In the battle between AT&T and Verizon, who wins?

You’ve seen them. The Verizon ads that mock AT&T’s 3G coverage with the cheeky tagline “There’s a Map for that.” So has a federal judge in Atlanta who says AT&T can’t count on the courts to block the competition from pointing out the truth.

In case you’ve missed all the hubbub, Verizon – after months of erroneous speculation the iPhone was finally coming to the V-network – launched a series of ads showing how much 3G coverage Verizon offers compared to AT&T’s puny 3G footprint.

Rather than let the ads run their course, the rocket scientists at AT&T decided the correct course of action was to go to court and claim the ads were misleading. “Look at how big our 2G and EDGE coverage is!” AT&T cried, ignoring the obvious and indisputable facts about their 3G network.

Sensing a nerve had been hit, Verizon made the ads available for sharing online and ordered up a whole new series of attack ads, including the retro “Island of Misfit Toys.” “There’s a Map for That” remains at No. 7 on Visible Measures’ list of top viral ad campaigns.

Within hours of getting booted from the courtroom, AT&T launched it’s own rebuttal ad using actor Luke Wilson. Hopefully AT&T has something better up it’s sleeve because this ad won’t move the needle or, more importantly, make the cash register beep. (They don’t ring any more people. Catch up.)

So, what should we make of all this?

It’s clear that both company’s actions reinforce their brand perceptions. AT&T has flashes of brilliance – the iPhone exclusive agreement – followed by poor execution and indifferent customer service. Verizon, the polar opposite, has generally great strategy and service backed by the occasional bone-headed move. Remember, they passed on the iPhone (Are you kidding me?) because they wanted the handset to be branded Verizon, not Apple.

It remains to be seen, however, if the ads are having a lasting financial impact at either company. And if this smackdown benefits any one other than the lawyers and ad agencies.

Some Things Should Remain a Mystery

Like most controversies, this one started small. A photo of French president Sarkozy canoeing with his son, shirtless and noticeably slimmer, appeared in a French publication that was later forced to admit that Le Président had lost weight courtesy of Le Photoshop.

Then, Ralph Lauren (the company, not the man, presumably) decided it was a good idea to alter the photo of a model by putting a regularly sized head on an impossibly thin body. Worse yet, they used the face and body of a model they had fired, allegedly for – wait for it – being too large (read: fat) to model the company’s new clothes.

Worse still, they did it again after claiming it was all a big mistake. That’s not an “Oops.” That’s a head-slapping “What were they thinking?”

The issue here isn’t that marketers use re-touched photos. It isn’t even that consumer advocates over-react and demand full disclosure when a photo is altered. (French lawmakers want to take it a step further and require warning labels that disclose when a photo has been altered. Viva la France!)

People pretty much expect marketing materials to be “improved.” Not only do we embrace using technology to make things appear better than they are, we all but demand it through our consumer behavior.

We buy Ralph’s clothes because we want to look like the people in the pictures. We pick a beach resort from a photo that crops out the dumpster and parking lot that stands between you and your “beachfront suite.” Add to that all the Botox, Spanx, Alli, and Viagra we buy to create an altered reality.

No, the issue, my friends, is not that photo editing occurs, it’s that marketers don’t think about the risk to their brand when they engage in extreme alteration. I dare say sales of Ralph Lauren brand clothes won’t be significantly impacted by this dust-up, but it is a distraction. And, there is a nice new ding in the reputation of RL.

In this economy, no brand – no matter how strong – can afford to be distracted from their mission by needless controversies like requiring photo disclosures.
Besides, where would you put warning label?

Lessons from the AMP and Illegal Alien Controversies

In the world of digital brands and social media, people have power over brands like never before. Well, yes and no.

This time last week the tweet meter looked like a fan, so fast people were registering their outrage on Twitter about the new AMP energy drink iPhone app that let guys shoot lame pick-up lines and alert friends in the unlikely event they scored. Surely, the conventional wisdom went, PepsiCo would pull the app immediately rather than risk brand damage.

To the soft drink brand’s credit, they apologized to anyone offended by the app. But, to the surprise and chagrin of the offended, the good folks at AMP returned to selling energy drinks and kept the app on the shelves of Apple App Store.

