Like a lot of folks concerned with social media, I got my mini-geek on at the Mesh Conference held at Toronto’s MaRS Discovery District. I’m not going to go into a play-by-play account of Mesh — if you wanted that, you’d have followed the meshing on Twitter. Mesh (re) tweaked my interest some important issues that I believe need to be constantly challenged in the PR world. Those are privacy, anonymity and reputaton.

Many folks have an online self which can often have a different personality than their offline self. This is one of the privileges of the Net and social media. We have infinite potential to be who we want, when we want to our chosen audience. I’m sure that many poignant 10-minute unions of the heart and hand have been made this way. I am also confident that there are an equal number of folks who have been cyber-bullied because of this set of circumstances.

As some background … I started blogging in 2001 when I found out that I was pregnant with my daughter. My partner’s family lives in B.C. so we thought that a blog would be an excellent way to communicate the changes of our lives and the pregnancy progress to our family and friends as well as to document the experience of becoming a mother.

Being a “gung-ho” type of chyk, I really dove into the online world. I joined Mamatron.org, a BB for, “mamas of color, bi/lesbian/poly mamas, very young mamas, mamas on public assistance, sex worker mamas, single mamas, artist mamas, socialist mamas, green mamas, anarchist mamas, and pro-choice mamas.” There was a discussion group for women who were due at the same time. I loved that group of women. They supported me through sleep deprivation, money concerns, hormonal flux, and I know that I was able to share with them as well.

That was until a cyber-bully named “Big Fat Breeder” decided that because I had used the dreaded “b” word (hint - rhymes with itch) in a conversation of support with another woman. Essentially, in spite of a mea culpa, I was drummed out of a supportive community because of the actions of a person who lived behind her online identity.

I’m over it, don’t worry. The experience has flavoured my approach to social media, however.

Everyone needs privacy - no doubt. However, if someone wants to participate in a conversation, isn’t it just good manners to say who you are? Otherwise, it is akin to walking into a person’s home, not telling her who you are, provoking an incendiary political discussion and leaving.

Students are being expelled for cyber-bullying: curiously, this practice remains de rigueur, for many adults. It’s too bad. I have to wonder how many conversations are limited due to the power of an anonymous comment.

Last week, students belonging to the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) Student Steering Committee (SSC) did a “pub crawl” of sorts to PR agencies in the city. I think it’s brilliant and wonder if such a thing existed when I was a student…surely I would have been smart enough to partake? I digress. Anyways, about 20 or so students came by to chat, learn about what it is we PR folk do and ask questions. Joe was kind enough to ask me attend, along with Chris, Terry and Michael, which I was happy to do. I am always happy to talk with students about what it is I do, to offer any advice I may have and any wisdom I may have acquired. The group, students from a variety of PR schools in the area, looked like any typical PR class- mostly female, mostly early twenties; a few token males, a couple over 30. Joe spent most of the time talking about social media and the virtue of blogging and podcasting. The main message was “Blog. Engage in social media. Join the conversation.” Many of the students read blogs, however very few of them have blogs. And I think that’s ok. Having a blog to have a blog is the worst reason. If you don’t have anything to say, we’ll know. And you’ll burn out. And no one will be impressed. If it’s something you’re truly interested in and have a theme, or topic about which you’re particularly passionate, than I encourage you to start a blog and jump in.

But blog to blog? Recipe for disaster. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, TFC is pretty blog-heavy. Our last two hires in Toronto are people who were already involved in the blogosphere and as Dave once pointed out, TFC is cornering the market on PR bloggers. I know there are many Canadian PR agencies that are jumping aboard the blog wagon, and I’d love to hear from them- just how important is it that employees maintain a blog? I’m of the mind that it’s more important to understand social media and how it functions in today’s communication world. How can I use social media to help my clients? How can social media affect my clients? These are questions we ask regularly and I think are valuable questions we need to be able to answer. Knowing how to use this new communication tool is far more important than having your own blog. They’re a lot of work!

