I want to explore a bit of a “hot topic” right before the long weekend.

Adam Giambrone was once a promising Toronto mayoral candidate, but now has been caught in a career altering predicament. The “indiscretion” of Adam Giambrone is now front page news, and while I’m not going to go into the morals of his situation the fact is that this is just one in a string of other such high profile “indiscretions”. Tiger Woods, David Letterman, John Edwards, Bill Clinton – the names have changed but the predicament was largely the same across the board. I should start by saying that this is not meant to focus solely on men/gender and for the sake of balance I’ll mention Iris Robinson, a member of the Irish parliament and wife of Ireland’s first minister – who was caught having an affair with a 19 year old male. (Her last name being “Robinson” was a coincidence not overlooked by the headlines.)

I’m not really interested in the sensationalism or the “fall of the mighty”, but what I am really interested in are the questions situations like these raise. How far should the personal lives of public figures affect their careers? And more than that, what lessons can all of us take away from those who have been through public backlash and scrutiny?

The one line from the media release that I couldn’t get out of my head after Tiger Woods’ own dirty laundry was aired publicly was; “personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn’t have to mean public confessions”.  This struck me as a very powerful and loaded statement.

In certain situations I can see where decisions that reflect the moral character of a person should come to bear on the public’s “right to know”. But should this or any similar situation negate all of the work and reputation of a person? It’s not an easy question.

The reality is that all of us need to be aware that we are our own “brand”. Tiger Woods was a brand for being the PGA’s squeaky-clean golden boy. While his affairs do not affect his sports performance, they do affect his “marketability”. But then do politicians – elected to represent the interests of voters, fail the same credibility test?

For me the one thing that matters in all of this is accountability. When mistakes are made, I think the best decision public figures can make is to accept responsibility with tact, sensitivity and humility. Because when the truth does come out, as it always does, I am much more apt to feel sympathy and respect for a humble figure.

What do you think? Do the personal lives of public figures deserve to impact their careers? What is the best way you feel they should handle any resulting scrutiny?

One evening, TTC rider Jason Wieler uses his iPhone to snap a picture of a TTC booth collector catching a few winks. A few weeks later he remembers taking the photo and posts it to his Twitter account with the caption “Yup, love how my TTC dollars R being spent…”

What happened next is a classic example of how technology and social media are completely changing the face of communication. The photo was re-tweeted and became a top news story in a matter of hours, following on the heels of bad press resulting from the recent transit fare increase. TTC officials were being asked to comment on a photo they may not have even seen yet, and Toronto media were trying to determine the identity of the worker who was photographed. Today, the story has come full circle and the man who was made unintentionally famous by all of this, George Robitaille, has released a public apology.

Thinking about this situation, I was reminded of the very first lesson I had in how an image can alter public perception from a University communications lecture – The televised presidential debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. In a nutshell – those who listened on the radio thought Nixon had won the debate while those who watched the televised events thought that Kennedy came out on top. While listeners thought that Nixon’s arguments were stronger, Kennedy’s appearance, composure and charisma worked in his favor with TV audiences. The content seemed to play less of a role on public opinion than the image.

In a similar way whether it was due to “an underlying medical issue and side effects of medication” as TTC officials and Mr. Robitaille have released, or a case of an employee simply caught sleeping on the job, the photo of the TTC collector reclined and asleep in his booth is what most people will remember.

A picture is an incredibly powerful form of communication, and even after it has been explained or contextualized it is one of the first things we think of. It can impact or reinforce opinions, and change the way we look at individuals, companies or entire organizations. For better or worse, we are becoming an increasingly visual society who relies on images for “proof” and to capture our attention.

Watching the situation unfold with this particular TTC operator created so many questions for me regarding privacy, disclosure and how social media is impacting our actions, interactions and reactions.

How do you feel about the role social media and technology plays in the creation and sharing of information/news?

This is your life, in 140 characters or less! Constant status updates make sure that no one will ever have to wonder if you are having fun at that party you were invited to, or how you are feeling in the wake of your last emotional crisis.

I’ll be the first to admit I love social media and use Twitter, Facebook, Linked In and Blogspot. I enjoy the freedom of sharing my thoughts and ideas, and also keeping in touch with friends and family who are “plugged in”. I even have a friend who recently admitted that they started going on Twitter just to get a hold of me to make plans (I felt fairly guilty, and cocktails were on me that week). But now the tide is turning, and social media critics are vocalizing the issues they feel are created from these online applications.

Today’s Globe and Mail features a very interesting article “Detox du jour: unplugging from Facebook” which takes a look at the reasons behind (as well as challenges to) abandoning social media sites and technology in favor of “more human interaction”. Another great article brought to my attention today (by Joseph Thornley) is the news that actor, writer and until recently, Twitter enthusiast Stephen Fry has decided to “go offline” for a brief period in order to concentrate on his writing.

Want to take things a step further? A recent related phenomenon that caught my attention was the slightly over the top “Web 2.0 Suicide Machine” which flashes slogans such as “So many people you don’t care about”, “Say good-bye with dignity” and “Feel free like a real bird again and untwitter yourself”. The website application completely and permanently deletes your social media profiles in one foul swoop. I think the term “suicide” and the USB noose on the site are a bit dramatic, but are trying to use some dark humor to show how attached people are getting to their online persona.