Contrast that with this week’s consumer brouhaha – the sale of a Halloween mask depicting an obvious space invader with a heavy mustache. Think E.T. meets Frito Bandito (for those of us of a certain age), hence the name “Illegal Alien.”

Once the complaints started on- and off-line, Target and other retailers (rightfully) pulled the costume faster than Speedy Gonzales could say “Andale`!”

Why did outrage have immediate effect in one case and seemingly none in the other?

Simple. Because the people offended by the Amp iPhone app are not buying Amp drinks and aren’t going to do so. Offended Target shoppers, on the other hand, are far more likely to leave stores shelves clogged unsold items.

So what lessons can we learn from these two events?

If you’re a consumer, use your brand power wisely and pick your battle’s carefully. You may be offended by a company’s products or actions, but shooting at the wrong brand – one that isn’t likely to care if they’re in the bull’s eye because you have no relevance to the brand – only diminishes the power people have to influence business decisions.

Adult women complaining about an obscure, downloadable iPhone app attached to a product purchased in bulk by twenty-something single males is the wrong group to prompt action. Parents and social advocates complaining about an offensive product targeted to children are the perfect people to force change in Halloween costumes.

If you’re a marketer, make sure you really do know your customers/prospects and the people who influence them before launching a controversial product or promotion. Be ready to pull the plug in a nano-second, but also be confident enough to know that not all critics are right and not all criticism requires a dramatic response.

You can't ignore the conversation, but sometimes, all you need to do is agree to disagree.

The End (of the Legacy Media) is Near

The End of the World is suddenly cool, what with the movie 2012 debuting soon and cable TV airing a program a day about the Mayan calendar or Nostradamus. I’ve made my own prediction about the End of Times, or rather the end of The Times (metaphorically speaking). Events of this past week make it clear the end is getting closer.

All you have to do is look at the illustration of Rupert Murdoch in the latest edition of Vanity Fair. He’s holding a laptop, sideways as if reading a newspaper. Murdoch - never especially Internet savvy - wants to charge for online news content after proclaiming at Beijing’s World Media Summit there is a trend toward charging for content. Never mind that most analysts, academics and other prognosticators say it’s too late to charge readers for general news content.

Murdoch had at least one ally in China - Associated Press CEO Tom Curley who complained that search engines and bloggers are siphoning off revenue from content creators like the AP and Murdoch’s News Corp. Both were quoted as saying it was time for content creators to take back “control.”

By control, of course, Murdoch and Curley mean revenue.

Murdoch’s a master at the legacy media, but his inability to manage technology ventures is legendary. Take a look at what's happened to MySpace since NewsCorp paid $580 million for the once high-flier in 2005. MySpace has lost more than five million monthly visitors, four million last month alone, not to mention the more than $350 million in red ink spilled this year by the once profitable MySpace.

Likewise, the AP has other avenues for making money without attacking the very people who have keep general news content alive while printed pubs decline. Hint: it’s online readers who drive Web traffic to AP member publications by sharing news content on personal blogs, Web sites and social network sites.

And if you needed any more evidence that printed newspapers are doing everything they can to make themselves irrelevant, the Atlanta Journal Constitution announced with great fanfare they will no longer endorse political candidates. Local content is supposed to be the savior of daily print publications, but clearly Cox Newspapers has other ideas.

Change is coming. Even Mr. Murdoch predicted it in 2005 when he said “Technology is shifting power away from the editors, the publishers, the establishment, the media elite. Now it’s the people who are taking control.”

The only question is when.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

My Mom, a person of deep faith, on more than one occasion assured me while I was growing up that if I would only fess-up to my alleged youthful indiscretions, my life would improve. Seems my Mom and the Federal Trade Commission have the same instruction manual. In the first major change in endorsement rules in nearly 30 years, the FTC’s new transparency rules apply to bloggers and user generated content.

While there is some wailing and gnashing of teeth, the Commission’s rules for disclosing endorsements are really common sense and in keeping with the best practices of social networking. Transparency is at the heart of the new rules and bloggers and content creators who remember that will be fine.

Those who don’t may get to contribute $11,000 to the federal treasury.

