In the months leading up to the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama embraced social media as a way to galvanize voters from all walks of life. His campaign received major kudos from marketers who felt he was the only candidate who “got” social media. I remember being surprised how quickly the would-be president followed me back when I signed up to follow his feed. But I was disappointed when his tweets stopped coming after he was elected. In fact, I wrote a blog post about it back then.

Of course, many people have criticized President Obama for not being as effective a communicator once he won the election and losing the grassroots support that helped him get into office. His campaign did eventually start tweeting again. And just the other day, they announced he would start writing some of his own tweets, signing them BO.

Thanks to social media, people want and have even come to expect the inside track on the organizations and individuals they support. The main driver behind this shift is the decline of traditional information gatekeepers and the proliferation of “direct-to-consumer” channels. In other words, you don’t have to wait for a newspaper to endorse a political candidate or a television network to air a debate. You can just follow their tweets and ask your questions directly.

One difference between 2008 and 2012 may be the fact that more tweets are actually from the politician him- or herself as opposed to the campaign. There are both rewards and risks associated with this evolution – as Anthony Weiner demonstrated just a few weeks ago.

One aspect of social media that makes many clients nervous is the degree to which their customer service issues will play out publicly. Of course, for most high-profile companies, online conversation about their brand will happen whether they launch and maintain a Facebook page or Twitter account.

A while back, I was asked to speak to the American Bankers Association on how to “create buzz” online and off. In preparing my remarks, I looked to see what bank brands were doing via social media. While many had launched both Facebook pages and Twitter feeds, it appeared as though their customers were more likely to follow them on Twitter. It makes sense: You may not want to profess your “like” for your bank on your Facebook page, but Twitter presents a great way to keep up to date on new services and address any customer service issues.

The other day, when my bank – @TDBank_US – Tweeted something that appeared in my feed, I realized that the people in my branch had yet to resolve an issue for me. I opened a savings account for my newborn son and they were supposed to connect it to my online banking profile. Rather than asking a third time in the branch (yes, I still go into the branch for my business transactions), I decided to send them a direct message on Twitter. Within a couple of minutes, they responded that I should call a particular toll-free number and to let them know when the issue was resolved.

When I called, the person who answered the phone told me I needed to start a brand new online banking profile in order to add the savings account. I agreed to this, but then realized after we hung up that I lost all my bill pay info in the transition. I sent another direct message via Twitter reflecting my disappointment and the person on Twitter duty asked if they could have someone call me. Within a few minutes of receiving my phone number, someone from customer service called me and resolved the problem immediately. Apparently, I didn’t need to start a new profile, after all. The representative was extremely apologetic that the first person I spoke to was misinformed, which led me to the assumption that TD Bank takes it social media strategy very seriously and even puts its best and brightest on the case when a problem arises via Twitter.

I didn’t take my issue public (although I guess I am now), but I see consumers do it all the time. It’s part of the transparent world in which we all do business now. Preserving your brand’s reputation is not about trying to obscure customer complaints. It’s about demonstrating that you’re listening and resolving problems.

Next time I have an issue with a company, Twitter will be my first stop.

Twitter recently announced a new interface design that incorporates much of the functionality for which people were turning to outside application developers. People who are responsible for managing Twitter feeds for their brands or clients need to consider how the new design will impact their Twitter backgrounds. The new funcationality means the feed takes up more real estate — and that means your background photography, graphics and text will be less visible (maybe even covered) to many users who have smaller monitors.  

Here’s a great blog post from social identity designer @hughbriss on what the new design means for custom backgrounds. Happy Tweeting!

Seasoned JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater made headlines around the globe last week when he lost his cool, cursed out a passenger and exited an aircraft by deploying its escape slide – with a beverage cart beer in hand. 

It seemed everyone wanted to share their POV on the “take this job and shove it” moment. News reports included comment from Slater, the self-proclaimed “bag Nazi,” his ex-wife, passengers on Flight 1052. Even Nancy Grace had an opinion on the dramatic job exit. But I haven’t heard much from JetBlue.  

