Common Sense

Strong Ethics or Strong Regulation - Our Choice

Column as it appeared in the September 30, 2009 issue of E-Commerce Times

It is up to e-commerce industry leaders to set -- and abide by -- ethical standards for social marketing. Will we use valuable new social media tools to help our customers get accurate, useful information? Or will we allow them to be used to obfuscate and mislead in the service of short-term gains? If the latter, we can expect severe regulation -- and we will deserve it.

I often hear people express fear at the "threat" of future regulation by a government agency. I have to admit I have the opposite reaction.

As leaders in the world of e-commerce and online communication, we are in the driver's seat to either show that we are serious about ethics -- or that we need adult supervision. As we all know from growing up, when you get adult supervision, you don't always like it, but you often deserved it.

Take social media. It is an amazing new discipline that is in the process of transforming how 1.67 billion people define the way we do business. It's nothing short of a revolution in the making. It's changing our shopping experience worldwide. It represents the best opportunity we have ever had to speak directly with our customers and learn from them. Yet, as new as it is, many of us are not learning along with the advances.

The reason so many communicators and marketers are choosing to ignore this sea change is obvious. People like to make it easier on themselves when transformative change is going on, so they discount it or simply assume they will learn by osmosis. In today's online world, however, if you aren't taking time to become a student of how the world is changing via social media, then you're falling behind on a daily basis. When 500,000 new people go online for the first time in their lives every day, it ain't regular change.

When it comes to ethics, applying yesterday's model or looking the other way is never good -- and, to be candid, I'm seeing too much of this as I work and talk with many companies in the Fortune 1000.

5-Minute Demolition Project

As an example, ask yourself if you know how you are utilizing social media to impact natural search. Ask yourself if you know what your agency and the subcontractors it hires are doing, precisely. Ask yourself if you know what "sponsored conversations" really means? Ask your agency to tell you exactly how it handles outreach on your behalf.

The short answer is many of you don't know. In fact, a cottage industry is forming of companies that "achieve results" by gaming the system. They write fake blog posts or encourage reviews by people who didn't really review your product, or they are paying pennies for people to "learn and write" about your product.

If you are an agency CEO or company CMO, I am sure you pride yourself on ethics. You believe fake is bad. You don't see gray areas. You see "right" and "wrong." You never did fake testimonials in print. You never hired spokespeople to fake their experience in a commercial. You know the answer.

Still, do you have a clear policy on social media that everyone who works for you adheres to? Do you have clear rules of the road for how one should represent your brand online? Do you know what the best practices are for the industry? Are you sure?

As Warren Buffet has said, "in the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield." He also said something else critical to think about: "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it."

Muddy Water Washed Away

We live in a world where three out of four peers look to their friends for advice before they make a decision about their health, or a major purchase, or any other important issue. Companies don't have the bully pulpit anymore. Rather, we have to earn our way into the conversation, and we accomplish this by being respectful, building trust and, essentially, behaving like a trusted peer.

So, when I see firms -- small, medium or large -- defending their disclosure policies, I see a problem. When I see advocates of sponsored conversations, for example, explain how it is OK to pay someone to speak on a specific brand and customers will be fine with it because they have a disclosure icon, I get concerned.

After all, they represent your brand, and my experience tells me that customers are not stupid. They may not understand what is happening while the windshield wipers are valiantly wiping away all the rhetoric -- but eventually, clarity emerges in the marketplace.

When clarity emerges, your reputation will be right in the center. It's worth wondering whether your board of directors would be proud of how you promoted and protected your brand. Think ahead a year or two, and imagine this scenario.

The lesson based on my experience working for Fortune 500 companies on both sides of the Atlantic is that ethics is not as subjective as it sometimes seems. Your reputation should be guarded with care.

Red Alert

What's the good news? This is all achievable. You need a super-clear online policy, disclosure guidelines and rules of the road that every member of your team -- whether it's the person in the next cube or a subcontractor a continent away -- adheres to. Anyone who touches your brand is part of your team and should live by your standards.

I won't name brands or firms. I find that counterproductive. However, I will say that it is time, right now, for you to take this seriously. As the FTC gets ready to provide guidelines and the FDA holds a public hearing Nov. 12 and 13th, don't get hung up defending those in the gray area. Protect your brand by doing the right thing now and forever after. Don't wait for regulations to tell you what you know you should do.

Or, don't do anything and smile when adult supervision is offered by the FTC or FDA or other regulating body for your industry.

We are not in a gray area. It's a red area. Act now, before it becomes a "read area" about your brand in the news.

