to create or cultivate compelling content that pulls in people. To that end my employer is starting up Edelman Studios - a virtual content house that will identify online talent and pair them with brands. Many in the Hollywood community, ex-journalists and advertising/PR creatives will orient their careers in such a direction. Don't be left behind. There's plenty of need here.

Super Crunchers

Here's another book recommendation for your summer reading list (sorry, I read a lot so my clients don't have to). It's called Super Crunchers. In the book, the authors explain through case studies how companies that are able to mine through mountains of data and make it work for them usually win. Another great book on this topic is Moneyball, which I have written about before.

The digital space is the most addressable media and marketing platform ever. However, most marketers are not “quants” and data is largely under utilized by many companies.

Data mining and visualization tools reduce risk, make business more efficient and measurable. Great rewards will come to those who know how to dig into data and make sense of it all and can parse that into insights that help companies optimize the dollars they put online. Be that guy or gal.

Those are three emerging careers on my list. What's on yours? The one topic I did not cover is developers, who I suspect will continue to remain in high demand for years to come.

Now Can We Please Kill the Phrase "Social Media"?

On December 28, 2006 I wrote...

"As we conclude 2006 and head into the new year it is my conviction that the phrase 'social media' is moot....In 2006 all media went social. Pretty much every newspaper, TV network and publication has wholeheartedly embraced these technologies."

I followed this up a month later by saying...

"With the democratization of media we've come to rely on a bunch of terms that are now completely unnecessary. These include "social media"... Do any of these matter any more? ... The reason is it's ALL media. The lexicon will hopefully change."

Flash forward 15 months and I was beginning to give up. However, finally, people seem to me coming around to this idea, which is hardly new. Eric Schonfeld, a former journalist and now TechCrunch blogger (we need a white paper to describe "the difference"), writes...

"Some people question whether TechCrunch is even a blog anymore rather than a professional media site. But that distinction is becoming increasingly meaningless. The truth is that we are both."

Amen! So true. Tons of journalists are pulling double duty as bloggers. So, now can we kill the phrase "social media?" It's irrelevant. Another moot phrase is "the social web." The web has always been social because that's how people operate - as Chris Brogan notes. It's just that the Internet can scale such social connections more than the offline world ever could.

Alas, there are no more boundaries any more between such "species." On the Internet, a cat is a dog is a Snuffleupagus. It's all inbred. All media is social and all social is media. End of story. Whether content is created by the Pros or the Joes it all has influence, even if it's small.

Follks, it's time for all of us, especially "The Joes," to give ourselves the self-respect we deserve by calling all of this work "media." Otherwise, by continuing to propagate the term "social media" we're just reserving our seat at the kids table for our little cut up pieces of chicken. it's time to feast on drumsticks like the adults do. Google doesn't delineate. So why should we?

Three Internet Careers That Soon Won't Exist

Earlier this year the New York Times detailed how careers in medicine and law - formerly bankable lifetime gigs - have lost their luster. College grads instead are pouring their resources into trying to create (or join) the next Facebook or MySpace. Maybe it's time to rethink those plans. Digital is going to become part of almost everyone's job.

After climbing to the stratosphere, jobs in Web 2.0 are way off their peak. The following Indeed.com chart shows a steep decline in listings that mention social networking, Web 2.0, Ajax and blogs. Naturally, the macroeconomic climate has a lot to do with this. However, when you look at other jobs that are historically sensitive - such as shipping, advertising or public relations - the slide isn't as dramatic. This (arguably) indicates that perhaps there's still a lot of air in the Internet specialist job market.

"social networking," ajax, "web 2.0," blogs Job Trends

"social networking jobs - " ajax jobs - "web 2.0 jobs - " blogs jobs

The web has finally become the dominant marketing and media platform and where everyone is largely focusing their resources. It's "the new normal." To me, this means that there will be less of a need for digital specialists across many industries. Some of these jobs won't exist in their current form within a couple of years. They will be integrated into broader roles. Everyone will be expected to know how to navigate the online landscape if they want to have a thriving career.

Here are three such jobs that will soon be integrated into other roles...

Social Media Consultant, Social Media Manager, etc.

Things don't fit into tidy little boxes they way they used to. My friend Dave Armano wisely calls this the Fuzzy Tail. He does a good job reminding us of specialist jobs that were big once - like blacksmithing - and are now no more.

On that note, let's take a look at social media. It doesn't have hard edges. For example, is a site like Engadget social media or just media? The New York Times has dozens of blogs. Does that mean it's no longer media? Beats me. Corporate HR will have an even harder time discerning.