A while back I wrote about the 18-24 Generation (of which I am no longer a part…) and how their whole lives are online. If you pull out their iPod’s, take away their cell phones and unplug their computers, will they still function? Just because a person can and does blog (and let’s face it, no every blog is good or well written or worth our time) does that mean they can write, manage accounts, advise clients, manage media? Should blogging be enough to work in PR? It’s the newest skill, it’s certainly not the only or even most important skill. So my question is: How important is blogging to you and your company?

First off, I should disclose that I am technically I member of the 18-24 year old demographic, if only just. I turn 25 at the end of this month, so I’m on the edge. But despite being a part of this group, I am worlds away from those at the other end, even those just a mere 3-5 years younger than myself. Why am I spending so much time elaborating on this? Because a lot of attention is bestowed on this demographic. Television networks want them to watch their shows. Magazines want them to read their publications. Corporations want them to buy their products. They (we) are the prize.

Moreso than any other generation before them, these young adults have grown up along side of drastic technological change. I was in the sixth grade when we got our first home computer. All my high school papers had to be typed. My nephew, only 6 years my junior and at the opposite end of this demographic, has had a computer since he was five. He could build one with only minimal supervision by the age of 13. Everything in his life is done online. He is computer savvy, internet savvy and skeptical of everything around him. He is who corporations want on their side. He and his friends talk about the world on MySpace and MSN Messenger. If they like something or hate something, it’s posted online for the world to see.

Why do you care about my nephew? Well, because every business in the world, large and small, tell us that he is the future. But he doesn’t know how to research in a library. He doesn’t know that there are printed journals on every topic you can imagine sitting in Academic libraries across North America. So why are we trying to learn from him and change our world to suit him and his friends?

When Shel Israel came to town a couple weeks back, he talked about the 18-24 year olds. He told us that they are online, they blog and they will continue to do so once they enter the workforce. The companies that embrace social media and technology are the ones who will succeed in hiring the brightest and the best. And although this seems very logical, I can’t help but wonder why the rest of the world, the majority of the world for that matter, is being encouraged to bow and accommodate these kids. Shouldn’t they have to adapt to the world a little bit too? Change is good. Technology has allowed us to do things our grandparents couldn’t even imagine. I don’t dispute these things. I don’t dispute that the 18-24 year olds can bring something new and exciting and important to the world and the workforce. I just question the carte blanche they’re being given. Well then blog, so we have to let them if we want to keep them. Do we really? And how are we to know that they best, brightest, most influential people of that generation are online? Aren’t we maybe a little closed-minded to think that the best members of society blog about their life?

I’m a fairly new addition to the blogosphere and I do enjoy it. But I also remember that in university, you couldn’t use online sources. Why? Because there is no way to verify the authenticity of the information. I had to look it up in books. That isn’t going to change; it shouldn’t. Those 18-24 year olds are going to have to learn that and I’m willing to bet that they won’t like or understand it. And do you really want to hire someone who has blogged since they were 10 but doesn’t know how to search archival journals? Doesn’t know where to go to do actual, physical research? Do you want someone who can only write with spellcheck and uses expressions like “lol, brb, l8tr?” If that’s enough for you, you’ll be happy with what you get. But I’ll bet that the companies that are going to thrive in years to come are the ones that look beyond social media and the World Wide Web to find the brightest and the best. And the North Americal 18-24 year olds might not cut it in the long run. They might one day rule the world. But is it going to a world you’re proud to be a part of? Will you even recognize it?

One more thing. Yes, it’s quite cool that you can have conversations with people online and through blogs who are half a world away. But you’ll never meet them. Yes, these 18-24 year olds are well connected with friends in Mexico, Australia, Sweden, China. But can they relate to people? Can they socialize without a computer and a keyboard? Isn’t the price of actual human relationships just a little too costly to waste?