A post on Blue Tales from August 11 states:

While we can’t discuss the details of what is an ongoing investigation, plenty of others have already formed opinions on the matter. Like, the entire Internet. (The reason we’re not commenting is that we respect the privacy of the individual. People can speak on their own behalf; we won’t do it for them.)

This is understandable. But JetBlue is a company with a strong social media presence. Perhaps the co-tweeters could send messages other than stating they can’t comment on ongoing investigations? Maybe something a little more creative, like: “Our emergency slides are tested regularly” with a link to relevant news coverage?  Though, this is probably easier said than done, as legal issues are undoubtedly at play.

The buzz surrounding the Slater incident is huge. This could be carpe diem moment for JetBlue. The company could embrace the Slater-related publicity and remind the public why JetBlue has hundreds of thousands of brand ambassadors -including great customer service, an engaging online presence, the most leg room in coach, and an outstanding safety record.

In the past, JetBlue has been a company with personality and strong customer interactions. Just because Slater left everyone wondering WTH, JetBlue corporate shouldn’t do the same.

BlogHer’s influence has exploded since I last attended in 2006. We went to BlogHer ‘06 in San Jose when our client Weight Watchers Online agreed to be an event sponsor. That year, there were 750 attendees and the sponsors sat at small, skirted tables under a pavilion smaller than my apartment. Other than General Motors, we were really the only major consumer brand represented. This year,  there were more than 2,400 attendees and the sponsor “expo” comprised two large rooms filled with brands like Jimmy Dean, P&G, Walmart, Pepsi, McDonalds, Stride Rite and Earth’s Best, among dozens of others.

Recent BlogHer research shows blogs are growing faster than traditional websites as online destinations. Three quarters of the population are active (once a week or more) social media users vs. half of the population in 2009. Three quarters of the population are active (once a week or more) social media users vs. half of the population in 2009. Facebook is #1 among the top then media destinations, but Twitter didn’t make the cut. Twenty seven percent rely on blogs when making a purchasing decision and 34 percent rely on social media channels. Here’s a link to the full survey.

Female bloggers are making a major impact on people’s lives and even influencing legislation. Sure there are a lot of mommy bloggers out there talking about playgroups, the carpool and kid products they love (all issues that matter to me, btw). But the blogosphere is about way more than that. I went to a panel about how to build a community for a cause. The room was filled with women who are dealing with tremendous challenges and engaging with and helping others though their blogs. The panelists included voices from www.gimpgirl.com and www.violenceunsilenced.com. A few members of the audience received applause when they introduced themselves. It’s quite moving when a previously anonymous blogger introduces herself and realizes how many fans she has – like Anita Jackson from www.momsrising.com.

The jury is out on whether bloggers should criticize products or companies. I went to a panel on fashion blogging and much of the conversation was about how to work with sponsors. Interestingly, all three bloggers talked about how they sometimes approach potential sponsors with ideas, much like a traditional publication would do with advertisers. They also encouraged sponsors to approach bloggers with an open-ended conversation (i.e. “I would love to connect with you to figure out how we might work together.”) But they weren’t in agreement about how honest they should be when they don’t like a particular brand. Two felt it was better to focus on the positive so they didn’t alienate would-be sponsors. The other clearly felt her honesty is what makes her audience keep coming back. They did all agree, though, that criticizing with a diplomatic and professional voice was the only way to go.

Bloggers will consider giving editorial exposure for free products they receive, but they want to get paid by their sponsors. If a brand “mandates” the inclusion of links or a specific number of Tweets, they’d better be ready pay for it. One audience member in a brand session I attended asked the blogger panel how she could encourage bloggers to participate in a video project she was hosting. They asked if she offered to pay them. You can imagine the reaction of the room when she answered, “It’s a journalistic opportunity.” Don’t forget journalists do get paid a salary that’s funded, in part, by advertising.

Back in the 70s, my friends used to come over and watch in awe as I played games on our family’s little Mac with the cute multi-colored apple logo on the monitor.

My father was a successful computer scientist and programmer with NASA and NOAA, and so we were the first ones in our neighborhood to have a home computer.

Dad died more than 27 years ago. He had always advised me never to socialize with the people I work with; he believed people should keep their private life separate from their professional life. So I often wonder what this early adopter of computer technology would think about the cultural phenomenon that is social networking.