Personally, I don’t see myself pulling the plug anytime soon. Social media has been instrumental in allowing me to network, meet new people, keep in touch with friends and family from my hometown and overseas as well as provide me with a global learning tool from the blogs of some innovative and respected professionals. Why would I want to abandon all that?

Still, I know many people who are opting for this social strategy in hopes of freeing up their schedules and making a commitment to increasing their face time with friends. Which leaves me with this question, do you need to be unplugged to be productive and social? If the line has been truly drawn in the pro or anti-social media war, which side do you find yourself on? Personally, I’m “pro” on this issue but would love to hear what you think.

Will you be unplugging in 2010?

In a slight shift from my posts where I have been talking about starting my career in PR, I wanted in light of recent events to talk a bit about Public Relations as an industry. Specifically, headlines such as Sunday’s Toronto Star; “Spinning in the First Week of Michael Bryant’s New Life” and today’s Globe and Mail article; “Michael Bryant’s political strategy: PR 2.0”.

Both articles discuss PR in relation to Michael Bryant’s case, and from my reading of it and as someone working in PR I was a bit put off.  To pull a few quotes from the Star article; “It helps to have friends in PR”, “Look, the headline of this story should be: ‘Navigator, changing your perceptions without you even knowing it” and “He refers, of course, to Navigator Limited, the smooth public relations firm hired by Bryant (when exactly is unclear) to massage the message”. The article then continues to a full page analysis of the inner working of the messaging surrounding this tragic incident. The Globe article takes a look at Navigator’s use of social media (Twitter, Blog and Facebook) in relation to their client.

Personally, I resent the fact that PR is often tied to “spin”, deception and manipulation. I do not feel that reflects the work that I do, or the many other professionals who are passionate about communication and social media. However I did find it very interesting that the article pulls into the spotlight a PR firm, whereas usually the agency stays in the background.

I want to make it very clear that I am not choosing sides and making statements about Michael Bryant’s guilt or innocence.  I feel this is a very tragic situation for both sides. Lives have been changed forever. But facing these serious charges and the media onslaught, I can sympathize with Michael Bryant for enlisting the services of Navigator just as I respect the work they are doing on behalf of someone who will be forever affected by this moment in time. PR does not change “the facts”.  A strong team of media savvy professionals helping in the face of any crisis can provide advice, support and direction.

What do you think of the role PR plays in image management issues when a crime or tragedy has occurred?

On behalf of PR Girlz I’d like to apologize for our month-long absence. Things have been quite busy around the TFC office and busy unfortunately turned into no time for PR Girlz posts.  But PR Girlz is important and we’re going to make an effort to post even when we are busy. And busy is ultimately good since we have more experiences we can share with you!!

I decided for today’s post, as it is Friday, that I would go ahead and bring back “Casual Friday’s“. They used to be a more frequent occurrence on PR Girlz  as way to ease into the weekend on a more lighthearted and not necessarily PR related way.  On that note I bring you, Casual Friday!

I’m going to play devil’s advocate and talk about the potential downsides to social networking sites. So, I saw the e-card above a little while back and besides making me chuckle, it actually got me thinking. Now I love Facebook and Twitter as much as the next 20-something who lives at their computer. I love the fact that I can keep in touch with my friends and family through pictures, wall posts, and 140 character messages. It’s awesome. But, after seeing this e-card, I asked myself ”Could Facebook and Twitter actually be doing friendships and relationships more harm than good ?”

Facebook and Twitter give you the ability to see basically everything about what is going on in your friends lives without ever talking to them. Sometimes it’s easier to look at someone’s Facebook profile every now and then instead of actually keeping in touch. Sometimes it’s just easier to write your friend a quick wall-post instead of giving them a call.

Have you ever felt awkward seeing someone after a while and asking what they’ve been up to even though you already knew full well what they’d been up to because you have them on facebook and have obviously seen every single one of their status updates and photos? I have! Even with my closest friends, we are so connected online that when I actually see them in person I sometimes feel like we have nothing to talk about because we’ve already said it all!

Is it just me, or have we somewhat lost the ability to communicate in more traditional ways? Sometimes I find myself just looking at my own brothers facebook profiles or sending them a quick wall-post and convincing myself that I’m “keeping in touch” with them. And that sort of makes me sad. Communicating solely through a computer can only get you so far. It erases the human factor of communication. There are no expressions, emotions… no human voice.

At this point I think it’s important that I reiterate that I love Facebook and I love Twitter. I think they are excellent communication tools, especially if you are unable to see people face-to-face and I can’t really remember life before them. But I think it’s important, especially for us folks who spend 99% of our time “connected” to realize that communication through social networks is only one part of communication. It shouldn’t replace the face-to-face communication in our lives, it should be an addition to it. It’s easy to get excited and constantly post everything we’re doing or thinking while at the same time forgetting to actually step away for a little bit and live!

Do you think we’ve lost the ability to communicate in traditional ways? Do you feel like you spend too much time on social networking sites? Or am I way off base?

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 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?”)