I have always found the crowd mentality on social media a fascinating phenomenon. It isn’t surprising that several recent headlines have highlighted the way that social media users have banded together in opposition of certain topics or issues. Social networking and its availability has prominently displayed how sentiments shift, discourse is altered and views are adjusted. I have written at length about GroupThink and how it has proliferated under social media’s grasp. The crowd mentality draws many similarities to this psychological homogeneity, yet I wanted to understand how, what some may call a “revolt”, gains traction and swells in size.

I remembered a scholar who revolutionized our understanding of the crowd. Psychologist Gustave Le Bon’s “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind” is a piece that I enjoyed reading. Although not grounded in social media or technology of any sort, I believe his theoretical assumptions hold true in today’s 2.0 world.

Whether we choose to analyze the most recent social media crowd uprising in the Canadian political landscape (online surveillance legislation opposition), Susan Komen and Planned Parenthood’s quarrel or the Occupy movement, there is a common theme. The parallel that can be drawn across these cases is the rapid alignment of sentiments, views and actions of social media users in opposition of a defined component. I will not be delving into the PR issues that are related to these independent cases, although one could analyze each on there own separate merits, shortcomings and teachables.

There are certain psychological characteristics of a crowd that Le Bon highlights in his work. These traits can be identified in any social media crowd that has been formed over the years. When a crowd begins to assemble there is a clearly define direction or outcome that is common among all involved. However, this collective objective has the ability to steer ideas and sentiments of individuals on the fringe, which causes the disappearance of their personality. This is evidenced by the fact that many who join an opposition movement begin to mimic behaviours, actions, discourse and views. For instance, the Occupy movement leveraged social media as a form of communication and publicity. During this, sentiments were aligned across geographical barriers, even if a view was inconsistent with evidence presented. The disappearance of an individual was replaced with the crowd’s collective ambition – or that of the most popular aspiration.

Le Bon notes that a crowd has the ability to re-shape and transform sentiment entirely. I draw on the Komen vs. Planned Parenthood case as an example. I witnessed many individuals become engulfed by emotion that was fueled by a minimalist understanding of the issue at hand. Without critical analysis or due diligence, a crowd was formed on basic, shared assumptions. Sentiments were initially shaped and then re-shaped to ensure the crowd’s focus was aligned. These shifts were in response to certain issues that were brought to light. However, the crowd remained resilient and cohesive.

The most striking peculiarity presented by a crowd is the fact that whoever the “individuals that compose it, however like or unlike their mode of life, their character, or intelligence, there is a collective mind which makes them feel, think, and act in a manner quite different than that in which each individual of them would feel in a state of isolation.”

Le Bon’s work accurately describes today’s social media crowd mentality. There seems to be, regardless of whether correct or incorrect, a desire to be involved in these types of movements. My personal opinion is that there is a strong desire to be part of what one believes to be “popular”. With Twitter’s “trending” algorithm, people view what is being talked about and jump on board, whether they have formed their own opinion beforehand or not.

For instance, with the online surveillance Bill that was proposed in Canada’s House of Commons, there was a ferocious revolt ignited by an anonymous Twitter account that publicized personal information about a Minister. I should note that the social media campaign #TellVicEverything was not wrong, underhanded, nor was it unnecessary. However, thousands shared and re-shared personal information that was in no way connected to the policy or the political landscape. The crowd’s personal characteristics were diluted at the hands of a nucleus that steered a certain contingent.

Many of those who shared this highly personal information would probably not take part in this type of activity in their personal lives, outside of the digital world. However, the crowd mentality re-shaped certain values and sentiments in a way that furthered the crowd’s objectives.

Within a digital crowd every sentiment, view and act is contagious. Whether it is a political policy issue, a private organization’s funding decision or a grassroots opposition of corporate greed, those involved incubate certain ideas that, when mixed with the thrill of being part of a digital movement, re-define how one acts. A small contingency then has control over a groups focus and direction.

I believe any social media crowd, or any opposition for that matter, is fueled by emotion. There are a select few that ignite a “revolt” or stand up against something because they have deep seeded beliefs. However, past that, many are just tagging along. The Occupy movement is a perfect example. There was the initial group who understood what they were standing up against. They proposed legitimate policy alternatives and they grounded their arguments in reality. Fast forward after its popularization and we see groups that sprung up and used social media under the guise of the Occupy movement. However, they didn’t understand what they were opposing, nor did they care. The same happens in many social media crowds. People see this flurry of involvement and jump in waist deep without first understanding it. This is how a crowd fails. Their initial direction and focus becomes derailed because of blind involvement.

The one thing that I take from crowds and these digital movements is the fact that they happen so quickly, so extensively and they have the ability to gain widespread attention. Many PR practitioners, marketers and advertisers dream of their client’s name or product being attached to a positive digital crowd. We see what happens when it goes in the opposite direction (re: McDonald’s stories).

But, what we need to understand about social media and the crowd is that emotion fuels its presence. The acknowledgement of emotion’s importance changes how we view social media’s place in PR or marketing. It isn’t just engaging those in your community on topics that you believe are important to branding, relationship building or marketing initiatives. Rather, we need to understand the immense power that emotion has on today’s digital world. Emotion drives what we do as humans. It also influences how we view the world around us, including brands and companies.

Being able to attach a positive emotion to your brand, client or company isn’t a simple feat. However, it is something we all should strive to achieve because without positive emotion, there isn’t a true connection.

Content is created to spark interest, be shared, spur conversation, ignite debate and further our knowledge and development of a topic. However, there seems to be a heavy reliance on the first two of these objectives, which has had a significant impact on the latter. The “Top (insert number here) list” approach to creation emits this unique appeal that is felt across industries and topics.