I live in a city which has, over the course of the past 20 years, done an incredible job of getting people to “think green”. We have one of the highest recycling rates in the country and there is a reasonable amount of pack mentality that makes people stop in front of the array of garbage and recycling bins in public places to ensure they are dumping their papers in the paper bin, bottles in the bottle bin, etc. Not perfect but it works.

When I go to our place in the country, there are no such sensibilities but perhaps that’s because in the country we haul our own garbage to the dump. You can tell the city folks at a country dump because they are likely the only ones taking the time to ensure recyclables are properly sorted.

I think the success of Toronto’s recycling initiatives have been the result of consistent messaging about the importance of reduce, reuse and recycle as well as the more practical message that the less we dump, the less we spend. I admit I have been pleasantly surprised months or years later to find it really has been worth the effort.

But there is one green thing happening in my neighbourhood right now that no amount of “go green” messaging will help me understand or agree with. And that is the building of a composting toilet that will sit in a mud and straw structure in the middle of a downtown city park. This toilet will have to be carefully monitored to ensure only human waste gets into it. (As an aside … I want to know who’s on that patrol and assume they aren’t anticipating that all the neighbours will sign up for a tour of composting toilet clean-out duty).

I guess I can be convinced that the greater good will be served if we all learn a little more about how composting toilets work. I suppose those little folk who desperately need access to facilities won’t have to walk another 150 yards to get to the one which is currently available (with flush toilets). And I can even go along with the idea that building something together is also community building. But what I don’t buy is that just because something is green, beautifully and artfully created it must the the right thing to do at this place, at this time.

Which brings me to the crux of my rant, why are media in general so susceptable and uncritical of the “green message”? Lots of attention gets paid to the heartfelt efforts of those who have green on their minds but little to those who might have other ideas, perspectives or context? Worse yet, the distortion of the “green” message is buried by criticisms of hard-working public servants. City staff trying to deal with this one don’t have a chance. In this case they are portrayed as mean bureacrats because they insist on having a safety fence around an eight foot deep hole in the ground. Is there a solution? It would be so nice to see a little more critical assessment on the part of the media on issues such as this — giving a reasonable pro and con approach? Most of the neighbours I have spoken with have the “resistance is futile” attitude. They know to raise a voice even to ask reasonable questions will mean they will be marginalized by the “green” group. Those who speak up are left to the Letters to the Editor not the news pages.

While the example in my local park is about composting toilets, anyone else struggled with how to respond “green at all costs” messaging from a personal or professional point of view? There is a large majority silent by choice or chance who might want to be heard on this one as long as they feel their voice will be listened to with respect.

Right off the bat I have to say that I have many good friends who are lawyers and I love them. And I also know many lawyers (including some of the friends) who really don’t fit the stereotype I’m talking about here, so apologies to them – this is not for you.

Have you ever noticed how often lawyers think of themselves as the PR professionals? Why? Well maybe they are right because one of the most ubiquitous phrases in the lawyerly PR lexicon (aside from “Objection”) may just be “no comment”. And somehow people have come to think – even people who aren’t lawyers – that this is the right and only thing to say when times are bad. Sure, spout off a phrase that really means “I actually do know something you don’t but I’m just going to walk rudely away now.”

 Did the CEO of Johnson & Johnson say “No comment” when some crazy person poisoned samples of the company’s leading over-the-counter pain medication. No. And the Tylenol tampering issue has become an legend for good communications and PR in a crisis. What about the head guy from Air France? When one of his big jets slid off the runway in Toronto did he say “no comment”? No. He acknowledged the trauma that it caused to those on the plane (all of whom had miraculously survived), their families even those who were driving by the scene. You insert your own favourite examples here…

I understand the need for caution when something bad has happened and information is scarce. There is a reality of assuming responsibility for something – and the liability for fixing it – before all the facts are known. Could we just use two of the best PR tools first: sensitivity and common sense? As professionals it’s our job to make sure the reputation of our organization or client is maintained in the short and long term and using “no comment” as a tool just won’t cut it. Let “no comment” stay in the domain of comics and sitcom writers, please. Anyone have a favourite “no comment” experience to share?

