Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Is It "Unpure" for Corporate Blogs To Be Collaborative?

Are blogs sacrosanct documents that are written and seen by only one person, posted and then left on the Intenet as untouchable history?

Some blogging purists think so. One we know was disturbed when we decided to go back to a post of a day earlier and change some language that was, in our view, both dogmatic and inaccurate. “Blogs should not be changed,” he said.

Imagine this gentleman’s reaction to a recent survey by a Brit writer who claims to have done a “postal survey” of 750 blogging business executives in the U.S., UK, Australia and South Africa. He reports that 83 percent of the bloggers had their work written or drafted by someone else, although they approved the text before it was published.

Is this study legitimate? The Davis web site gives no way to verify his claims and you can check it out to see it if raises your suspicions. We’re skeptical about the large number of busy execs who allegedly would take the time to answer a mailing. And isn’t is strange that it was a “postal” survey and not emailed?

Whether or not it is credible, the survey addresses a real issue in corporate blogging: the lack of a universal definition of blogging integrity.

Some argue that all blogs should be classic “web logs,” or personal diaries – even of business people – and they should be authentic and strictly authored by one person, reflecting that person’s view on the day it was posted. Anything else – including reviews and revisions by others before posting or any changes after posting – amounts to misleading and probably dishonest activity, they say.

But consider the many speeches by business executives and government officials that include personal reflections, including memorable State of the Union addresses by U.S. presidents with misty-eyed references to meetings with regular folks or service personnel who moved the commander-in-chief to stirring oratory. Does anyone really believe such words never passed under the nose of speech writers and aides?

Are personal speeches written (at least in part) by someone else dishonest or misleading?

Of course not.

In our direct speech-writing experiences, we always spent considerable time with the executive to understand his or her theme, points and tone. Then there was back and forth collaboration until the executive was comfortable with the talk. When the speech is given –- or “posted” – the executive in fact becomes the author. The speech is hers.

As corporate blogging takes hold, the issues of ghost-written and previously-reviewed blogs probably will undergo great discussion. If an employee blogger agrees to let someone else in the company review his blog, is that “censorship” or giving the blogger the benefit of another pair of eyes?

In our view, if the primary blogger is comfortable with getting assistance in presenting a blog that accurately reflects her thoughts and views – and also keeps her out of trouble – the blogging world will accept that blog as authentic.

If such posts are effective and widely-read but the purists still attack them as not “real” blogs, and if that happens to any great degree, the web world simply will come up with another name for something good that works.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Blogging on the Strip: Not a Roaring Good Time

Corporate bloggers who like to post while traveling know that the most reliable way to keep the pipeline open is to schlep the old laptop throughout the trip and work in a hotel room that has a high-speed connection.

One of us found out the hard way last week it is foolish to assume that a very large hotel in a very busy town will provide a full-fledged business center with easy access to high speed connections.

With its 5,000 rooms stacked in massive buildings that stand out on the Las Vegas Strip skyline, the MGM Grand Hotel certainly seemed to have its Internet act together – at least in the rooms. The high speed access connector was there for easy, if expensive (70 cents a minute) connectivity.

But without our laptop, we looked up the “business center” location near the front lobby and headed down for a post. What a disaster.

There are 5,000 rooms at the Grand, but only five web-connected computers in the postage-stamp sized business hub.

Oh, two of the computers were at a stand-up podium. Only three desktops were perched in a cubbyhole tucked away to the right. They were occupied. There were others waiting. When we finally got our chance, we checked out an email that included a link to a Word document.

Bad idea, clicking that link. The machine froze. The clerk who responded pointed to a phone and told us to dial an 800 number for help. At that point, we looked at the others nervously fretting nearby their turn in the digital dungeon and just gave up the ghost. Forget about it.

What was so stunning about this meager facility was its comparison to the earlier legs of our Southwestern U.S. trip. A very small and quaint inn in Santa Fe provided a pleasant and separate room with free web access and printing. The Sedona, Arizona, inn provided free access at two comfortable sit-down locations near the front desk.

Even the well-worn El Rancho hotel on the old Route 66 in Gallup, N.M., offered free access on several computers in a separate room with windows. The hotel is well past its prime, when Hollywood’s Golden Age movie stars stayed there during filming of Westerns. But it understands the web needs of today’s guests.

The MGM in Vegas has many pleasant amenities and features, but when it comes to business center Internet access, it is far from the King of the Hill.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Always Read Blogs Critically

Following up on the Wal-Mart blogging scandal, we’d like to now address the issue of product reviews and recommendations in blog sites.

When you read an article on the front page of the New York Times, you can be pretty sure that the article has been carefully written and edited. Moreover, you can be pretty sure that content in the newspaper that appears to be an article is, in fact, an article, not an advertisement disguised as an article. These rules do not necessarily apply to content found in the “blogosphere.”

A relatively new web site, PayPerPost.com , allows advertisers to pay to have individual bloggers post on their blogs about products and services offered by the advertiser. Bloggers continue to host their blogs on their own web server or blog hosting service such as Blogger, integrating content into their blog to fulfill PayPerPost.com’s objectives along with their own personal work. While PayPerPost does have specific guidelines detailing the types of blogs that they will allow, these guidelines ensure that advertisers paying for PayPerPost.com’s services have their funds used to generate posts only on blogs that meet minimal quality standards. These guidelines don’t address the quality of posting done by the individual bloggers.