This naturally leads to the next question - who should "manage" these sites? Is it the social media specialist or someone in PR with specific vertical sector expertise who also gets digital? My strong feeling is that it's the latter. (Then again, I work for a big PR firm so I should advise you to take this with a grain of salt.)

Net I believe that hiring someone just to "manage" social media is a luxury that companies will integrate into broader marketing communication roles.

Internet Advertising Sales, Online Advertising Sales, etc.

There's no doubt that the Internet is the future of advertising. Last week Advertising Age even dedicated its entire issue to digital marketing. Their coverage included a big section on careers.

Despite the recession (if we're in one), online ad sales jobs continue to climb . However, soon all advertising will be managed via digital technology and platforms, even if they end up running in terrestrial media. This means it will become very difficult to discern selling digital ads from just plain old ads. Clients will want to manage and measure their integrated campaigns through a single point of contact or channel and figure out how offline/online work together.

Just as onlne/print newsrooms have been integrated, so will ad sales. This means that media companies will want people who are cross-trained and thus the need for "online sales" specialists as they are known now will wane.

Digital Talent Agents

During the AdAge Digital Conference last week, a Digital Agent with a major talent agency talked about how they have a group of people who crawl the web in search of undiscovered musicians, artists, etc. These agents then pair promising amateurs with Hollywood or branded entertainment projects. I last wrote about this three years ago. Then it was emerging business. Now, however, it is becoming the norm.

Just as with social media consultants and online ad sales, the need for such specialists will soon fade. Every agent will need to know how to identify and talent from the web. The line between digital and traditional will be obliterated as more amateurs recognize that they can market themselves using the web and will forgo going on auditions.

Next up I will cover three emerging digital career tracks that I think will be hot in the years ahead; jobs that at least I think will have staying power and may remain specialist gigs.

If Everything Else Asks for Feedback, Why Not Ads?

Asking for feedback is in.

Virtually every journalist solicits feedback by posting their email addresses. Some even ask overtly.

As Forrester's Jeremiah Owyang recently noted, companies are inviting comments - yet far more slowly. Notably, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer invited everyone at Mix 08 to email him directly. (Microsoft is an Edelman client.)

So what about for advertisers?

Advertising is not exactly known as a two-way paradigm. However, the web changes that. Digital creative can and should be able to not only solicit feedback but to adjust in real-time like mood rings to what people say back.

CNET and AOL Networks both invite consumers to give feedback on their banner ads. Above is one from American Express I found on AOL's site. The surveys ask respondents to rate ads for relevancy, emotive content and ability to move the user to purchase. However, that's as far as they go. The scant data I assume they collect somehow goes back to the advertiser.

Weblogs Inc. - before it was owned by AOL - took an even bolder approach with their Focus Ads. They allowed advertisers to solicit reader comments on ads. However, the program seems to have been abandoned.

There's a lot of room for innovation here. Advertisers can and should be opening themselves up for input. Further, the media companies should help them do so. Will they? I would be surprised to see it happens. Advertising is the last safe haven for one-way communication. Marketers won't rock the boat. Plus, it has a place in an emerging mix of strategies.

Media's Rising Digital Acuity Puts Agencies at Risk

The following is also my column in next week's issue of Advertising Age...

It wasn't the most talked about session at the IAB Annual Meeting this week in Phoenix, but it should have been.

In a series of fascinating frames peppered with statistics, Christopher Vollmer from Booz Allen Hamilton laid out how media companies have increased their digital skills, added new services and are winning over marketers. In the process, they're disintermediating agencies - even as they all downplay it.

Three data points from the joint IAB/Booz Allen Hamilton study are particularly noteworthy:

* By 2010, 53% of media companies surveyed expect to do more business directly with marketers. The majority of marketers (52%) feel the same about publishers

* Only 27% of marketers expect to be doing more business with agencies two years from now

* Today nearly every media company (91%) offers some kind of "agency-like" services. This includes former untouchables like idea generation (88%) and creative development (79%)

The image of media companies as lumbering dinosaurs lingering toward extinction in a world of infinite content is downright wrong. They are more in sync with consumers than any other contingency in the marketing ecosystem. Their entire DNA is digital.

Consider too the bubbling innovation taking place across the Chinese Wall on the editorial side. Almost every single media brand has embraced a spirit of openness and collaboration that was unheard of a few years ago. New York Times Tech section editors curate and link to relevant posts from the blogosphere. Reporters at BusinessWeek are re-writing three-year-old cover stories with the help of readers. CNN's new iReport.com site solicits contributions from around the world, all without filters.