Many people thrive on putting their daily activities and innermost thoughts out there for the world (or at least their friends or followers) to see. Chances are good that a friend-of-a-friend is the friend of a co-worker, so it’s common sense to think twice before posting pictures of yourself getting your drink on or tweeting about how much you cannot stand your job.

Those of us in the public relations profession have always had rules about separating one’s personal and professional lives, especially when counseling C-level execs. We advise clients to think carefully before firing off a letter to the editor that’s based on personal opinion, since their position may be taken as representative of their company’s stance on a particular issue. Sometimes the two don’t match up, and that could be problematic.

Is that limiting free speech? To some degree, I suppose it is. But it’s worth the time to thoughtfully consider ways to express personal views that don’t cross the boundaries between home life and work life.

Now that the means to communicate quickly, easily and broadly have increased so dramatically, it’s more important than ever to think twice before posting your answer to the question: “What’s on your mind?”

So you’ve probably heard about the Sarah Silverman fiasco at the TED conference by now. If not, here’s the recap: Silverman, who is notorious for her outrageous kick-ya-in-the-teeth humor, was asked to give a speech at TED, the well regarded org known for its brainiac and celeb-packed conferences. She accepted, showed and delivered a typical trademark talk, trashing an array of things – among them Sarah Palin’s recent rant about the word “retarded.” Silverman used the word as much as possible and said a number of un-PC things, including that she’d like to adopt a retarded child, but only one who is terminally ill because she’s “awesome like that” – and plus the kid would then have an “expiration date.”

Crass? Of course. Offensive? Surely some listeners thought so. Unexpected? Not so much if you’ve ever heard Silverman open her mouth before.

Chris Anderson, the TED organizer who invited Silverman to speak in the first place promptly tweeted about how “god-awful” she was. A Twitter-based ruckus between Anderson and Silverman featuring a bizarre side battle between Silverman and Steve Case (Case jumped in to defend Anderson) then ensued. The media hopped on the bandwagon shortly after and buzz and press coverage about the incident spread.

Love Silverman or hate her, my question is this: What was Anderson thinking when he invited her to speak in the first place? It sounds like she delivered material right in line with all the other material she usually delivers and he was taken aback?

The net-net from a communications standpoint seems to be a basic lesson: Do your homework before you hire a speaker. Keep “good” company, or at least know the company you keep.

Considering a promotion to drive fan traffic on Facebook? Not so fast. Facebook recently updated its promotion guidelines and it’s not as straight-forward as you might think.

Thousands of brands, celebrities, sports teams, musicians and other entities have launched fan pages on Facebook. And Facebook is wisely doing everything it can to monetize fan page traffic (for example, last week it announced advertisers can target friends of their fans) and protect itself against any liabilities from the promotions fan pages are hosting.

Most of the guidelines are intuitive – like you can’t offer prizes to people who are under 18 or require a purchase to enter. Section 3/Administering a Promotion through the Facebook Platform, though, was more than a tad surprising. If you are planning a promotion through Facebook, you must receive written approval from Facebook to do so. And, you must administer the promotion through an application (i.e. not via status updates).

Facebook has been a boon for small and mid-size businesses looking for cost effective ways to engage their customers. I haven’t tried to reach a Facebook representative to get approval for a promotion yet. But something tells me these kinds of restrictions are going to make it difficult for the vast majority of organizations that don’t have endless resources to optimize their presence on Facebook.

Fortunately these rules don’t apply if you’re promoting a contest you’re administering outside of Facebook. When we hosted a Twitter scavenger hunt earlier this week for the Radio City Rockettes, we posted these rules on the company website and only used Facebook status updates to alert fans to the opportunity.

Stay tuned as the rules are likely to change again. In the words of Section 6/Facebook Rights, “We may modify these Promotion Guidelines at any time without notice to you. You will subject to the most current version of these Promotion Guidelines then in effect.”

Does anyone remember back in the early to mid-90s when whether to launch a web site was still a decision? I was working for a firm then that did interactive design, in addition to traditional marketing communications. One of the big issues of the time was people registering domain names of companies that had not yet taken the plunge. So a big brand would go to register www.insertbrandnamehere.com only to find out it had been “hijacked” by some web developer seeking a huge bounty.

