I just read Chris’ post on the recent relevation on techPresident that Hillary Clinton staffers - be they volunteers or paid  - were just caught astroturfing a blog.  I agree wholeheatedly with his comments, but…

This is politics and stuff like this will be the tip of the iceberg.  Some likely low level Clintonites let their enthusiasm get to them.  In reading the article I felt that the infraction was relatively benign.  About four staffers consecutively registered and commented on the liberal blog Blue Hampshire via a computer whose IP address was registered to the Clinton campaign.  They used nicknames for identification and personal emails for their contact info.  Their comments were in support of this post.

In response, a spokesperson from the Clinton campaign said,  “this was not an orchestrated effort but the product of over-eager staffers and volunteers.”  Which was followed by “this was not an orchestrated effort but the product of over-eager staffers and volunteers, done without her awareness, and that it will not be repeated.”

My guess is that the spokesperson is exactly right with exception of the last part.  It will be repeated and repeated and repeated.  In two ways.

One is that it’s my guess that most over-eager staffers and volunteers have very little understanding or concern about the standards and ethics that have been set.  They’re clueless (and sometimes in politics the clueless can also be ruthless).  My guess is that these people meant no harm.  They are basically minor league baseball players that get stuck taking steroids.  But that means that there’s a bigger problem.  Because when you get caught, you’re in trouble.  Not being transparent means deceit.

This leads to what I expect the second way I believe this type of transgression will be repeated.  I’d bet money that the campaigns are looking at ways to denigrate and destroy the opposition via social networks and blogging.  There will be the creation of fake blogs that spread false rumors (such as Barack Obama is a Muslim) and other nefarious blurbs out there.  Some will work.  Others won’t.  Some will get away with it.  Others won’t.  At least not right away.  But eventually the lack of transparency will lead to the ultimate truth.  Just like it did with steroids in baseball.  Just ask Roger Clemens.

It’s coming to a campaign near you.

BtoB Online reports that 60.1% of B to B marketers will increase their marketing budgets next year.  While that’s more than half, but still shows caution.  It’s probable that many are unsure about the direction of the economy.

The good news is that 79.1 percent will be increasing their online budgets for 2008.  Of all the methods of marketing, that stand as the highest.  What we’re going to be witnessing is companies taking money out of traditional and going online.  And we may see a lot of this happening.

Given now that we’re seeing consumer generated goods making their way successfully on the internet through the use of ad units, I’m going to guess that B to B will go that route as well.  And a very healthy dose of search.  Both should be essential.

I’m wondering though…will we see much devoted to social media.  Educational/promo pieces on YouTube, increased blogger engagement, the use of podcasts for current customers.  I’m sure this is being done, but more likely in the tech sector.  I’m just wondering what other industry cultures will move in that direction.

One of the things that was clarified for me with all of the coverage of this recent Facebook Beacon episode was both the effectiveness and limitations of both mainstream media and the blogosphere in covering major issues of the day.

When Facebook introduced Beacon amidst much fanfare,  the  advertising, business, and technology communities followed the story with great interest.  It seemed to offer a lot:  traditional display mixed with viral word of mouth.  Major brands, both online and offline were partnering with Facebook on Beacon.

Soon things started to go haywire as people suddenly found out that things they bought were showing up in their ‘friends’ Facebook’s newsfeed without their knowledge or permission.  It turned out that Beacon, which had led it partners and the media to believe that was to be opt-in, was, in fact, opt-out.  And it was also clear that Facebook did not let its 50,000,000 users that they’d be playing roles as marketing agents from now on.   Disasters began happening and the blogosphere was first to react.

Geeks examined the technology behind the program here, here, and here.  Marketing bloggers wondered if it was good strategy here, here, and here.  All excellent posts.  All made sense.  All contributed to the conversation.