The digital rallying cry that started in the executive suite is being executed flawlessly across almost every media business. Digital editors and salespeople are fully integrated with their print/broadcast counterparts. However, the same cannot be said for agencies. During his keynote at IAB, Group M CEO Rob Norman outlined how the company just recently became more digitally integrated. (Note this related story on agency Web 2.0 skills that ran in AdWeek)

Still, Group M can't be blamed for starting late since the clients too are behind. The Booz Allen Hamilton study found that only 26% of marketers believe their organizations are "digitally savvy." Nevertheless, as the media remain in the vanguard and closest to the ever-changing habits of consumers, it's clear that as they get smarter the risk to agencies has never been greater.

Comparing SMM SEO and PR Tactics is Pure Poppycock

Last week I wrote about how some in the search engine optimization profession (not all) are openly espousing how to basically turn social media sites into heat seeking missiles for Google Juice - and not much else. Apparently there is a whole cottage industry called "Social Media Marketing" (SMM) that analyzes how to use social media for SEO purposes. That should give anyone pause.

Given my accusations, immediately and understandably many commenters jumped on the public relations industry for also trying to use social media to pull the wool over people's eyes. That's complete poppycock. There is no comparison. The reason is that over the last several years the PR industry has largely learned its lessons - often the hard way.

Call me an optimist, but in 2008 most in the PR business take a clean approach to social media. A key reason is that when our clients engage, their participation needs to be transparent for it to be credible. If they fail at following the common law of the community, which has happened in the past, you'll be the first to know about it. You can't always say the same so-called SMM SEO types. Their work is sometimes far harder to sleuth.

I want to discuss this a bit more by addressing some of the comments about PR that came back in response to my post...

Danny Sullivan: "the next time you're dealing with some client asking for visibility, just tell them that hey, if they have a great brand, good PR will be a byproduct."

Positive PR is definitely an outcome of good products, but not always. Public relations professionals play a key role in helping brands identify their core genius and to tell that story. The ultimate arbiter here is the public - either directly or through the media.

We always need to convince people of a product or service's worth, no matter how good it is. If we're encouraging brands to participate in social networks, blogs and social bookmark sharing sites then the bar is even higher. They must add their value before anyone will care.

Social Media Marketing through SEO, on the other hand, often aims to game the system for Google's sake. It can be difficult for someone to discern the role it played in generating Google Juice.

Aaron Wall: "Since when is a PR guy concerned about how wrong it is to game media? I mean...I spoke at a PR agency once, and their walls were plastered with framed media articles that favored their clients. How is that any different then a blogger linking to my content because they like it?"

Public relations professionals - the ones who do their job well at least - never game the media. In fact, every journalist would take issue with that statement. In the social web, the bar is even higher. If good content attracts legit blog links, then that's a completely valid approach.

Chris Kieff: I think the PR industry is just as dirty as the SEO industry. For every 8 of us good ones in both PR and SEO there are 2 lousy ones who give us all a bad name.

Every profession has people who are white hats and black hats. However, my contention is that it's very hard to uncover the nefarious SEO types while it's pretty easy to do so in PR. Fear of humiliation is acting as a deterrent in PR.

Andy Beal: "What about the multitude of PR firms that flood social media with company profiles of their clients–all with the sole intent of building their brand recognition. They want to 'appear' as if they’re engaging their customers, but really they’re just jumping in so they can figure out how to push their brand on users."

I believe these people will all be exposed if they are not adding value - period. We (the community and the industry) need to police these egregious programs, no matter where they come from. And that's happening.

Newsrooms Struggle with Wikipedia Citations

The Editors Weblog reports on the mixed attitudes of newspaper editors citing Wikipedia articles. Some, like the LA Times, are liberal. Others, like the Journal, use it for research. The American Journalism Review goes into more depth. A Google News search shows the practice is rampant.

The big question in my mind is this: when journalists cite Wikipedia articles, what happens when the facts they reference from the wiki entries change (assuming they do)? Do the reporters go back and update their articles? The news reports call more attention to the articles, potentially opening up a can of worms each time they source WIkipedia.

Seems like a big vicious cycle. Perhaps in the future these stories will carry some of the same disclaimers that WIkipedia lists.

Media Jobs Sink as Marketing Services Jobs Rise

Adage:

U.S. media employment in December fell to a 15-year low (886,900), slammed by the slumping newspaper industry. But employment in advertising/marketing-services -- agencies and other firms that provide marketing and communications services to marketers -- broke a record in November (769,000). Marketing consulting powered that growth.