More troubling is the fact that bloggers being paid by PayPerPost.com do not need to disclose they are being paid to make their posts on their blogs. This leaves end users of a blog unable to judge whether a post they are reading about a new computer program being useful is truly real, or contrived by the blogger solely for the purpose of making a quick buck.

One should definitely not rely solely on information found in one blog to make a decision regarding purchasing a product. Using sites such as technorati.com can allow users to find the most authoritative blogs in the general content area they are interested in, where one may be able to determine whether there is a general consensus of blog posts among the premier blogs in an area on a particular product or issue.

Furthermore, there is an array of web sites that offer solid product comparisons and reviews (e.g. cnet.com), and a good way to find them is to just Google. For example, the phrase “laptop reviews and comparisons” will bring up a list of review/comparison sites. Just look at the site for its scope and quality before using it, then check out the product on a few more comparison sites to look for consistent evaluations.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Three Quick Blogging Lessons from Wal-Mart Mess


There are three major lessons to be learned from the Wal-Marting Across America “fake” blog scandal that is summed up nicely in this Business Week article.

Lesson One: Put Business Week’s online news URL on your favorites list or, better yet, subscribe to its RSS feed. The publication rarely misses a business web trick.

Lesson Two: Honesty still matters. Maybe a fake blog doesn’t rank up there with backdated stock options, but it stinks nonetheless. The Fourth Estate is a lot bigger now, with millions of bloggers assuming the role of watchdog. Lie on the web – and lying includes sins of omission -- and you’ll probably get caught.

Lesson Three: Wal-marting Across America was a nice idea that could have worked well if the traveling bloggers – Laura and Jim – had disclosed that the trip was being sponsored by the Wal-Mart PR firm. (See Laura’s mea culpa here.) The fact is, a creative blog that says positive things about a company can be accepted if it is transparent and entertaining/informative.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Nature Got "Wired" and You Could Be Next

We’ve taken on the job of constantly monitoring the “Big Stuff” Radar Screen to let you know about emerging topics or developments that someday will be finding their way into your work day.

And since chances are good that your desk or credenza isn’t holding a copy of Wired Magazine (circ. 532,491 monthly) or the weekly scientific journal Nature, here is our alert to some September radar pings involving both publications. Right now they’re just small news dots, but they eventually may produce explosive developments affecting your business.

First off, the September issue of Wired scooped the pants off the Wall Street Journal by reporting weeks ahead of the WSJ on a pioneering Internet initiative by Nature. That news coup reinforces our long-held belief that heads-up business executives should read Wired to understand and stay abreast of the fast-evolving web and wireless culture.

Just as noteworthy as that scoop is the groundbreaking news: The prestigious, British-owned Nature is reaching far beyond its private, time-honored peer review process by inviting, via the web, every scientist in the world to comment on prospective scientific articles. Once the Wall Street Journal newsies got wind of the action (maybe they read Wired), they reported the facts and gave the story prominent play.

As of September 15, Nature had printed 34 comments from the scientific community on the types of articles which previously were vetted only in private and with each document scrutinized by three experts who are picked by editors and remain anonymous. Only after such traditional review were articles included in the printed, magazine-style Nature journal.

Before finding out what this means to you, you might want to read here about the pioneering Nature experiment, the debate it sparked, and an example of the outsider comments on one article.

Now, why is this Nature development the least bit important to you? Because it adds fuel to the mounting possibility that the “let’s invite the world on the web” model eventually will be tested by companies looking for product feedback, market research and all manner of public response. This model, a form of what they call “crowd-sourcing,” is best seen in wikipedia online encyclopedia with it constantly-updated material contributed solely by web users.

Annette Thomas, managing director of the Nature Publishing Group that owns the journal, notes in a letter to its audience that the company is preparing for a “new era” and that the “balance of rights” has shifted away from publishers.”

Says Thomas: “Blogs and podcasts now enable any individual to reach a global audience. Delivering real value in such times is challenging. Web 2.0 is about inclusion, participation and self expression.”

We think this constitutes handwriting on the wall. At the very least, it demands attention.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Will You, Like Zillow, Let Customers Into Your Act?

Web 2.0 quickly is creating a new breed of customers – ones who expect and demand an encyclopedic array of data to help them purchase or use your product or service. What seems to be one of the key characteristics of the new Internet is this:

“User generated content”

The fact is, even if you are creating the initial information about your product or service, the new web-wise customers soon may be knocking on your door and demanding input. A great example of users getting into your act is Zillow.com, the real estate web site that provides value estimates and details, along with aerial photos, of more than 67 million private homes in the nation.

Only a few months ago we searched on Zillow a property we know well and wound up with a screen showing a building that we knew had been torn down. The building details were useless and the value was far off base. Our initial reaction: this is like looking at a digital version of a five-year-old phone book.

Now Zillow has fixed this issue by allowing homeowners to edit the information about the property. This blog by the Zillow CEO explains it in some detail.

The site does require the homeowner to verify that he or she owns the property and the verification process seems a bit lightweight.

Once the homeowner signs in to the site (registration is brief and requires little disclosure), he is asked to designate the address in question. Zillow then gives the user a choice of names (probably from tax records of all homes on the block or past owners of the property). The user picks his or her name and checks off a statement that he or she owns it. Whatever facts he adds are listed on the revised screen as “Owner’s Facts.”

Homeowner edits will not change Zillow’s estimate of the home’s value, however. But the owner can add his own estimate that appears as well.