The Intersection of Online and Offline

There has been some really interesting debate and commentary about yesterday’s Twebinar, put on my Chris Brogan and David Alston, both of which were kind enough to comment on yesterday’s posting. Most blog posts that I found, including Marc Meyer’s were positive - “Twebinar Mashup Was a Success.”

Time lends perspective, and after thinking about it for 24 hours, there were a few things that are buzzing around in my head:

1. This must have been a technical nightmare. Pulling all of the technologies together for the mash-up and counting on Twitter (which has been about as reliable as Paris Hilton at an open bar) must have been extraordinarily difficult. So kudos to Chris, David, SNCR and all of the participants for pulling this off. It has only whet our appetite for more.
2. I read many of the tweets that came out of yesterday’s commentary, and a few folks commented that the subject matters was a little basic, e.g., “social media IS game-changing…duh.” In thinking about this, I realized that the subject matter experts were talking in terms that were understandable to the masses, but I bet that the people who watched the two twebinars were a bunch of propeller-head wanna-bes like me. So that had to have been a tough thing to do as well: have a really kick-ass mashup and have a set of social media thought leaders who were telling us things that we already know.
3. The case studies offered by the guests were compelling and can help those of us who find it difficult to sell social media a little easier to explain to others. I really liked Richard Binhammer’s example that, since Dell began to talk and listen to customers using social media, complaints came down by 30 percent. That is something that can reverberate with anyone who understands a profit and loss statement or lifetime customer value.
4. Finally, Shel Israel traced the roots of social media, but like the title of this blog an the course that I teach, I firmly believe that good social media practices are rooted in good communications practices. Listen to your customers. Practice an open system of communication. Make your employees your ambassadors. A lot of this was possible before, but has been made much easier lately.
5. There were others who made good comments as well and I have listed some of those in an article published today in Media Bullseye.

All in all, not a bad start.

Mark

I can’t do it. I just can’t let this one go. After listening again to Media Bullseye’s Roundtable with Jason Falls, I am still a little perplexed — and steamed.

As a PR agency veteran of more than 11 years, I can’t help but wonder why bloggers feel so aggrieved that they are being pitched — incorrectly, I understand — by some people who are clearly inexperienced in doing so.

I am “old school,” so much that I have pitched more offline PR than online PR. You have to have your act together and do your homework no matter who you are pitching. Early on in my career, I got hung up on or blown off by numerous print reporters. And it was over.

My final word, as it often is, is that there are people who are much smarter than I am. And since this blog is about the intersection of online and offline, I have reached back to Esther Schindler’s “The Care and Feeding of the Press.” I first read this in Shel Holtz’s book, “Public Relations on the ‘Net.” It talks about offline pitching, but the basic tenants are still the same, including:

• Do you need to send this document?
• Making a press release worth our time!
• Let’s make this clear: unsolicited attachments merit the death penalty!

Please read Esther’s tips because I think they are funny, timely, worthy and truly represent the intersection of online and offline.

Mark

Today is a good day.

Got Part Deux published in Media Bullseye on my series about online reputation management. The cool part about having an interactive platform is that others can see and comment on it. More often than not, people make you smarter.

Kami Watson of Communications Overtones saw Part I of the series and noted that, when it comes to online reputation management, the best defense is a good offense, meaning that a strong Google page rank and presence will help provide a better base from which to communicate if and when the attacks come. Jason Falls also had some good thinking that I drew from for the article.

So thanks for your input, Kami. “Determining the Voices That Matter,” the article in today’s edition of Media Bullseye is Part II of my thinking on best practices for setting up an online reputation management program.

And since I don’t have my other blog any more, I HAVE to give a shout-out to Jon Lester of the Boston Red Sox for pitching a no-hitter last night.

Mark

I was listening to a recent “For Immediate Release,” aka the “Hobson and Holtz” report, and listened with awe that frequent contributor Dan York pulled off a Craig’s List miracle.

For those of you who are regular listeners to FIR, you’ll know that Dan often reports from the “picturesque countryside of Vermont.” Well, Dan is relocating to Keene, NH, as he describes in his blog. Here’s where it gets interesting: Dan listed his house on Craig’s List at 8:30 am and had a signed offer by 4:30 pm - THAT DAY. As the cheesy commercials say, “your results may vary,” but this is an incredible testament to the power of Craig’s List, which has already punched a hole in traditional advertising and is now making its way into new venues.

First, congratulations, Dan.

Second, I had a similar experience a couple of years ago. I got a serious steal on a house in a very desirable neighborhood outside of Washington, DC — with a huge caveat that we settle and move in 13 days (this is not a typo). Two sleepless weeks later, my family and I moved and I was faced with selling my own house in a market that had just begun to slump.

I went with a real estate agent who had never heard of Craig’s List, but knowing that I was tied into a 90-day contract with him, I cross-posted the MLS listing on Craig’s List. What happened was that two I-can’t-sleep-at-night-because-I-am-carrying-two-mortgages months later, my old house sold. But what happened in the meantime was interesting.

When I posted my house, I was getting inquiries from interested parties who were going about the traditional route through their agents. Then after hearing all of the wonderful things that real estate agents say, the prospective buyers would email me questions. And I would answer. And they would email more. And I would answer. And I would subtly let them know that I was pleased at the attention that my listing got on Craig’s List (read: competition).

So what happened? My house sold the good, old-fashioned MLS way, but had that not worked out, I had two interested parties with whom I had already developed a good relationship waiting in the wings.

Had I had more time, I would have (like Dan did) listed my house exclusively on Craig’s List. With a six percent commission on a average house value of $500,000, I would say that a Craig’s List posting is definitely worth a $30,000 real estate commission fee.

Sorry, National Association of Realtors.

Mark

As I first heard about in the “Hobson and Holtz” podcast and later read about in the International Herald Tribune, a German version of encyclopedias are going from offline to online and back to offline. At the center of the effort is Wikipedia.

The Herald Tribune notes that:

“In Germany, a printed collection of Wikipedia articles is being produced for the first time by a major publisher, Bertelsmann. The idea is to use Wikipedia to capture the zeitgeist by selecting the most popular entries, Beate Varnhorn, the editor in charge of Bertelsmann’s reference works, said in an interview by telephone. “We think of it as an encyclopedic yearbook,” Varnhorn said, leaving open the possibility of new editions if the 2008 version is successful.”

When I read this, I had a flashback to my childhood and the encyclopedia salespeople (one of whom reminded me of the “Old Gil” character in “The Simpsons”) telling parents that for a small fortune, purchasing a set of encyclopedias was “making an investment in your child’s future.” So parents either shelled out cold, hard cash or (and I am really sounding old), S&H Green Stamps.

Leaving aside the whole notion of fact-checking (and who is right and who is wrong, plus who will be doing the fact-checking), it’s fascinating that Wikipedia has reached such status in the online world that, as an encyclopedia, it is going back to its roots as a print edition.

I can’t say that I have ever really presented to understand the Germans, but the most recent Internet access statistics by Nielsen Net Ratings (old - from 2003) stated that 63 percent of all Germans had Internet access. One can only assume that this has risen in the time period since. So why offline? There has to be a business case for it.

I think that this will be an interesting exercise, but a lot of questions will persist - mainly, what is the benefit to producing static information from a source whose main reason for being is its ability to be updated instantaneously, maintained, and ultimately, produced a balanced outcome?

I’m not sure, but it will make for some interesting reading.

Auf Wiedersehen,

Mark