Is there a disconnect in the data here (PDF)? Yes, on the surface. However, it's also possible that more advertising and marketing programs are going direct-to-consumer, bypassing the media altogether. The upshot is to watch as pros who spent their entire careers in media start landing jobs at digital, PR and ad agencies. The need for content specialists is rising, not abating. Many of the jobs are still around but they may simply be migrating industries.

Also noteworthy, AdAge also reports that the local business sections of many newspapers are drying up.

The Digital Curator in Your Future

Credit: Met by jesst7

Content: it's everywhere. Content is in your inbox, your feed reader, outdoor media, your living room, your pocket and, increasingly, on every web site you visit. It also increasingly resides on sites built and managed by your favorite brands, which are bypassing the media and going direct.

The democratization of publishing is without a doubt a revolution. When we're all dead and gone, the 21st Century will be remembered as a Digital Renaissance - one that rivals the original that preceded it by 700 years.

The Internet has empowered billions of people and is distributing their creativity across millions of niches and dozens of formats. Quality and accuracy, of course, can vary. However, virtually every subject either is or will be addressed with excellence - by someone, somewhere.

However, the glut of content as we all know also has a major downside. Our information and entertainment options greatly outweigh the time we have to consume it. Even if one were to only focus on micro-niche interests and snack on bite-sized content, demand could never ever scale to match the supply. Content is a commodity. The Attention Crash is real and - make no mistake - it will deepen.

Enter the Digital Curator. A curator, in a cultural institution context, is a guardian or an overseer. According to Wikipedia, he/she "is a content specialist responsible for an institution's collections and their associated collections catalogs. The object of a curator's concern necessarily involves tangible objects of some sort, whether it be inter alia artwork, collectibles, historic items or scientific collections."

Museum curators, like web users, are faced with choices. They can't put every work of art in a museum. They acquire pieces that fit within the tone, direction and - above all - the purpose of the institution. They travel the corners of the world looking for "finds." Then, once located, clean them up and make sure they are presentable and offer the patron a high quality experience.

Much the same, the digital realm too needs curators. Information overload makes it difficult to separate junk from art. It requires a certain finesse and expertise - a fine tuned, perhaps trained eye. Google, memetrackers such as Techmeme and social news sites like digg are not curators. They're aggregators - and there's a big difference.

The call of the curator requires people who are selfless and willing to act as sherpas and guides. They're identifiable subject matter experts who dive through mountains of digital information and distill it down to its most relevant, essential parts. Digital Curators are the future of online content. Brands, media companies and dedicated individuals can all become curators. Further, they don't even need to create their own content, just as a museum curator rarely hangs his/her own work next to a Da Vinci. They do, however, need to be subject matter experts.

Curators are not editors either. The notion of an editor inherently implies that space is finite. Online it's not. Curators don't need to necessarily be trained in cutting, but in knowing where and how to unearth those special high-quality "finds" and to make them presentable. It's just as much about the experience and the way the information is presented, as it is the content.

If you look for them, curators are everywhere. Mahalo is a thriving community of curators on virtually dozens of subjects. The tech section of the New York Times web site and the My Times site, both of which highlight blogs, is another. Last but not least is the IAB Smartbrief. If you're interested in online marketing and have time to read only one source, this is the one to turn to because they curate.

As content universe expands and floods niches, there will always be a market for Digital Curators. The key for brands, individuals and media companies will be to identify those niches where they have deep expertise and to become the best in the world at serving them. I guarantee if you do this well and consistently, your long-term success is essentially guaranteed. And even if you do not have the energy to become a curator, you will certainly be influenced them.

Charting 2007's Three Big Web 2.0 Trends

"The best thing about the future is that it only comes one day at a time." - Abraham Lincoln

Thinking about the future is fun. It's what I am paid to do. However, I never contemplate the days ahead without the context of the past. After all, the future is always grounded in history. That's why I have become a heavy user of Google Trends.

The tool is closest thing we have to a global rear-view mirror. Blog search and conversation charts only go so far. They capture what a small subset of the most vocal, tech-savvy users are saying. Search engines, on the other hand, show us what's on everyone's mind - including the giant underwater iceberg of silent users.

Like 2006, this was a big year for Web 2.0. Here are Google Trends charts I pulled looking at three broad 2007 Web 2.0 trends, along with my comments. I chose to focus here on broad trends, as opposed to the gyrations of individual sites, which always change with fickle users. (Micro blogging is an exception because the term is rarely used so I looked at Twitter instead.)