I just spotted this and it made me chortle. At least it’s honest, no? End of the day, isn’t business development the real reason consultants (marketing, PR, the whole shebang) are in the ’sphere in the first place?

So, I’m back in the T dot after a couple weeks in the homeland. Been busy - ate some toutons, spied some puffins, drank on George, rode the waves, sang with my sisters, got kissed by a sailor and, oh yeah, got married. I will put my hand up and readily admit I’ve been partying with family and friends, blithely ignoring all online nonsense and shenanigans, and now feel mild, maybe semi-mild, pressure to write something profound to mark my return. Thus, I’ll do what most bloggers do, i.e. cast about to find something someone else has said, glom on to it and add my worthless two cents.

So, my current boss and my former boss, on their ever-popular podcast, have been discussing networking. More specifically, they’ve been discussing their top hints and tips on how to network. Basically (to crib shameless from their show notes) Terry said that his most powerful networking tip is to be yourself and worry about building the relationship, not selling services. David said you should always stay in touch and provide some value so people see you as someone who can help them out.

In principle, I don’t disagree with either of these tips. My problem (and I always seem to have a problem, don’t I?) is that by calling it “networking”, we give the impression that it’s an actual skill or tool that must be (and can be) acquired and applied. Like desktop publishing or speaking French. Or, in this instance, like writing a press release. I blame college profs and biz/self-help authors for starting this.

You can try to make it sound fancier and apply all the business babble jargon to it, but “networking” is no more than being interesting and engaging people. All people, any people. That’s it. Networking = being personable. (Students, save the $20 you were going to spend buying this and go chat someone up at the pub. It will be more useful.)

We all have, at one point or another, been approached by someone who has read one too many checklists on “How to Network.” The greasy grin and crunching handshake, the studied manner of nodding and smiling, the practiced questions about “So, what do you do?”, the ability to get a business card into your hand from 30 feet away. It’s gross, it turns people off.

The ability to engage people is innate, I think - some people have a natural rapport with others, some people don’t. Those who don’t, armed to the teeth with networking advice, just annoy people at cocktail parties and do themselves more harm than good in their career. If being engaging and personable doesn’t come naturally, all the books on Amazon won’t help. If that’s the case, your best bet is to do damn good work and align yourself with someone who can sing your praises. After all, you can network your pants off, but if your work isn’t good you’ll be well-known for all the wrong reasons. (Overheard at an IABC event: “Quick, let’s go. That boring/awkward/weird guy is on his way over. Hey, by the way, did you hear he just lost the XX account?”)

I’m going to preface this by saying that I mean no offence to anyone who works in advertising. Some may say I fit into that mould, but unless I’m trying to get out of doing a phone survey (works like a charm), I will vehemently argue against you. I wrote a post a few weeks ago about Defining PR- this may be a bit of a follow-up as I continue on my quest to find the ideal universal definition. One thing that defines advertising is how blantant it can be; PR tends to be far more subtle. In fact the best PR affects consumers without them ever knowing it took place. Advertising on the other hand? It wants to be in your face. Advertising is often considered a success if it just gets you talking about it. So I’m playing right into their hands…

There are several things that bother me about advertising but one in particular really gets my goat: when one company puts down its main competitor in an effort to push product. Biggest offender? Pepsi. From what I can see, they seem to spend the majority of their advertising time and budget on putting down Coke. Now I haven’t seen their budget- I don’t know the figures and I don’t plan on guessing. I’m only going on what I see- but what I see isn’t so creative. If you have to put down your main competition in order to sell your product, somthing’s wrong with your approach. Just tell us why you have the better one. To me, it comes off looking pathetic. Same goes for the Pepsi Challenge, where kioks in malls and at events would have you guess which sip tastes better, hoping of course, that you’ll “unknowingly” choose Pepsi. So let me get this straight…you know Coke is better and you need to prove that we can’t tell them apart so that we’ll buy yours? Personally, I prefer Coke and as long as Pepsi spends their dollars putting Coke down, they will lose my money along with my respect.