If you’re a blogger or you create content for social media, all you have to do to comply is disclose you are being paid or provided with free product in exchange for your words or pictures. Most legitimate content creators do that now, but the FTC rule is a good reminder that transparency is the currency of the social media realm.

If, though, you’re rating products for hire, ghost tweeting or blogging for hire without revealing your sugar parent, then the new rules are trouble for you.

This is when my Mom would tell me that “be sure your sins will find you.” This time, though, it will be federal regulators who are watching.

P.S. – Mom, it’s possible I did relocate the neighbor’s fake pink flamingos from their yard in 1980. It’s been so long ago, I just don’t recall.

The (Un) Friendly Skies

I have a confession to make. I don’t turn off my mobile phone on airplanes. Yet, I have never failed to make it to the correct destination because of some mythical “interference with the aircraft’s navigational equipment.”

Keeping mobile phones in the off position on US airlines has always been more about making money and keeping the peace than getting lost in route to LaGuardia. Thanks to non-US airlines, that may be about to change.

Just about all the US legacy and low-cost carriers are rushing to add wi-fi to their domestic fleet. What they are also finding is that crafty passengers are (easily) finding a way around the blocks that are supposed to prevent VoIP calls in the air. Browsing and chatting online are okay. Talking, according to Delta, AirTran and others is not.

The airlines claim the FCC, FAA and passengers themselves want to keep the friendly skies a call-free zone.

While I’ve always enjoyed the sanctuary offered by hurtling through the air in a toothpaste tube at 600 mph, I’ve also longed for the option to make or take a call if I wanted to do so. There’s that whole consumer control issue again – I’ll make the decision, don’t decide for me, thank you very much!

Without knowing it, I had allies in my clandestine fight to keep my phone powered up after the boarding door has closed – European and Asian airlines. They, it seems, have cracked the code and figured out how to solve the real technical issue – interference with cell towers – and how to make money while doing so.

Emirates Airlines already offers the ability to use your mobile phone in the air and British Airways will offer the same in its new London City airport to JFK all business class service.

US regulators and airline operators take notice. No passenger riots from too loud phone conversations and no planes landing on taxiways in the wrong cities. Imagine that.

Chalk up another win for those brands that believe in letting the customer decide.

The Return of the Brand

You may have missed this tidbit - what with Kanye stealing a little girl's limelight and Joe Wilson forgetting he was a US Congressman not a member of the British Parliament during PMQs - but it seems there's a whole lot of trust going on in the world of brands. How'd that happen?

We all know that brands have been beaten and battered by the double whammy of a shattered economy previously built on consumption and the rise of social media, where a company becomes the caretaker of a brand - not the owner.

Consumers, too, have become incredibly mistrustful of institutions - especially large corporations, the government and the media.

I take heart that perhaps the tide is about to turn. The brand and reputation equivalent of "the recession is over, but the recovery will be slow." Here's why:

A study by Capstrat of Raleigh, NC shows the slide in consumer trust in brands has stopped the death spiral and is now climbing back up in some cases - including trust in bank brands. Trust in the media continues to spiral down the drain, though.

Trust is a two way street and it seems that Wall Street is also more willing to trust Main Street, to use a well-worn cliche`. Nine companies have announced they will follow new executive pay rules proposed by The Conference Board that is based on increased public transparency and shareholder involvement. Among the first nine, AT&T, HP, and Cisco Systems. Microsoft has adopted a similar policy.

"You can't be in the top 25% in pay if you're in the bottom 75% in performance," Bill Ide, director of the Conference Board's Task Force on Executive Compensation told CNN. "That's universal. We think all regulators and policy makers would be comfortable with that."

With trust breaking out all over leading companies, let's hope the rest of the brand community falls in line, too. Soon.

Life Advice from the Technologist-in-Chief

Life's full of little ironies. On the same day former British PM Tony Blair was telling David Letterman about how he got his very first mobile phone AFTER he left office, President Obama was telling school kids to watch what they post on Facebook.

Blair, only 44 when first elected Prime Minister, told Letterman about how his first attempt to send a text - not realizing his name was not attached to the message - resulted in a reply of "who are you?" Humbling words for the man who. 24 hours prior, was the second most powerful politician on the planet.

That, by the way, was only two years ago.