All of the data is global in scope and only as current as mid-December. Of course, all of this is just directional. Ideally, it would be great to cross-reference all of this with other sources, like Compete.com. Still, they do provide perspective.

Trend I: Social Networking

* Data: Searches for social networking and news volume both doubled in 2007. However, more recently, the volume has started to show some signs of weakness. Meanwhile, geographically, interest in social networking from India and Singapore is skyrocketing. Search volume for individual sites, like Facebook, appear to track the broader meme.

* Insight: Social networking is evolving from a group of sites into several competing platforms that power thousands of sites. Eventually, we won't think of social networks as sites but as a feature. This data might just be the first sign of such a progression.

Trend II: Micro Blogging

* Data: Micro blogging doesn't register on Google Trends, so I chose to compare Twitter and blogging (as opposed to "blogs" which is a much broader term). What's fascinating here is that searches for Twitter surpassed for "blogging" in April and never looked back. Meanwhile, news volume for the two are neck and neck. Twitter is particularly strong in Japan. That said, interest in micro blogging has dropped off dramatically this (nearly 50% off their peak in the spring).

* Insight: Blogging is work and the payoff (emotional or monetary) can be hard to come by, particularly for those of us who want to see a rapid return on our investment in time. Meanwhile, personal publishing is evolving because of the increasing sophistication of mobile devices and the Attention Crash. Micro blogging fosters connection with less work all while working well with mobile devices. Blogging remains important, however, as the traditional press rapidly embraced blogging, it has encouraged individual publishers to find new ways to spread their influence.

Trend III:: Web Applications

* Data: Google searches for web apps doubled in the second half of the year. That said they are dwarfed by stalwarts like Microsoft Office or Apple's iWork suite. Interest in Google Docs has flattened since they rolled out their presentation application. The US leads the way in web based applications.

* Insight: The search data seems to reflect what others have said - that web applications are not on most people's radar. This data is consistent with what Microsoft and Apple have said - people like their desktop apps. Web applications are in their infancy. It should be interesting to see if they will remain a niche category in the years ahead. The lack of the ubiquitous connectivity could be a major stumbling block.

2008 Digital Trends Part I: Media Battle Advertisers for Eyeballs

Over the next two weeks (like in years past) I am going to post a series of essays on what I see as the big digital trends to watch in 2008. All of these are less about individual sites and technologies. Instead, what I hope to do is connect dots and start a dialogue with you about how technology will impact the media, marketers and consumers in the coming year.

In addition, to be quite honest, this is also my way of getting more disciplined about blogging more often. I really miss posting here regularly (beyond just the links). Further, as much as I love Twitter, it's not a medium that permits thoughtful analysis. As always, I am eager for your feedback. Your input makes me smarter and keeps me motivated.

Here's the first piece in the series...

# # #

For decades media and advertisers have thrived as two peas in a pod; a symbiotic ecosystem that benefits both equally. However, this is all starting to change.

Today, thanks to the web, every brand can become a media company if they put resources behind it. This means that the media and advertisers are increasingly battling each other for your constricting field of attention. In 2008 and beyond this will threaten to undermine the entire notion of ad-supported content and perhaps change the economics of both industries dramatically.

There are several forces at work here that are coming together to form a perfect storm.

For starters, there's the trust picture. Traditional advertising - especially online banners - are not trusted. Recent data from Nielsen shows that consumers put far more weight into individuals. This validates what the Edelman Trust Barometer has revealed over the last several years.

Second, we are seeing a critical mass of consumers using new technologies that let them bypass ads or even ad-supported content altogether. These include blogs, RSS, TiVo, DVRs, iPods, satellite radio and browser ad blockers.

Last but not least, the biggest story is that marketers are becoming a lot more confident online. They are starting to plow a significant portion of their budgets into digital media. As they do, they are investing in creating their own content. These properties leverage the same distribution channels that we, as individual publishers, use - most notably informal word of mouth networks, structured social networks and search engines.

If advertisers start creating their own online content in droves and find they can distribute it efficently, they may elect to bypass the media middleman. And why not? After all, they can build a direct relationship with their customers and achieve greater efficiencies in the process.

Already some of the biggest global brands, including several of our clients, are investing in creating their own content. Wal-Mart for example recently launched the Checkout blog. Dove has seen a lot of success in 2006 and this year with their series of striking videos. (Note: I am a consultant to Unilever but did not work on these videos.)

They aren't alone. Others like Sony and JC Penney are taking a different approach by aggregating content.