A newer offender is Apple. Now I have always had a PC. I know them better, they work for me. I have worked on an Apple, however, and they are nice- nice looking, nice to use. No complaints. They worked magic with the iPod, everyone but me has one, good for them, it’s also a nice little gadget. They have done great things to revamp their image over the last few years and kudos for that. But as soon as they started their advertising campaign with the older, conservative “PC Man” and the young, hip and cool “MAC Dude,” they lost me. Find a more creative way to tell us why you’re better; don’t put down your competition to do it! If I was considering an iPod when my wonderful little Creative Muvo dies, I’m not now.

It’s advertisements such as those that make me proud to be in PR. We don’t put down the competition to push our product. We have to find more creative ways to get it in the media and on consumer’s radar. Blatancy doesn’t work for us. And while I know that advertising people work very hard, PR people don’t have the option of taking the easy way out.

I like Strumpette. There. I’ve said it. (Or typed it, same diff.)

I don’t care if it’s written by one woman, three women and “a token male” (as asserted by The Washington Post) or three men and a baby. The best satire comes from inside, and satirists sometimes need anonymity. Big deal. For all their mumbo jumbo about empowerment, conversation, blah blah blah, the Blog Police are pretty quick to forge rules and get irate if someone dares ignore said rules. Rule #1, apparently, is that the “blogosphere” and pseudonyms don’t mix. Says who?

There are some lovely, civilized and incredibly intelligent people in my office who don’t like Strumpette, and I can understand why people might be put off. There’s partial nudity, there’s foul language, and a very specific hate-on for Richard Edelman. Women in the business - especially those who have worked and worried hard to bury any notion that women are second-rate practitioners in any way - might be offended by her characterization.

“Bottom line professionally speaking, I am 5’ 4” tall, athletic, Pantene shoulder-length black hair, perfect perky boobs. I present well and am most accomodating. I’ve slept with clients. I sleep with my boss. I am the consummate PR strumpette. When I was 7 my mother told me I’d “never get anywhere with that mouth.” I’ve apparently dedicated my life in proving her wrong.”

But it’s satire. And even if you don’t particularly care for the way Amanda “presents”, she has something relevant to say about the business. I think she’s gotten under the skin of many because there’s truth in much of what she writes. (Plus, she can write. Plus, she doesn’t mind a bit of character assassination.) Most of what’s written by PR for PR is back-slapping, self-congratulatory word-fluff. Where’s the bigger crime? 

If PR-types are too thin-skinned to take some roasting about this business, then we might as well stop all the whinging and hand-wringing, hand the budget over to the ad agency, and lock the door behind us on the way out. OK, so Chapel (and friends) has a mean streak and will bite if provoked. Fine. Refreshing, even. If there ever was an industry that needed a florescent light, a magnifying mirror and a reality check, it’s ours.

My colleague Chris Clarke has recently posted about an advertisement for PR he found on Craig’s List. Chris takes the view that this is not, in fact, PR. I disagree. This is indeed PR. But it’s a product of the PR “professionals” who give the industry a bad rap. This is the sort of ad that gets around and, unfortunately, gives the people who aren’t sure what PR is, an idea of what we do. The thing is, as we in the PR business know, good PR doesn’t get recognized. That great story you got on the cover of the Toronto Star? Only your company and your client know that you were instrumental in getting the coverage. Everyone else assumes it’s a product of pure journalistic talent.

It’s up to us PR practitioners to spread the word and educate people as to the true nature of PR and what the job entails. It’s a lofty aspiration, I know. But as far as I’m concerned, that’s just part of the job.