Fast forward to now, only hours before Blair's Letterman debut, when the current most powerful politician in the world was dispensing sage tech advice to school children across the country via a video and Internet link.

Responding to a question about how to succeed in business or politics, the first words from President Obama's mouth were not eat a good breakfast, wear clean undies or even finish school. His recommendation: be careful what you post online - words, pics or video.

Good advice, since what you write at 15 will still be around somewhere at 25, 50 and for your obit writers to mine for pithy quotes like "LOL. Wasted. Again." Your future employers will be looking, too, according to recent stats, and they are notorious for having even less of a sense of humor than your parents. Hard to believe, but true.

President Obama's words on the topic of social media probably won't join the ranks great presidential quotes. Hopefully he did, though, save a few future leaders from explaining how the YouTube video of them jumping naked into a frozen lake in January seemed like a good idea at the time.

Not that I have any personal knowledge of such activities. Really.

Chickens vs. Eggs

I recently had a lengthy debate with my youngest daughter about the eternal question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? As it turns out, it was a good warm-up for a business discussion.

Remember when you were a teenager and you argued everything with a passion worthy of death row appeal? That’s how it was with my high schooler after watching Jurassic Park. I made the mistake of quoting some article I read that said a T-Rex is more closely akin to a chicken than a lizard. Darwin aside, we launched jaw first into the classic Chicken and Egg argument. When you’re fifteen, there is no “agree to disagree,” there is only ”I win, you lose!”

What does this have to do with business? Well, it wasn’t too many days afterward that a request came across my desk from a prospective client wanting a social media marketing (SMM) campaign to help drive revenue.

ME: “Do you have any research that shows how your ideal customer uses social media?”

THEM: “No.”

ME: “Do you have a profile of their Web habits?”

THEM: “No.”

ME: “Then why do you believe a social media marketing campaign will be successful?”

THEM: “Because we were told social media is less expensive and we want to try it to win new customers.”

This was a discussion as timeless (and endless) as the chicken/egg debate. What comes first, the strategy or the tactic? Social media marketing is the new toy that everyone wants to play with, but even toys come with warning labels about appropriate use.

Not all social media techniques are effective in every situation. It takes research and planning before making the decision if, and, if so, which SMM tool is appropriate for your organization. Not to mention, you have to make sure your goal is appropriate and realistic.

Take the time to develop an appropriate strategy before assuming SMM is the right thing for you. Otherwise you may end up with egg (not chicken) on your face.

More Stupid Corporate Tricks: The Sports Edition

I’ll admit to being biased. I think most college sports executives played one too many downs without a helmet. The recent attempt by the Southeastern Conference (SEC) to ban Twitter, Facebook and other social media from their football games proves my point.

At one time in the past seven days, the SEC released a proposed policy that would have banned fans from updating their Facebook status, posting a game photo on Flickr or tweeting from the stands at any SEC football game. No calling the brother-in-law to brag about your seats or blogging about that game-changing interception caught before your very eyes.

Seems the SEC believed being sports fans would be violating the SEC’s copyright and their lucrative contract with CBS Sports by reporting their own game updates. The solution, of course, was to act like a salmon and swim upstream against the massive current that is the omnipresence of social media.

After about 24 hours of being bombarded with “Are you kidding me?” messages from the blogosphere, alumni and season ticket holders, conference leaders relented. The new policy makes it clear that you can tweet from your seat as long as you’re not making any money doing it:

“No Bearer may produce or disseminate in any form a “real-time” description or transmission of the Event (i) for commercial or business use, or (ii) in any manner that constitutes, or is intended to provide or is promoted or marketed as, a substitute for radio, television or video coverage of such Event. Personal messages and updates of scores or other brief descriptions of the competition throughout the Event are acceptable.”

That’s a reasonable policy, but why all the drama that damaged the SEC credibility and presented an image of an organization hell-bent on holding back the tide of progress? Let's hope other organizations and executives look at the SEC's example and skip the Hail Mary pass (and excessive sports analogies) to save their reputation the harm and embarrassment.

Stupid Corporate Tricks: The Marriott Edition

Even the best run companies screw up every now and then. Most of the time we never know or notice. But sometimes - like now - the mistake is so obvious that you slap your head and cry out "What were they thinking?"

