The London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) last week released their social media guidelines for their 70,000 volunteers, in which they ban individuals from posting pictures or release details of athletes, VIPs and dignitaries in backstage areas at this summer’s 2012 Olympic games.

In the hope of keeping a tight-lid on the London 2012 brand and messaging organisers have made the outrageous statement that social media will be managed by its communication team.  Such level of control is going to be nearly impossible given the number of individuals that will be operating behind the scenes.

A large majority of news outlets already use social media channels as a source that adds value and content to unfolding stories, so rather than control the possible behind the scene messages, why didn’t the communications team look to embrace these channels and empower volunteers add an extra layer of information?  It begs the question, will volunteers have to hand in the mobiles before each day that they work, sorry, volunteer for free?

Surely empowering volunteers as behind the scenes crews would act as a way to bring the spirit of the Olympics closer to the people.  Those athletes, celebrities and dignitaries that are caught in a scandal would only have themselves to blame.

As several other bloggers point out, the call by LOCOG goes against the International Olympic Committe’s (IOC) own guidelines and recommendation.

We await and see how this develops.

Storm clouds have been gathering over the UK public relations industry after a couple of its top agencies were caught editing Wikipedia pages on behalf of their clients.  Last month Bell Pottinger was outted in a sting by The Independent and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, whose journalists posed as businessmen from Uzbekistan.  This month PR agency Portland Communications tried to edit out Stella Artois from the Wikipedia page for Wife-beater – the UK urban description of this beer brand.

The issue at hand was not that they tried to edit Wikipedia pages for clients, more that they failed to declare a conflict of interest in these edits.

Wikipedia, the free, collaborative and multilingual online encyclopaedia, is seen as a first port of call for accurate information and description because it is built on 3 key pillars – 1, contributors and editors must have a neutral point of view and no conflict of interest; 2, content must be verifiable; 3, articles must not contain new analysis or synthesis.

Today, Wikipedia has over 20 million articles – over 3.8 million in English, is available in over 280 languages and is edited and monitored by over 10,000 active editors around the world.  The fact is that anybody anywhere can access and edit nearly any Wikipedia page – some are controversially protected and can only be edited by Wikipedia’s own system administrators, is one of it’s key strengths.

Let’s be honest, managing and editing reputations on Wikipedia is not an action confined to individuals working in the global public relations industry – the internet has connected millions of people around the world.  Vandalism and trolling are a growing issue that has affected and will continue to affect this platform, though Wikipedia’s own systems, based on the power of the community, has thankfully enabled it to so far keep it in check.

The issue is about transparency, or lack of by certain communicators who fail to declare they are representing the individual or brand they are editing.  This not just damages the reputation of the brand they are working for, but that of our own profession.

Everybody has the right to a voice and to a reputation.  That reputation though is based on the actions of a client and not the image that a PR might subsequently provide.  Social networking has educated the wider audience to believe what members of their trusted community say and while PRs continue to hide behind a cloak of secrecy this profession will find it harder in it’s primary mission, which is to ‘help establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between public, private and not-for-profit organisations and their various audiences.’  I ask this, knowing how connected the world is and how communities work, was it strategically wise to try to edit out Stella Artois from the page in question?  Total control is no longer an option in today’s connected world.

The Chartered Institute for Public Relations (CIPR), the UK’s professional body for PR, issued a statement yesterday (6 January 2011) stating it’s commitment to put together clear guidance for the profession on using and editing Wikipedia by working with representatives of Wikimedia UK.  The CIPR already has in place social media guidelines that were developed by the institute’s own social media advisory board, which I sit on.  Before being adopted the guidelines were put out on a wiki for comment and debate to the UK PR community.

While here in the UK the CIPR has taken the first step in seeking and securing a partnership for the specific creation of  dedicated guidelines for PRs we should remember that the issue, like our profession, is global.  Public relations is a profession and industry in the rest of Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Wikipedia and it’s community should use this opportunity to work with PRs around the world so that these guidelines can be adopted globally.  Groups are already coming together to encourage a dialogue and understanding of what PRs do.  I personally do not expect everybody to be won over.  In fact I wouldn’t want this.  Debate is healthy and fuels change.  But I do hope that we can demystify what PRs around the world do and and contribute.