Now that recognized brands are setting up Twitter accounts, it seems like the same type of “brandjacking” is taking place. Just this week, I tried to look up two brands I wanted to follow on Twitter: BornFree and Method. When I know who I am looking for, my first step is often to enter www.twitter.com/theirhandle. But simply entering “bornfree” and “method” took me to unrelated accounts. While the users were not posing as the brands (or looking for a payout), the logical handles for the companies’ social media efforts were taken. Twitter, by the way, does have rules about people misleading followers with company names, logos and false information. My next step was a Twitter search that took me to relevant tweets about their brands, but not to their actual accounts. Ultimately, I found them via links posted on their corporate sites: www.twitter.com/newbornfree and www.twitter.com/methodtweet.

The motives of the handle-squatters may not be malicious, but you never want roadblocks between your brand and your customers. If a hijacker is seeking to harm your brand, Twitter will apparently suspend accounts where an overt trademark infringement is occurring within 48 hours. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take long for a rumor to turn into reality in the minds of consumers. Just ask Tommy Hilfiger.

Several months ago, we did an assessment of Twitter to determine its viability for a client of ours. We ultimately decided it was not the best use of the company’s limited resources. Their product is expensive, meant to last decades and doesn’t inspire the kind of two-way dialogue the channel affords. But we did take the time to register handles for other clients (with their permission) that should be considering Twitter. In fact, we’re starting to implement the social media strategy for one this week.

Bottom line: If you haven’t registered a Twitter handle for your company brand or name, do it now. Even if you never issue one tweet.

P.S. Our own Jennifer Leckstrom recently penned a piece on her local community’s use of Twitter, which ran on the cover on the paper!

In our 24-7, constant communication society, we want real-time feedback and instant gratification. Sometimes though, what we want and what we get are two different things. Occasionally that’s not such a bad thing.

A recent client experience proved this point. Last fall we met with executives from Context-Based Research. We learned that the ethnographic research firm had partnered with its sister marketing communications agency, Carton Donofrio Partners, to conduct a study on consumer behavior during the economic crisis.

Excited about the scope of the research and its obvious news value, we told our client that we suspected the study results would yield substantial media coverage. We also speculated that the coverage would happen immediately, given the timely nature of the research. At least we were half right.

In December, when the results were ready, we issued a press release. The impending holiday season notwithstanding, we hoped the interesting findings would generate interview requests. But only one journalist bit. We were disappointed, but not deterred. We recognized that though the marketplace may not have yet been ready for analysis of the recent meltdown in December, that would probably not continue to be the case.

Over the next four months we issued four more communications, each focusing on different aspects of the study and targeting different groups of reporters (culture, economics, retail, and political journalists). Five communications about one study is a lot, but the research was compelling, broadly applicable, and, given the recession’s anticipated trajectory, it had continued news value.

In the end, our (and our client’s) patience and persistence bore fruit:

-Context executives were quoted in two New York Times articles in March. One article ran on the front page of the paper, the other was on the cover of the paper’s “Week in Review” section.

-The Baltimore Sun ran a feature in April. (The reporter told us she’d held onto our December press release.)

-The New York Post, the Omaha World Herald, and several other publications ran articles referencing the study and quoting executives from Context and Carton Donofrio Partners. The New York Post piece ran in December, while the Omaha World Herald didn’t hit until April.

-Money Magazine ran a substantial piece in its May issue quoting Dr. Blinkoff, Context’s founder, as did the Financial Times.

-A retail reporter at the Associated Press and a personal finance reporter at USA Today turned to Dr. Blinkoff as an expert source for pieces they were developing.

-An association interviewed Dr. Blinkoff for an article in their membership publication, then asked him to deliver the keynote at their upcoming conference in November.

-A literary agent called about turning the research into a book.

All in all, the coverage amounted to critical exposure and yielded new business leads for the firms. The lesson we learned: Though patience and persistence can feel outmoded in a Twitterized, hot-for-a-day news environment, sometimes it pays to take the slow road.