Such is the case with Marriott and the decision to blame a rape victim for being assaulted in a hotel parking lot. I'll wait while you retrieve your jaw from the ground.

In 2006 a woman and her young children were approached by a man seeking money in the parking deck of the Stamford, CT Marriott. He proceeded to rape the woman and threatened to do the same to her children if she resisted or screamed. He, fortunately, is now behind bars.

What would have been a routine, but obscure lawsuit - Marriott being sued for failing to keep their property secure - has grown into a full-blown brand and reputation crisis because of the boneheaded defense Marriott outlined in recent court documents: it's the victim's fault she was raped.

Once news of Marriott's legal position became known, it didn't take long for the hue and cry to rightfully begin. That was last week.

Today we learn that Marriott has come to its senses and decided not to mount a defense to the lawsuit based on claiming the victim failed to keep herself and her children out of harm's way. Good move. Late - unnecessary even - move, but a good one nonetheless.

I dare say the executives at the top of the Marriott food chain were caught as unaware as the rest of us, and they reversed a monumentally stupid decision by someone deep in the bowels of the corporate legal department.

Now Marriott needs to ensure that everyone in the organization understands the value of their brand and the values of the company so decision makers will think twice before putting the company's brand and reputation in jeopardy.

If you want to learn more about protecting your brand and reputation, send me an email at james.lee@c2m2a.com or visit www.c2m2a.com.

Is Twitter the New Canary in the Coal Mine?

Overused analogy aside, it is a fair question: Is Twitter the latest version of an early warning system that can tip a business that trouble – monumentally big trouble – is right around the bend?

While legions of businesses are finding ways to use social media in their communications and marketing and top advertisers are rapidly moving to Facebook, the number of executive skeptics reveals too large a number of leaders stuck at the starting line.

According to a new survey by Minnesota-based Russell Herder and Ethos Business Law, 80 percent of executives surveyed agreed that SMM has the potential to help improve customer relationships and corporate reputations. However, half said they fear social media could be detrimental to employee productivity, and 49 percent believe that using SMM could damage company reputation.

Those companies surveyed who are not using social media say they are not using SMM primarily because of concerns about confidentiality or security issues (40%), employee productivity (37%) or simply not knowing enough about it (51%).

Those are not insurmountable issues and should not be a barrier to bring the benefits of social media to your organization.

If you’re among the businesses still afraid to take the plunge, here’s a suggestion of how to stick your toe in the water (and how I’ll weave in the Canary – Coal Mine theme): Use Twitter, Facebook and Technorati to search for your company. You might be surprised what you read and you could find the next business or reputation crisis brewing without your knowledge.

Need a case study of how to use SMM as a reputation tool, look no further than the US Air Force. Public Affairs officers tracked public opinion - real time - on Twitter after an Air Force One photo-op over lower Manhattan sent people running into the streets fearing another 9/11 style attack was underway.

In short order, military officials quickly and correctly assessed the situation to have moved from a public relations coup to a PR disaster based on the comments of New Yorkers posted on Twitter and other social network sites. If the Air Force had only used traditional tools, they would have been far behind the public opinion curve and ill-equipped to deal with the heat the fly-over generated.

Once you discover there’s a whole conversation about you going on without you, chances are you’ll leap into SMM, too.

Come on in, the water – and coal mine - is fine, even if the metaphors are mixed.

Need to know more about how you can and should use social media, send me an email at james.lee@c2m2a.com or visit my Web site for more information.

Working in a Data Mine

I’ll admit it. I can’t get the old Divo version of the song “Working in a Coal Mine” out of my head while I write this. Bet you can’t either, now.

But there is a serious point to this analogy. Data mining is as important, if not more so, than ever. How you do it is, too.

I was reminded of this by a new client who wants to find business prospects with a very specific profile. I mentioned these businesses are easy to find, just pull permit records from local government agencies. A little digging proved the data was available from an information aggregator who collects the records on a daily basis.

In this particular case, these were businesses engaged in a very specific activity and all the information needed to contact the business was right there in black and white. So were all the details about the permitted project.

For my client, this was the Mother Lode. It might as well have been rocket science, too.