After all, we live in a globally  connected world filled with different cultures and jurisdictions that is unifying and shaping us and our opinions.  Our views are shaped by those we know and trust within our networks.  It is time that public relations professionals improved the PR for themselves.

Less that a month after the Bell Pottinger gets caught boasting about using ‘dark arts’ and ‘having a team that could sort Wikipedia,’ it appears that another agency has been outed.

Rival public relations agency Portland Communications has been caught by West Brom MP Tom Watson for trying to edit out the name of Stella Artois, a brand owned by Portland client inBev, from the Wikipedia description page for Wife-beater.

Watson rightly suggests in Portland Communications Wikipedia discussion page that agencies list their clients in their own Wikipedia entries so to declare conflict of interest and as I suspect for transparency sake.

What is interesting is that at 16.31 today (04/01/2012) Wikipedia user Portlander11 edits Portland Communications Wikipedia page and adds, ‘Current and previous clients include BTA Bank, Mukhtar Ablyazov and AB InBev,’ before adding, ‘The reason for this change is that Mr Ablyazov is not and never has been a client of Portland Communications.’  That final statement is very clear, stating that Mr Ablyazov ‘is not and has never been a client of Portland Communications.‘

Looking at the Wikipedia page for Mr Mukhtar Ablyazov one sees that the page has been edited on a regular basis, mostly by registered Wikipedia users.  A number of edits though are from a user whose IP address has been captured as ‘83.244.252.242.’  This IP address has the following hostname associated with it, ‘mx9.portland-communications.com.’  Perhaps, that bold and unambiguous statement is not as accurate as Portlander11 led many people, including Tom Watson MP to believe.

The fact is that fingerprints exist online.  The web connects people.  Wikipedia and social networking site brings groups together that act as editors and fact checkers, something, it appears that some public relations consultancies are yet to understand.

UPDATE: I should point you to two blog posts that were equally published yesterday by Stuart Bruce and Phil Gomes, the latter calling on Wikipedia to ‘have an open, constructive and fair discussion about the important issues where public relations and Wikipedia interset.’

This time last year I made a series of predictions about social media and public relations.  I suggested that while 2010 was a year of discovery, the past 2011 was going to be about sharing and engaging.  About communities being empowered by the knowledge they will have pooled together.  I highlighted from my perspective the challenges and opportunities that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube will pose for companies and individuals.  The impact that social networking has had on events during the past year has truly been beyond what anybody could have expected.

While 2010 was about Wikileaks, the past year has been about challenging the reputation of companies, organisations and individuals that used the law to hide their indiscretions.  Twitter and other social networks came into their own as members of the legal profession struggled to grasp the structure of communications across international jurisdictions.

In my post ‘2011, A Year Of Change In Public Relations,’ I said that the coming year was going to be about communities that were engaged and empowered.  Wikileaks showed what you could do privately.  Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were the channels through which you could anonymously share content and opinion.  They are the channels that gathered a community together, empowering them to seek the transparency that was far too often absent.  Even the once trusted media estate came under the gaze of the community.

The Arab Spring in North Africa was an occasion that surprised many commentators. Sharing of stories on Twitter about high-profile individuals was going to happen.  Managing reputations has now moved into a real-time business.  In fact, if something wrong has been done it is today best expected that such an act will become public.

Last year I also raised the point about the power of mobile, of cellphones.  Wherever you are you have a cellphone.  You are connected to a world of real time information that reaches you as quickly as you wish to access the news that is available.  News shared by the network that you are connected to.  Reliance on traditional news channels is long gone.  News is shaped by members of the communities that we trust, which is why from a public relations perspective crises are today that when audiences go negative on a brand, cause or individual.