---

Bob Pearson is chief technology and media officer for WeissComm Group and chief evangelist for the Social Media Business Council.

A Case of The Yeah Buts and What Ifs

 

The other day my son was suffering from a case of what I call the “Yeah Buts” and “What Ifs”.  I was trying to explain the list of things we were going to do that day and, at every turn, he fired back with a “yeah but…” or “what if…”.  I eventually won out, but it helped that I expected resistance and was prepared to respond.

 

In reflection, this scene was not entirely different from the discussions pharma communicators and agency staff are having with legal and regulatory colleagues as we discuss social media engagement. 

 

Many of us have been in meetings to discuss a program or concept review and, no matter how well-intentioned, thought-out, or supported by case studies and competitive examples, the response we hear is often akin to a “yeah, but”.

 

There’s hope on the horizon.  Maybe.

There’s been a lot of buzz regarding the pending FDA Meeting on internet and social media use by regulated medical products.  The enthusiasm, speculation and predictions about the outcomes are all over the pharmasphere.  Suffice it to say, I think all involved would agree that the time has come for the FDA to address the internet – and social media specifically – and that FDA guidance needs to evolve to reflect the variables of new technologies and mediums.   However, as my colleague Brian Reid alluded to here (see Myth #3), this is not going to happen overnight.

 

So what do we do in the meantime? 

 

Well, for starters, expect more yeah buts and what ifs to come.  Here are a few things you can continue to do to prepare for those conversations:

· Drill home the importance of developing appropriate social media strategies for your company or brand(s).  Not every brand needs to be on Facebook or Twitter.  But, at the very least, every company and brand should know where the relevant conversations are happening and who is involved.

· Educate - Often times, I find that the same colleagues offering “yeah buts” are, themselves, not at all involved in social media.  Part of our challenge will be to educate them on the medium - providing easy-to-understand explanations of communities, file-sharing sites, microblogs, etc.

· Share examples – Don’t just send a “look what competitor X is able to do” email.  Pull together relevant examples – both good and bad.  (Hat tip to Jonathan Richman for this list of pharma companies and brands engaged in social media.)

· Enlist support – Internally, your commercial leadership needs to be aligned with your plans and informed about the barriers ahead of you.  Enlist their help in making the case. 

 

Finally, like my discussion with my son, be prepared and be persistent!

Dear CMO: A Letter From Your Customers

Column as it appears in Sept. 28, 2009 AdWeek

I spend my days analyzing what customers are doing online and talking with CMOs and their teams. I've often wondered what the 1.67 billion folks online would say if they could share their thoughts in our meetings. Here is what I imagine they would  say:
 
Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. CMO:
 
We don't know who you are since most of you are not online, but we hear you're very important to  us. We don't recall many of you asking for our ideas, but we thought we would provide them anyway. Here's our top 10 list. 
 
1. You are welcome to join us. No offense, but we don't need companies anymore, at least like we used to. We're part of a "liquid network" and we're loyal to great content, which we can easily get online. We're sure we go to a lot of places that don't show up on your media buying plan, but that's OK. Which gets to our next point.
 
2. E-mail and trees: please start saving more of both. We don't really respond that much to catalogs anymore and we're tired of promotional e-mails that speak at us. We love when companies speak directly with us, like HP (hp.com/hpinfo/blogs/index.html) or Intuit. Even better when you ask for our ideas, like Starbucks (mystarbucksidea.force.com). It's easy to get to know you when we're having a conversation and then we can decide when to buy. How's that for a concept?
 
3. There are 365 days in a year. For many of your companies, we only buy something from you once or twice a year, but we like your brand. Would you mind finding ways to be relevant to us all year round without trying to sell us?  We really do think about travel and technology all of the time, but not in the ways you may think. Become part of our world. 
 
4. Video rocks. We like to learn much more via video than copy. It's one of the reasons why YouTube is now the second-largest search engine. It would be great if you realized this is a more important channel. Just check out the facts, we're there.
 
5. Personalize search.  Why do we always have to go to a destination site to begin a search? It's so annoying. Can't we integrate Google or Bing into our favorite community? What's keeping us from getting there?

6. Ratings and reviews. So glad you started doing this, but now we have a blizzard of them. When there are tens of thousands to choose from, we have to admit we start tuning out. Can we please evolve this area so we can see what our peers think? Remember, we seek out peer advice three out of four times before a purchase, so we'll bet the conversion numbers will work.
 