In the rush to Social Media Marketing (SMM), we tend to overlook some of the tried and true means of finding customers and prospects. We often overlook the oceans of valuable information about the people who pay the bills sitting in our own databases or those we can access for free or a low fee.

How you collect and use the information is just as important. If you’re new to the data-driven world, there are strong restrictions with serious penalties (if regulators decide to use them) for using a consumer’s personal data for marketing. Protecting that data once you have is also a deadly serious issue – just ask any company that’s lost control of personal information.

While integrating SMM into your business practices is the price of admission these days, don’t forget there are still “old school” techniques that are still valuable.

What other strategies and tactics have you or will you import into the digital marketing world?

For more information about data-driven branding and marketing, send me an email at james.lee@c2m2a.com or visit www.c2m2a.com.

Making Tweets & Sausage

Ambrose Bierce, the 19th century journalist and author once compared a lawsuit to a machine where “You go into (it) as a pig and come out of as a sausage.”

Let’s hope that is not the fate of Chicago resident Amanda Bonnen who is being sued by her landlord for the high offense of complaining about her digs on Twitter. It was only a matter of time.

According to the Chicago Sun Times, Horizon Group Management takes exception to this Bonnen tweet: “Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay."

A Horizon spokesperson told the Sun-Times the company hadn’t talked with Bonnen about her post, nor had anyone asked her to remove the comment.

“We’re a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization,” he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.

Horizon also responds that Bonnen filed a lawsuit first, but that’s irrelevant when it comes to Horizon’s claim of slander for a tweet.

Every company has a duty to protect its reputation just as fiercely as it does any other asset. However, suing a person for expressing an opinion on Twitter or any other social network site is not the way to defend yourself. From a brand and reputation point of view, that’s just about the worst thing you can do, unless you want to be a brand whose core value is intimidation.

Companies who truly care about their brand and reputation must join the social conversation. Listen. Respond with facts. Agree to disagree if necessary. And if you screwed up, admit it, apologize, fix it, and learn from the experience.

That’s a lot easier and cheaper than making sausage.

What do you think?

For more about brand and reputation protection in a digital world, visit C2M2 Associates or contact me at james.lee@c2m2a.com.

The End of the (Media) World

I love the movie Independence Day, the story of when an evil alien race arrives to the strains of REM’s “It’s the end of the world as we know it.”

There’s a new book that chronicles a different end of our media-driven world. No aliens this time, but the life altering changes in civilization are real.

AdAge editor Bob Garfield’s The Chaos Scenario looks at how the shift to a digital world spells doom for the symbiotic relationship between mass media and mass marketing. Garfield makes the case that the 400 year old practice of dictating to audiences is being replaced by consumer control that requires organizations to listen to people.

The core message – of which I am a true believer – can be found in this passage:
"(Consumers) aren't necessarily listening to you. They're listening to each other talk about you. And they're using your products, your brand names, your iconography, your slogans, your trademarks, your designs, your goodwill, all of it as if it belonged to them -- which, in a way, it all does, because, after all, haven't you spent decades, and trillions, to convince them of just that?"
You’ve heard it before from me and others: the days of companies being able to practice top-down communications with their stakeholders (employees, customers, shareholders and community leaders) are numbered.

The Independence Day aliens were set on destroying the human race. Media & marketing will survive the digital Apocalypse, but in very different forms.

Those businesses that are prepared to take transparency and consumer control to heart will also survive. And thrive. They're the people who will be singing the REM song...”it’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.”

For more information about how you can prepare for the new digital world, visit C2M2 Associates. To buy Garfield’s book (and you should), visit thechaosscenario.net.

When Good Brands Go Bad

Anyone who’s ever checked a bag when flying, spent hours waiting for the cable installer, or celebrated a birthday on hold with customer (no) service, wishes they wrote the latest YouTube hit “United Breaks Guitars.”

Poor service is always a risk to your brand and reputation. Thousands of successful transactions get lost when the one screw-up makes it into the social media. That’s not news and not particularly surprising.

Now comes a survey that explains, in part, why well known brands at seemingly marketing savvy companies continue to be caught off-guard by completely predictable and preventable events – like baggage handlers destroying a musician’s guitar.