As I stated, news organisations are not dead and they are certainly not dying.  They are just changing and adapting to become what their primary audience wants of them.  An adoption that will continue in the 2012.

But what about the coming year?  Well, I am finishing my thoughts on this and will share these with you pretty soon.

Facebook Page | Julio Romo

Last week Facebook unveiled it’s ‘Facebook for Businesses‘ guide to help small and medium sized businesses reach out to the over 750 million users that the social network has globally.  Designed as an easy walkthrough the site has worked to highlight the simplicity of reaching out and building communities around individual business communities.

For many small and medium businesses Google has been the default when it came to online marketing, with many focusing on trying to get their business high-up the search-giant’s rankings.  But shopping is social, focusing and benefiting from social recommendation, something that Google is trying with it’s Google+ offering.

After some time I have set-up a Facebook Page [please like if the content I share are of benefit] – mainly to keep my profile specifically for friends and family.  For those in public relations, journalism and social and digital media I will be using my Page.  And why segregate my Facebook into a Profile and a Page? Well, simple, an email from a friend who said, “dude, going to ‘unfriend’ you, nothing personal but all your chatter/comms is too much! Clearly still proper friends and happy to email etc.”

Facebook for Businesses makes some specific recommendations for businesses, including:

• Setting some goals,
• Sharing exclusive content and engaging with your community,
• Checking and updating your followers, and
• Creating a conversational calendar.

Google+’s offering is looking good, I can be found at gplus.to/JulioRomo.

These top tips are making Facebook fleet of foot in capturing business from hard-working sme’s.  Google+ is meanwhile delaying it’s businesses offering until the end of the year and even deleting companies that have set themselves up on it’s ‘Plus’ platform.

Google has a long way to go to deliver a simple solution that reengages businesses offering them solutions that allow communities to engage with their recommendations.

There are plenty of offerings for businesses. The best way to promoting yourself is by trialing Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and even integrating these into your site.  Simply said, it is about being seen.

News International journalists have allegedly gained access to details of former-Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s bank account, legal documents and even his son’s medical records by masquerading as either the former Prime Minister himself or one of his representatives.

It is alleged that News International titles have used blagging to secure personal information that was then run as headlines in select titles.

Blagging is to ‘knowingly or recklessly obtaining or disclosing personal data or information without the consent of the data controller.’  In plain English that means to deceive somebody to get personal information that can then be used in the press.

Because blagging is to deceive somebody to gain information the practice pulls into the story organisations that hold personal information – telephone companies, banks, building societies, utility companies, anybody.  This therefore can create a firestorm for the reputations of organisations that have been targeted by blaggers, which raises the question, are PRs ready for the questions that will be asked about data protection and privacy?

While blagging is an offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act it has yet to be tested in the courts.  That though is an issue for those caught of blagging.

Global public relations and communications agency Burson-Marsteller was outted last week by a blogger for planting anti-Google stories for Facebook that would smear the reputation of the search giant.

Blogger Chris Soghoian was approached by Director of Burson-Marsteller’s Washington DC Media Practice John Mercurio to see if he would write an op-ed for a top-tier media outlet that from a PR perspective would further raise awareness of privacy issues surrounding Google’s business.  Soghoian rebuffed Mercurio and published their email correspondence, which was subsequently picked up by The Daily Beast who confirmed that Burson’s client was the social networking mammoth Facebook.

The assignment raises questions not just about the ethics of PR in promoting one set of views over another, but also our industry’s understanding of the media landscape in which it operates.

Let’s not be naïve, assignments such as the one that Burson accepted does take place.  It is part and parcel of what the business world.  Briefings, allegations, misinformation are tactics that while they are crude, are part of certain people’s skill-set.

That said, one of the first questions that needs to be asked is that of why did Facebook deide to or even agreed to a campaign to highlight the failings of a competitor?  Such campaigns, as we have seen, carry a lot or risk and can leave ones reputation severely damaged.  Why didn’t Facebook embark on a communication initiative that would highlight it’s strengths, while ignoring competitors weaknesses.  Strategically the answer lies within Facebook and the counsel it received from Burson-Marsteller.