The media's challenge is to figure out how to thrive in transition as their big advertisers recognize they can use the web to bypass them. The key for the media is to use their reach to help marketers quickly build scale for their own content. This is no easy feat for businesses that have long fulfilled the producer role. However, they may increasingly need to find a way to balance their own content with advertiser-created offerings they host.

Should the media fail to transition in 2008, it's conceivable that more marketers will go it alone and the media will see their audience and dollars erode.

US Journalism Job Growth Sputtering, Feds Say

According to the latest statistics from the Labor Department, demand for journalists in the US is set to grow only five percent between now and 2014. Forbes reports...

"Another endangered species: journalists. Despite the proliferation of media outlets, newspapers, where the bulk of U.S. reporters work, will cut costs and jobs as the Internet replaces print. While current events will always need to be covered (we hope), the number of reporting positions is expected to grow by just 5 percent in the coming decade, the Labor Department says. Most jobs will be in small (read: low-paying) markets."

Meanwhile, demand for PR specialists is expected to climb 18-26% during the same period. So what are all those bodies going to be doing exactly? I don't believe that the industry is progressing fast enough when it comes to embracing the digital age so there feels like there is some big disconnect here. (via)

Google News Adds Barely 100 Comments in 30 Days

A month ago Google News started to allow any person mentioned in a news story that they index to email in their comments for posting. They now have a page and a feed that lists the stories that have approved feedback attached.

Over the last 30 days or so, Google has posted a grand total of 104 comments. I am sure the demand is far higher and they can't keep up.

As I suggested when it launched, I have no idea why Google is making this all a manual process managed by humans. It should be a mix of technology and humans. Let everyone comment, but highlight who the official sources are. Although the context is different, Mahalo does this nicely with these little icons

Google News Now Has Feedback, Editing and More Risk

Image from Google Blogoscoped

Google News in the US has added a new feature that, while promising, is sure to be controversial. Google plans to roll it out globally once they iron out the kinks.

Any person mentioned in a news story that Google News indexes can email in their comments to news-comments@google.com. Those who do so will be asked to verify their identity and organizational affiliation. There's more in the Google FAQ here and here.

Once Google approves the comments, they are posted and are attached to the story as an addendum, as you can see from the image above or live on the web here. It's unclear if these comments will also roll up into Google Universal Search results.

This is certainly a boon for PR professionals who have longed for a way to respond to what is largely an automated system. Wikipedia needs a similar mechanism. Google is also fairly liberal in the sources it aggregates. It includes lots of homegrown sites and blogs. This approach, while managed manually, certainly gives companies and subjects a voice on a critical site that is increasingly a big gateway for lots of news/blog content.

Still, there are some big outstanding questions. For example: can a PR agency comment on a source's behalf (assuming they represent them) and if so how is our affiliation verified?

Beyond these questions, the move is even more significant because it turns Google News into an editorial product rather than simply an aggregator. The Google News team now makes decisions about what responses go up and what gets left behind. Think about that. What if Google somehow gets scammed with an email spoofer and posts a comment they shouldn't, for example.

Google gets points for opening up their platform to comments from sources but I would had rather have seen them make it more democratic and have this open to everyone. In being selective, the move is more fraught with risk as Google begins to make editorial decisions that might not be popular. A better way to manage this might be to have a system that lets everyone comment, yet also delineates those from official sources that are mentioned in a particular story.

Search Wikipedia and RSS News Feeds via SMS

Lately I have been experimenting a lot with text messaging services since it's the primary way people interact with data on their cell phones. Plus, as you know, I am into the whole microblogging revolution.

You can do a lot with SMS, including send them from your desktop, query the Web or even use it to find a clean public restroom believe it or not. Here's another one I really like.

GoLiveMobile has set up a way to query Wikipedia via text messages using their Text2WAP technology. All you need to do is send a text message to the number 23907 with the word ABOUT followed by your search topic - e.g. ABOUT WIKIPEDIA. You will then get a link back to a special mobile-friendly version of the Wikipeida entry.

In addition, the company has a news search engine as well that scans RSS feeds. Simply text NEWS [Search Term] - eg NEWS MINNEAPOLIS - to 23907 and you will get back a link to a special formatted web page.

The service is free but typical SMS charges apply. Handy stuff.

Crowdsourcing a New System for Measuring Influence (Beta)

When I started blogging a few years ago I quickly got to know Steve Gillmor. I love Steve. He consistently says things are dead - Office, TV and links, just to name a few. Sometimes Steve is right, other times he is way off. But he missed a big one.