7. Technical support. We're told CMOs "don't do technical support." We just want to let you know that you should. It's so easy to improve our experience with your brand. For example, do you know that more than 90 percent of us will never call you this year? Yet, we may have issues. We figure it out on our own or via our technical support team-our peers. It would be great if you focused on the larger population, rather than wait until we call you out of desperation.
 
8. Languages. We're not all the same, which we know you know intellectually. But why aren't you having conversations with us in at least the 10 languages that reach 90 percent of us? You see, we only make decisions of importance in our native language, probably just like you. 
 
9. Our phones. We love our phones and we're getting more used to them as our primary device, along with our laptops. Any reason why most of you don't offer SMS alerts or make it clear which mobile apps are best for us? With a few billion phones in the world and 3G taking off, we hope this moves up the priority list. 
 
10. Your role. We don't know each other, but we hear you're the leader of our experience, so to speak. All we ask is that when you're running important meetings inside your company and doing lots of PowerPoints, which we hear is critical to success, don't forget we're outside of your building. The world is a better place with your full attention.  Until then, remember we'll be here when you can make it out. 
 
Yours truly,
 
The 1.67 billion customers of the online world

Bob Pearson is chief technology and media officer of the WeissComm Group, and chief evangelist of the Social Media Business Council. He can be reached at bpearson@wcgglobal.com.

The FDA, Swine Flu and Twitter

It used to be that the public found out about FDA approvals in a relatively straightforward way: the wire services would tell them, either because the company involved pushed out a press release or the FDA did. It was a great example of the old-fashioned news flow: newsmaker to media to public.

That's a system that is breaking down in the age of text messaging and Twitter, and another FDA approval -- this time of the new swine flu vaccine -- illustrated that brilliantly. At about 1 p.m. on Sept. 15, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, was giving her opening statement at a House of Representatives committee meeting. There was nothing in her prepared statement that suggested there would be anything more than an update on the current swine flu planning, but not long after Sebelius started speaking, she dropped a bombshell: the FDA had cleared the swine flu vaccine.

Because the committee meeting wasn't packed with FDA reporters, the new trickled out slowly. at 1:37 p.m., Rep. Greg Walden broke the news, hammering a tweet into his BlackBerry: "Participating in hearing on H1N1 flu with Sec Sebelius. FDA has just approved four more vaccine producers. Go to http://www.flu.gov for more info."

By the end of the hour, the first wire story had appeared, from the Associated Press. But into today's fragmented media world, a single AP story didn't have immediate impact and questions began to swirl. It's not the wire services that carry the world's most up-to-date news. It's Twitter.

"FDA has approved the swine flu vaccine, but no details yet. Lemme know if you seem 'em before I do," tweeted Scott Hensley, the veteran health reporter now at NPR, at 2:26 p.m. CNBC's Mike Huckman had jumped on the case, informing his followers at 2:37 p.m. "Sebelius told Congress apparently. Told FDA working up PR now." Nine minutes later, he had more confirmation: "Sanofi-Aventis $SNY confirms FDA has approved its H1N1 #swineflu vaccine. AP reports FDA has also OK'd AstraZeneca $AZN & Novartis $NVS vax."

Even two hours after Sec. Sebelius made the news, journalists were still hunting down details. At 3:09 p.m., the Baltimore Sun's dependable Kelly Brew was still seeking out info, keeping her followers up to date: "hearing reports that a swine flu vaccine has just won FDA approval.. will keep you posted."

By the end of the day, the FDA and company press releases were out, the story was being told, and order had been restored to the media universe. Still, there was no official government word of the approval on Twitter until nearly 8 p.m., when the flu.gov's Twitter stream carried a link to the FDA press release.

What's remarkable is where the tweets didn't come from. The FDA's new "drug info" Twitter account carried no news of the approval. And despite the fact the two of the four companies whose vaccines were cleared are on Twitter, there was nary a tweet on the subject from AstraZeneca or Novartis.

The point isn't that the old model of news distribution is hopelessly antiquated (it worked just fine on Friday, with two FDA approvals reaching the public using the usual pathway), it's that there are a lot more channels to think about, channels that the media are already relying upon for their newsgathering. For huge and growing numbers of newshounds, Twitter is their primary information source. As the flu approval demonstrated, a lack of engagement on Twitter means -- quite literally -- missing the story.

The 5 Myths Surrounding the FDA and Social Media

The last time the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gathered information on how it ought to regulate medical information on the Internet, it was 1996. Google wouldn't exist for 2 more years, and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was 12 years old.

That is all about to change. The FDA will, in mid-November, hold a hearing to get comments from the public on a huge list of questions as the agency considers whether to revise its approach.