All this said and knowing about the factitious relationship that exists between these two giants, questions have to be asked about the quality of Burson’s work, an agency that I must declare I did work for in 2008.

The content, structure and tone in the brief email correspondence between the two parties that Soghoian released raise a number of key points and questions:

• Mercurio is Burson-Marsteller’s Director of Media Practice in Washington.
• Mercurio was a former journalist, specialist in politics, who between 2002 and 2005 was CNN’s Political Editor.
• Mercurio’s experience appears to lie within the political sector, certainly this was his sole beat between when he graduated from Boston University with a degree in Journalism and until he left The National Journal as Executive Editor.

Bearing these points in mind and from reading his email exchange with Soghoian one questions why Burson would have Mercurio work on such a project.  Let me highlight the reasons I ask this:

• In Mercurio’s opening email on May 3^rd, John addresses Chris Soghoian as ‘Mr. Soghoian’.  Would a person who had a close working relationship with this blogger address him as ‘Mr’?  Isn’t this quite a detached introduction from somebody who does not have a strong working relationship with said blogger?
• Mercurio is a Burson’s Director of Media with a background in politics, why is he involved in blogger relations?  Surely this would have been the responsibility of a tech team or at least of somebody who would not approach Soghoian with a ‘Mr. Soghoian’.
• While Mercurio offered the opportunity of an op-ed piece, why is it he and not somebody with a better working relationship offering Soghoian this opportunity?
• Why is Burson using email to connect with bloggers, knowing full well that email correspondence can be leaked?

Such work is only successful if there is an element of trust that you can work on.  Approaching bloggers in such a cold manner leaves not just an agency such a Burson-Marsteller open to attack, but also the client who rightly so would expect anonymity.

Mercurio is trained as a journalist, with a background in politics.  Surely he has experience on how to received leaks and how to protect sources.

From a communications perspective the whole operation leaves one questioning not just the suitability of Burson for such an assignment, but the internal understanding of how views and opinions are shaped in a world that is less media-centric.  There will be plenty of internal questions within this prestigious agency given that it isn’t just Facebook’s reputation that’s been damaged.

After much behind the scenes debate the UK PR industry has finally taken a step out of the shadows and stood tall.  The UK’s leading public relations title PR Week announced this week that it would no longer ‘accept AVEs (Advertising Value Equivalents) as a method of measurement in its awards.’

For years, clients and agencies have rightly been asking in-house and agency PR’s for metrics to confirm their investment in communications initiatives.

For some very inexplicable reason the PR industry decided to measure the success of it’s work in advertising terms.  Hmmm.  How confident this was.  We’ve placed a great story, which the journalist feels is strong and newsworthy and worth a few column inches.  The story carries a number of the client’s ‘key messages’ and we going to tell the client that our work has helped them save X amount because had they bought the advertising space they would have had to spend Y.  What a totally undermining and ridiculous way of measuring the success of professionals whose job is to understand human behaviour and promote causes, values and beliefs to wide ranging audiences.  No wonder those in ad-land have been enjoying Champagne budgets.

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations, of which I’m a member of it’s Council, have been having it’s own debate for a number of years about the value of AVE’s.  Last June in Barcelona the CIPR along with the Global Alliance For Public Relations decided to move away from AVE as a standard measurement system.

So, with PR Week now not accepting this standard in entries for it’s awards, the question is now about how long it will take industry to focus on other measurements and accept PR for the strength it provides to brand and reputation development and management?

In my opinion Public Relations should be the driver and not the subservient to disciplines that traditionally command the big budgets.

A hat-tip to PR Week, but we still have a long way to go until we are perceived for more than just people doing media relations and gaining column inches.

Comments by Sky Sports presenter Richard Keys and pundit Andy Gray about assistant referee Sian Massey and West Ham Deputy Chairwoman Karen Brady this weekend highlight the problem that football in the UK has.  Their off-air sexist remarks highlight outdated and out of touch views in the The Premier League, Championship and lower divisions.  Dealing with them, will help give UK football a much needed rebrand.