The practice of measuring online influence by links is truly dead. Link authority, as it was called, was good while it lasted. When blogs were where all the action was, this system was king - even though many of us hated it. Good for Technorati for building its own brand around it. Nowadays, however, link authority is a meaningless metric. Jeff Jarvis touched upon the broader measurement issue last week.

The main reason link authority is dead is that there are so many places where people can publish and connect with peers. Often, many of us are active in more than one at a time. You might not think some of these networks are influential, but in fact they are.

Take Twitter, a small example. Lots of people who are on Twitter don't write blogs and vice versa. Still, it's influential. Thousands of people track their friends and the site is incredibly well optimized for search. The TV nets are checking it out too.

Last night on Twitter my friend Robert Scoble and I got into an intense discussion regarding Facebook. Arguably, some 6,000 people (Robert's 4,400+ followers and my 1,500) witnessed it. That's small compared to the reach of our blogs.

However, one of those folks was Dwight Silverman, a veteran tech reporter from the Houston Chronicle  He took it all in. (Dwight had to put up with my PR pitches from 1996-2004. Pity him.) Had Dwight written about this, then conceivably hundreds of thousands more would have been influenced. And link authority or impressions doesn't measure any of it.

With this in mind, lots of smart people in our firm have been thinking about online influence and how to measure it. This is a critical issue not just for PR pros, marketers/advertisers, but everyone who wants to monetize content. We're experimenting with a new weighted blended approach and would like your feedback. (When I learned that I ranked highly in their calculations I told David Brain, our Europe CEO, that he fixed this to psych me into relaxing so I Twitter less. My rankings would fall and his would rise!)

The model we have developed is far from perfect, but it's a start. The key is to develop a system that can grow as the channels change. We want a system that we all like - or at least a majority. Feel free to leave comments here or on David's site. Our intent is to create this in partnership with you out in the open. It's in beta but now we need your help. Together we can find something that's workable.

No Respect

I can't believe I am still reading this in 2007. It would have been fine in 2004. Obviously my profession is not evolving fast enough.

Philipp Lensen, among the world's most influential bloggers, posted his list of the top 10 replies to "Are You a Journalist?" question. Clearly, when Philipp reaches out to company PR reps he gets the brush back or, worse, blank stares.

How USA Today Collaborated with Readers to Cover the iPhone

The launch of Apple's iPhone was certainly a momentous event. Like thousands, I thrilled in giving my local Apple Store employees high-fives as I ran through the store Friday to get my phone (I was as #38 on line). This was followed by 40 hours of agony as I tried to get it activated. Now, thankfully all is working.

This post, however, is not about the device or even the buying experience. Rather, it's about how one publication covered the launch of the iPhone by opening up the editorial process and the ramification of such practices for PR.

USA Today like everyone else was all over the iPhone, particularly as the weeks waned down to 6 p.m. June 29. In one of their stories, I spotted a small link that said: "We need your help." The link encouraged readers to respond to a Surveymonkey survey that gathered insights into interest into the phone. I filled out the questionnaire.

Within a few days I received an email from a reporter, Jim Hopkins, who was working on the next iPhone story. He asked survey respondents to watch the 20-minute iPhone video on Apple's web site and respond to a simple question - does it make you want to buy the phone more or less? Consumers aren't used to being asked these questions by journalists. He also gave us the opportunity to opt out if we wanted to.

I didn't respond but I was curious, so I remained on the email thread. In the next message he asked people who were willing to wait on line last Friday  to take photos of what they saw and e-mail them in for possible publication.

Like the BBC, USA Today has truly revolutionized how it reports stories. These changes go deeper than the publication simply turning its web site into a social network. The collaborative thinking appears to be ingrained in the culture and editorial process. And it all starts with four little words - we need your help.

For some reason the journalists have no trouble using these four little words with their readers. Sure, it took awhile, but Dan Gillmor's vision of reporters saying "my readers know more than me" often is now a reality at USA Today and elsewhere. Good for them.

I wish I could say the same for PR professionals. Very rarely do I get an email pitch that says win-win. Most are trying to ram a pitch into this blog, which I won't let happen.

Journalists are leading the way to becoming more open and collaborative with their customers. They view their readers/viewers as partners. USA Today isn't alone. Beth Comstock from NBC calls her audience viewsers.

Meanwhile, most public relations professionals haven't adapted. We need to start taking the same kind of open approach to what we do as the journalists have adopted. My CEO Richard Edelman calls this "open advocacy." Should we fail, some of PR's value will be eroded.