According to findings from UberCEO.com:

• Not a single CEO has a blog. Zero. Zip. Nada.
• Only two CEOs have Twitter accounts.
• 13 CEOs have LinkedIn profiles, but only three have more than 10 connections.
• Fewer than 20 CEOs have a personal Facebook page.
• Three quarters of the CEOs have some kind of Wikipedia entry, but nearly a third of those have limited or outdated information.

I know several CEOs and have worked directly for two who led multi-billion dollar public companies. CEOs and other execs are busy people.

However, irrespective of the reasons why – busy schedules, fear of technology, fear of liability – the survey reveals a shocking lack of respect for customers. It reflects executives out of touch with the people who pay the bills now and in the future.

It’s no wonder, then, that superstar brands keep getting caught with their shorts down by the folks who create YouTube videos and post Tweets about their bad customer experiences.

Until CEOs join the conversation on social networks in a meaningful way, we’ll continue to watch episodes of When Good Reputations Go Bad. And the rest of us will blog about it, even if the CEO won’t.

For more on branding, reputation and social media marketing, visit C2M2 Associates.

The Future of Privacy, Courtesy of CSI

So there I was diligently working, a recent re-run of CSI on the television in the background. That’s when I heard it: “It’s not that they don’t believe in privacy, it’s that they value openness.”

Turns out that “they” were people who gave a running dialogue of their life on Twitter, the level of detail shocking to one character who wondered what sort didn't share his conventional view of protecting information: “Don’t these people believe in privacy?”

I’ve had these same conversations with friends, colleagues and family. To a person they lament the so-called loss of privacy they perceive to occur when one joins a social network.

To a person of a certain age, privacy has a very different meaning. To younger people who have grown up sharing and showing all of the events of their lives (and I do mean ALL), privacy is not the precious right their elders prize. They believe in transparency in all things and think everyone else should, too.

For the time being, this is an interesting academic discussion and occasionally fodder for TV show banter. But soon, it will be a significant public and social policy issue as the young people who value transparency over privacy move into positions of authority.

Businesses have always hid to varying degrees behind literal and figurative walls. There are even laws that prevent disclosure of certain types of commercial and personal information. Attorneys, ministers and physicians make a living keeping secrets.

In the future, what will the kids raised on MySpace, Twitter and Facebook do when they take the helm? Will they learn to embrace a level of privacy they’ve never known or will they force new levels of transparency that would make Justice Brandeis cringe.

I’m thinking openness will be the new privacy. What do you think? And which do you value more – transparency or privacy?

Why Can't Old (Media) Dogs Learn New (Media) Tricks?

Time Warner is casting AOL out onto the street by the end of the year. News Corp’s MySpace has seen traffic and revenue decline so fast the site has gone from “Who’s Who” to “What’s That?”

Why is it that traditional media companies have such a difficult time with new media properties?
Ten years ago Ted Turner said the merger of AOL and Time Warner was “better than sex.” Rupert Murdoch, upon buying MySpace in 2005 said “young people don't want to rely on a God-like figure from above to tell them what's important.”

There were both right and both wrong.

Both companies hyped the value of new media, then promptly tried to run them like their other media properties, where change is predicable and innovation glacial.

Time Warner milked the AOL dial-up service cow for all it’s worth, finally hitting on a money making strategy to own separately branded, ad supported destinations like MapQuest, Moviephone and Engadget.

MySpace, once the highest flying of the social network sites (and still the highest revenue producer) is seeing traffic and ad revenue decline and shift to rivals Facebook and Twitter almost as fast as users can type 140 characters.

MySpace is still the destination of choice for the young and the restless, but not so much for adults who have discovered the power of social networks. MySpace traffic fell 2% in April 2009 compared to 2008. Facebook traffic grew 89% over the same period. Ad revenue you ask? MySpace is projected to drop 15% and Facebook to climb 10% this year.

Why the rapid reversal of fortunes for MySpace? Web users, especially social networkers, are not like newspaper readers and television viewers. They are more demanding, and with an infinite supply of sites that will cater to their needs (and whims), very fickle.

Let this be a lesson to all owners of new media properties. Listen to your users. If you’ve been running a newspaper or television empire, they know more about what needs to be done than you do.