Keys and Gray have been the leading commentators on Sky Sports since the channel’s inception in 1992.  The game though has moved on since then.  It’s become far most athletic and its audience has been more diverse, with many more women watching the game, if not on TV then at their chosen grounds.  Yet for too long we have heard the views of these two out of touch pundits on how a physical presence is needed in games where fast flowing and thinking football is played.

Sadly though Sky Sports hasn’t kept apace with the changes in the game and in their audience and that has damaged how game it funds is perceived not just overseas, but by sponsors and advertisers that swell the channel’s own coffers.  Would advertisers pay for slots on Sky Sports when the way they present the game is outdated?

Keys and Gray have permeated views and made acceptable views that have not helped the English game develop.  They are out of touch and certainly off-side.

Of course questions have to be asked as to how these recordings came to light, but it certainly looks like they were leaked.  And this can only be a good thing.

Gordon Brown learned the hard way about how you are ‘always on air when mic’d up.’  And of course Richard Keys has previous for foot-in-mouth.  Being in the media and being ‘outted’ to the pack must hurt, but it’s about time that Sky Sports does its job in presenting the game as one for all and not just for men.

Keys and Gray are not just one of the problems in how the game of football is perceived.  New pundits that know about the modern game will help Sky resolve this PR nightmare that it finds itself in.  Who knows, maybe washing your dirty laundry in public can be a good thing for Sky Sports and for the game.

***BREAKING NEWS***

This story is developing.  Within hours of posting Sky Sports sack their Chief Pundit Andy Gray for comments he is alleged to have made in December while recording a Christmas special, which a dutiful PR has just leaked onto Youtube.  Goodbye.  See below:

The Adverting Standards Authority (ASA) siloed approach to regulating social media highlights this regulatory body’s lack of understanding of real-time communication channels.

On 1^st September the ASA announced that the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) had empowered it to police ‘marketing communications online, including the rules relating to misleading advertising, social responsibility and the protection of children.’ The statement from the ASA added that, ‘the remit will apply to all sectors and all businesses and organisations regardless of size.’

It all sounded very well, apart from one specific paragraph, which stated, that journalistic and editorial content and material related to causes and ideas – except those that are direct solicitations of donations for fund-raising – were to be excluded from the remit.

And here lie the problem.  The guidelines and regulations that the ASA wishes to apply to social media and networking channels appear to have been written from a 20^th centaury perspective, where marketing disciplines where siloed  – advertising was the big beast, direct marketing was direct marketing and public relations was, well, media relations.  There appears to have been little understanding of the fact that social media and networking crosses all these marketing disciplines.  In fact, it brings them together and maximises message penetration.

You would have therefore thought that the ASA would have consulted widely before announcing that it was to regulate social media channels.  Well, its statement said that the regulations that it would be enforcing were formed as a result of ‘formal recommendations from a wide cross-section of UK industry.’  Very odd thing to say given that the Chartered Institute of Public Relations and it’s Social Media Advisory Board, which I should declare that I sit on, had been omitted from any consultation even though numerous requests were made.

Without a doubt social media has to a certain extent be regulated – best practice needs to promoted.  The CIPR is currently reviewing its social media guidelines and has uploaded these to a wiki where people can register and share their thoughts.

Online and social media has changed the way that companies, brands and consumers interact with each other.  Transparency has a higher value than ever before, especially in a world where the old ‘broadcast communications model’ is taking a back seat to a ‘conversational’ one where consumers and stakeholders can cross examine business.

The ASA is right, there is a need to regulate.  But before doing so there needs to be a clear understanding of what one are trying to regulate, and why.  Marketing communications is changing.  Six months, the time until 1 March – when the regulations are currently due to come into force, is a long time in social media terms.

Engagement, dialogue and understanding comes through dialogue.  So lets start here.