Given the silence from the FDA about the rules of the road for online communication, this has been greeted with breathless excitement by FDA-watchers (the Federal Register notice is a "must-read," read one early comment on Twitter. "Nothing less than astounding," gushed a blogger). And while the hearing will no doubt be looked back upon as a turning point in term of FDA rulemaking, there are a number of myths worth dispelling about where the FDA is headed:

Myth #1. The FDA Cares About Your Opinion: The 2-day hearing is going to be packed with speakers offering their own expert opinion on what the FDA should do. It's entirely likely that those people will be entirely ignored by the agency. They care about data, and they ask participants to show "data" or "research" more than a half-dozen times in announcing the meeting. (They are also curious about real-world experiences.) If you have information about how users seek health info on the web, the FDA is going to pay close, close attention. The best example of this is a presentation by Duke's Ruth Day in 2005, in which she offered a study that showed that distracting imagery in drug ads inhibited comprehension of risk information. Earlier this year, the agency tightened drug ad rules specifically citing ... distracting imagery.

Myth #2: FDA is Ready For Wholesale Change: In announcing the meeting, the agency suggests that its current approach -- that it is in the business of regulating the message, not the medium -- remains a useful tool for dealing with a whole range of issues on the Internet. And while its clear that there some areas in which their it's-the-message framework starts to break down, the hints in the meeting announcement is that they're looking to patch holes, not change the game.

Myth #3: New Rules Are Right Around the Corner: The meeting might be happening soon, but there is no indication that the FDA is going to move with any kind of speed. They'll take comments until the end of February and then will have to sift through what is bound to be a mountain of information. Perhaps they'll get around to issuing some targeted guidance by the end of 2010, but it could well be closer to 2 years before what gets said in November is fully digested by the FDA. Remember, it was 4 years between Day's presentation and new FDA rules.

Myth #4: The Agency is Taking a Hard Look at the Adverse Event Rules: From all indications, the agency feels pretty comfortably with its rules about what side effects need to be reported. What they don't know is exactly how industry is approaching the issue. The questions the FDA is asking around adverse events makes it sound like its trying to pull the curtain back on what pharma is actually doing, not change the rules of the game.

Myth #5: Industry is the Only One with Skin the Game: The FDA's questions hit the topic of transparency a lot, opening up the intriguing possibility that, even if rules are loosened, third-party groups are going to have to be a lot more explicit about where the funding and other support for their online initiatives are coming from. While unrestricted educational grants and unbranded campaigns have become popular ways to engage online without crossing the FDA, anyone that touches industry may soon be forced to think hard about relationships -- however tenuous -- with regulated industry.

From “Communicator” to “Conversation Architect”

As published in the O'Dwyer's PR Report September, 2009 issue

 

It’s called social media for a good reason.  Never have we had a better opportunity to listen, learn and speak directly with our customers, and what this new phenomenon really represents is an amazing opportunity to build a more valuable relationship with the people we serve. 

As a result, the communications profession is going through its most intense transformation in decades.  In the period that follows, the followers will remain “communicators” and the leaders will become “conversation architects”.  Here’s why.

The sheer size of this change is mind-boggling.  Approximately 500,000 people go online everyday for the first time in their lives.  Moreover, the location and habits of our audiences are changing, particularly in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America.  China is now the leading online country by a wide margin over the United States. 

Facebook is the community of choice and is now equal in size to Indonesia, which has the fourth largest population in the world.  YouTube is now the third largest search engine.   

Consumers are in the driver’s seat.  Using social media, customers decide how they will  receive information and where and when they will review a product before buying it.  Before making key purchasing decisions, three out of four customers ask their peers for advice.  The age of self-sufficiency is emerging.   

Smart communicators already see this change and the opportunity it represents.  This is where I draw the line between a conversation architect and a communicator.   

Communicators often share content they have expertly prepared in the hope that coverage will somehow lead to good things.  It might; but increasingly, it might not.

Conversation architects understand how to enter the conversation with their customer and become a valuable partner to share ideas, product knowledge and solutions, and empower that customer to share the story. 

The conversation architect realizes that the following trends are important. 

Customers are actually co-shaping the reputation of our brands without us.   As a result, companies need to become part of the discussion to influence the reputation of those brands.  In other words, we have to actually participate or we are unwittingly outsourcing the reputation of our brand.  Companies such as Radian6 and Visible Technologies are helping communicators identify, with precision, who is talking about their company.

It’s possible to identify issues before they become highly public via strong online monitoring.  Communicators are trained to deal with an issue once it hits the press.  Conversation architects, on the other hand, realize they can see trends earlier and plan, sometimes weeks in advance, for the same issue.