I am hopeful this kind of change can happen, bit I am beginning to feel the journalists are way ahead of us. That's good for them, but not for us. Time to hurry it up.

Community Glues Offline and Online, Real and Virtual

Community is the glue that unities us all, as humans. It has for thousands of years. We identify ourselves with the physical communities in which we live - local, national and global. Our family is a community. Our circle of friends and fellow alumni are communities. The workplace is a community. Even Starbucks - the third place - is a community for thousands of web workers and new moms.

More recently, thanks to Web 2.0, search and mobile devices, community is becoming an equally huge part of our online lives. Technology has given rise to thousands of micro global villages where people find each other, talk and collaborate around shared interests and/or goals.

This isn't a new idea, of course. I remember spending hours on GEnie's RoundTables as a teenager in the mid-1980s. When the web blossomed in the late 1990s, many of us hung out on community sites like GeoCities and the late great Six Degrees.

Today this is all much easier and natural because of broadband. It has changed the way we view the web and the time we spend online. It's important to note the role that community has always played in driving the Internet revolution and how that will continue.

The aforementioned communities were the prehistoric predecessors to the water coolers where we spend time today. This includes the blogosphere (a giant, distributed community), social networks like Facebook and MySpace and virtual worlds like There.com and Second Life.

Community, however, is no longer limited to just the specialist sites. It's becoming completely ubiquitous online, just as it is off.

You can find it everywhere, really, if you look. USAToday.com, MLB.com, Edelman.com and even Apple.com all are, at least in part, communities. In the near future, every corporate-owned site will either have community features, showcase content from communities in a picture-in-picture approach, or simply point people to where they can find them.

This is just the beginning, however. The most exciting moments will come when online communities are increasingly used to foster offline connections. That's the big idea behind Meetup.com, for example, and why it's thriving. It's also why eBay Live and Gnomedex (and soon Techcrunch 20) are very successful events.

During the Paley Center summit I attended earlier this month in Silicon Valley, Vint Cerf talked about this at length. He was referring specifically to the power of video inside virtual worlds. He echoed many of the themes he covered in this recent piece in Forbes. Video is a hybrid between offline and on.

The lesson here for media, entrepreneurs, marketers and PR pros is that even though we are spending tons of time online, it does not replace what happens offline. In fact, it amplifies it. Last night during an event I participated in at Wharton School of Business, Ed Keller discussed his research into this phenomenon. More here (PDF)

The secret to success is gluing together online with offline and real and virutal. Use the web to make the physical connections we have stronger. That's one big reason why the words public relations are really finally beginning to have a literal meaning.

The Future of PR is Participation, Not Pitching

The PR business has long put a premium on strong media pitching skills, especially at the junior and mid levels. All you need to do is scan the help wanted ads and you will see what I mean. However, pitching is on its way to becoming a lost art because the landscape is changing rapidly.

Communities like Facebook, the blogosphere and digg are becoming even more influential than certain traditional media outlets.Their relevance to PR pros is rising and the industry is responding by wisely trying to beef up its new media acumen.

Unfortunately, the biz is not evolving quickly enough. Many in PR seem to be treating Web 2.0 as simply an extension of the traditional media - another venue for buzz. They are pumping thousands of email pitches into the community every day. I know because I receive hundreds of these emails every day, as do many other bloggers I have spoken to over the last several weeks. Some are good, most are not. And many are getting fed up.

Journalists are accustomed to the PR mating dance. They know that as soon as they get a desk, a phone and an email address they're going to get bombed with inquires from PR pros. Some of these will be helpful, others won't be. Journalists know that PR inbound is an occupational hazard that comes with the territory.

Online social networks and communities are completely different. Bloggers, social networkers, diggers, social bookmakers and Wikipedians don't want to be pitched. They're collaborating on these sites for a reason - to share, be entertained, to become informed, to connect, etc. They place value on people who contribute regularly and selflessly.

Further, the lines between old and new media are blurring. Community is becoming a river that flows through virtually every web site, The media is adding social networking features while also embedding itself into big horizontal hubs like Facebook or Twitter. They have embraced changed faster than we have.

To thrive in this new distributed environment, the PR community must step out in front of the curtain, become a bit more technically adept and participate transparently as individuals in online communities. We will have to openly collaborate and add value to the network and help the companies we represent do exactly the same.

My fear? If we continue down our current path PR will lose any credibility we have left with the public and the industry could one day cease to exist. However, if Darwinism creates change then I am all for it.