The problem here is that we all can’t act as a cohesive investigative unit, uncovering the ‘truth’ all together.  We go at it from the angle we are familiar with.  We get info bit by bit, some of which can be misleading and simply untrue.  That’s exactly what Stefan Berteau of Computer Associates ran into in his trying to get answers from Facebook.  While Stefan was apparently finding out - and thankfully telling us - he was getting his answers from a customer service rep.  A possibly uninformed on the exact details customer service rep.

Bloggers often have a limited amount of time to research, confirm, and blog about these things.  We have jobs to do.  So, unfortunately, while we can have great impact, it can be limited in its influence.

In the meantime, much of the mainstream media looked at this from afar, with only passing interest, waiting to see if the situation blew up in Facebook’s face.  And when it did - or at least when it came time for Facebook to respond - they did it mostly with press releases and shut off communications channels.  And most of their responses were to the mainstream business and technology press.  The problem there is that their explanations were often covered in PR spinspeak and technobabble.  The very points that  key people in the blogosphere raised weren’t answered.  The mainstream media simply reported how Facebook says it will now carry on their Beacon program.

This is a classic way of responding.  Assure the media that you’ve heard the complaints and that changes are coming.  A mea culpa with a smiley face.  The mainstream media may not know all the details and therefore not ask the key questions.  So we may never know as a whole what the real deal is.  Unless we keep up on those blogs.  But then again…we’ve all got jobs to do…and other things to blog about.

The culture of participatory social media is having some surprisingly significant effects on both the way satisfied customers play a role in contributing to the marketing message development of products and services. And it is also playing an increasingly important role in defining the key touchpoints that customers use in the deciding factors one what to purchase. What makes this all the more noteworthy is that much of this is rooted in offline purchases. I’m putting this together from two recent studies…

Read more…

Check out the article in last Thursday’s Times, Dealing With the Damage From Online Critics, that addresses how to handle consumers who develop a personal vendetta against your company. Well, you could send lawyers but legal cease-and-desists generally just make the customer madder than hell and it isn’t hard to just start yet another attack site.

I hate to say it, sucking less always helps. Start with treating your customers better. Also, be sure to register lots of domain names and work on your online reputation aggressively before it becomes a problem.

Online, the best defense is a good offense and an ounce of online promotion is worth a pound of cure. Here are some great commented-by-me excerpts from the article, Dealing With the Damage From Online Critics, so you can get a gist:

Read more…

Once in a while the FT makes me so happy with an article that I need to excerpt it in full so that I can make sure that the Financial Times doesn’t do some loser thing like make an article private. You can’t stop them talking is such an article. Here’s my favorite quote — and the most true, too:

‘Not all companies will find it easy to establish a blog on their own turf, and will have to play instead in terrain they do not control. Tread carefully, says Ciaran Norris of the agency Absolutely Digital. “The key is to have absolute respect for the forum you’re in.”‘

To be honest, most companies have a problem removing their armor, opening their kimonos, becoming transparent, and being authentic. They’re understandably risk-averse — there is so much to lose.

Another of the great excerpts uses GM as an exemplar for how to counter-message:

‘Last year the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman launched a withering attack on General Motors. GM demanded the right of response, but found itself embroiled in an e-mail dispute with the paper over the words it could use. So it gave up, and published the entire e-mail thread on its blog, FYI.’

Read more…

If you are anything like me you have been following with interest the story of the CEO/Chairman of Whole foods Mr. John P. Makcey who, using the online name Rahodeb, would bad mouth competition on Yahoo Finance’s bulletin board. It seems that the Federal Trade Commission is using Mackey’s pseudonym against him as they try to block Whole Food’s purchase of Wild Oats Markets as it would “limit competition among natural and organic groceries” (New York Times).

Read more…

I came across an interesting article today. It has some great tips on blog comments-as-internet-currency. One of my favorite points is that he ends all of his posts with a question directed towards the reader. I like how this acts as a great segue from the blogger talking to getting some feedback from the reader.

Thoughts?

Blog search engines such as Technorati, Feedster, Ask.com, Google BlogSearch, and BlogPulse only care about the last word. If you can reply to a negative, hurtful brand hit, then you can dominate the conversation and win the debate in most cases. Read more…