Customers are part of their own “liquid network”.  This means that they are loyal to the content they want and they will morph their habits to find what they need.  It’s subtle.   The shifts are like an ocean’s currents.  Communicators believe they can plan for the year against a set list of influencers.  Conversation architects know that influencers shift with time and they watch it happen in real time.   This is why being part of the community is so important.  Intuit is a perfect example of a company that participates with its customers in their communities of choice.  Microsoft does a terrific job of reaching developers via www.channel9.msdn.com.

Customers spend less than one percent of their lifetime purchasing products online.  The real influence occurs during browsing and socialization.  Conversation architects know where their customers go to learn before purchase.  Communicators try to drive traffic to a transactional site.  Conversation architects introduce themselves to their customers in social environments, ensure their reviews and related product content are ready for browsing and do a great job in the transactional space.  They see the big picture.  Here is an easy test for you  Think of your web site traffic and then remember that 1.6 billion people are online.  How many visit your site each day?

Customers like to do three thing as long as it helps their peers: share ideas, share product knowledge and share solutions.  Customers don’t care about your company, they care about their community.  Communicators try to convince them to take actions they want them to take.  Conversation architects empower customers to share their expertise with their peers.

How we are consuming content is changing.  YouTube, for example, is becoming a key location for learning.  Communicators create slick videos to tell their story.  Conversation architects provide a combination of their story, customer’s insights and how to’s geared to what people want to learn about online.

The media world isn’t changing, it has already fundamentally changed.  Bloggers often drive as much or more share of conversation online as reporters.  Communicators resist this change.  Conversation architects focus on who drives their share of conversation, regardless of the outlet.  Two great examples of this are Pfizer’s presence on Twitter at www.twitter.com/pfizer_news and GE’s approach to sharing its news via GE Reports at www.gereports.com. Note: Pfizer is a WeissComm client. 

Finally, we know that ethical behavior is key to maintaining trust.  Nothing has changed.  There are no short cuts to success in social media.  Flogs, splogs or sponsored conversations are not the answer.  Real conversations with real customers provide value.  That is what works. 

1.      It’s a great time to be in the communications profession – a time when we can all participate in reshaping the importance of our jobs to build value for our clients and their brands. 

Bob Pearson, Chief Technology & Media Officer, WeissComm Group and President, Social Media Business Council

Why the Big Guns Aren't Moving the Needle on Health Reform

Early in President Obama's address to the joint session of Congress yesterday, he underscored how important reform was to those intimately involved in health care: "Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition ... even drug companies, many of whom opposed reform in the past." His point was clear. The health care system was fraying so dramatically that all stakeholders -- even big pharma  -- had to be in the reform camp.

He didn't have emphasize drugmakers. He could have spoken about the support of the American Medical Association, which is in favor of current legislation, or even insurers, who have largely sat on their hands during the debate despite being routinely vilified. One of the elements that makes the reform effort of 2009 different from attempts in 1993 or 1965 or 1952 is that the big interest groups, for the first time ever, are on the side of change.

Given that these groups are credited with deep-sixing nearly every effort at comprehensive health reform over the past century, it would stand to reason that reform bills should skate through Congress without such hurdles. After all, big business isn't throwing millions of dollars of TV ads to undercut the president this time around.

And yet the talking heads after the speech made clear that reform prospects remain precarious and that this is a numbers game now for the president. Can he hold Democratic votes? Can he nab a Republican senator? Two?

So if the big interest groups aren't the ones making this a nail-biter, who is? As it turns out, it's a collection of a thousand (or million) politically driven interest groups, many of them using media that didn't exist 18 years ago to get out their message. Some of it is the Internet, which has made both pontificating and organizing easier than ever, some of it is the explosion of 24-hour cable news. And some of it is the use of technology to make all sorts of old tools, from direct mail to canvassing, smarter and more effective.

The point here isn't to decry the echo-chamber effect in which we only hear the news we want to hear, from ideologically "safe" sources. (Though that it worth decrying.) It's to illustrate how good at transmitting messages the ideological warriors on both sides of the health issue (and, indeed, any political issue) have become, especially in contrast to health companies, who are just now dipping their toes in social media waters. In 1993, Harry and Louise and a boatload of national airtime could effectively steer the debate. Now, shaping the discussion is far more complex. Opponents of reform understand that. The unresolved questions are whether the health care industry -- patients, doctors, executives, researchers and scientists -- understand the new reality, and whether they can adapt to it quickly enough to salvage reform.