My subjective view of “the list” is not all encompassing. In fact, there are some topics that deserve to be organized within a neat and confined list. For instance, Jaime Stein’s recent publication on the evolution of recruitment is a great example. He offers tips on how to creatively stand out amongst applicants for those in search of employment. This style of writing appropriately fit the topic and its purpose.

I would be remiss if I didn’t note that there are clear benefits to content creation in list format. For instance, the ease of consumption and sharing, combined with the simplicity that allows for clear understanding. In fact, I agree that these benefits exist. However, I feel that there has been a saturation to a point where reality has been blurred in favour of simplicity and our unique desire for popularity and acceptance.

I recently did a guest post on PR Conversations about social media in politics. If you aren’t familiar with this blog, it is focused more on academia and knowledge advancement through dialogue. My post was significantly longer than most posts we read and it was grounded in theory, strategy and empirical conceptualization. It was written to address certain assumptions, contribute to a body of empirical work, as well as increase dialogue and debate of the subject. Simplicity was not a driving force in this article’s development.

An individual who decided to read this post offered these points of constructive criticism (paraphrased): it’s too long, you need to focus on short attention spans and simplicity. To my surprise, nothing about content or the topic was raised. But, I guess that is to be expected. This lead me to begin pondering about what content is considered “popular” within our digital community. Well, a brief scan of any top rated PR , business or social media blog points in the direction of small, actionable lists that cover a wide range of topics.

As I stated before, lists do serve a purpose within environments that are focused on certain topics. But, if we could all “increase our followers”, “build a strong brand”, “respond to a national crisis”, “increase sales through social media”, or “build long lasting relationships through PR strategies” by implementing five or ten actionable tasks, there would be no need for PR, management consulting or social media agencies to exist.

My contention with “the list” comes from its significant limitations on the advancement of knowledge, understanding and development of an industry or a topic. I truly believe lists robustly assist the preservation and proliferation of GroupThink or the Echo Chamber Effect in our community. If you look at an article that is published based on a list format, sharing is extensive, comments are vast and popularity (if we base it on RTs, “likes” and mentions) is off the charts. Yet, these “successes” don’t seem to translate into tangible, realistic or systemic benefits.

What I mean by this is the fact that shares are just simple regurgitations of content, comments are almost exclusively based on reaffirmation and support, while popularity is driven by the former. Herein lies my criticism.

Lists may shape popularity, but where it excels in this regard, it lacks in the advancement of what our industries so desperately need: development. Simplicity and popularity has stifled the growth of original content creation. This is evidenced by the vast individual reiterations of certain content.

I am by no means suggesting that all content must be exclusively original. However, near plagiarism without adding personal analysis or thought runs rampant. Lists have simplified how we learn. Yes, they may be easily consumed but they have severely blinded us by limiting ones desire to critically analyze content through an objective lens.

Due diligence, questioning of assumptions and assertions, critical analysis and constructive debate seems to be lost. Lists exacerbate the clear inconsistency between knowledge development and unequivocal agreement and support.

The Komen vs. Planned Parenthood issue is a wonderful example. I viewed and participated in several conversations on Twitter about it. Many had GroupThink‘s fingerprints all over them. Too many of us jump into conversations without first exploring the situation, acknowledging different views, questioning assumptions, exploring other factors that led to decisions and most importantly, we don’t formulate our own objective opinions before we engage.

Certain lists that address big picture topics and issues have blurred the lines of realism. We have made issues so simplistic, in order to appease the masses, to a point where we forget to pause, reflect and question what we are reading. They divert our attention away from the true issues at hand as evidenced by broad comments of support with exceptionally limited debate.

Maybe this is just my view on education, advancement and innovation, but I feel there is a need for deeper and more technical discussions and debate around social media, business development and ROI (among many other topics). It is unquestionable that knowledge is shared and developed through dialogue, critical analysis and the absorption of unconventional and opposing views. Lists do share knowledge of sorts, but there are severe limitations.

Perhaps this is why I am so drawn to people like Jason Konopinski, Judy Gombita, Josh Greenberg, Daniel Gulati, Heather Yaxley, Lindsay Bell, Stephanie Brooks and Terry Flynn. They question assumptions, ground content and dialogue in academic and theoretical concepts, and create content that steps outside of the box in an attempt to re-shape our understanding of core topics.

Lists offer a dangerously cyclical process of sharing, re-sharing and re-creation. Our desire for popularity of content and person has taken the place of our desire to question the world around us. Posts that are seemingly re-blogged without critical analysis and delivered on the belief that content needs to be simple and shareable garner widespread popularity. This is an indisputable fact. But I challenge you before you re-Tweet, re-blog or get absorbed by GroupThink’s power, objectively question content, perform your due diligence, while critical analyzing assertions and findings. It may not be “easy” or “popular”, but it offers significant benefits in terms of personal and industry development.

What is your take on content creation? How can we contribute to ongoing knowledge and development? Do you agree with my view of our digital community?

But since this post has ignored the golden rules of popularity and blog length, I doubt it will go anywhere…

@TylerOrchard

This past weekend I read Ken Mueller’s post, “A Crisis of Social Media Crises: Don’t Be Stupid“. It was a refreshing perspective that reminded me it is increasingly important to look at our world through an objective lens. His post was a wonderful piece that abruptly placed recent “PR failures” on centre stage. He seems to take Gini Dietrich’s advice and analyzed them in a way that offered content that we could learn from, providing readers with more than a just description of where they went wrong.

I agree with Ken in that companies today need to be prepared. I also agree that community engagement is a fundamental necessity to any social media initiative. But what is the underlying essence of “community engagement”?

There are no neat boundaries between the employee, the brand, management and consumers anymore. The digital community and information sharing processes have erased these confines.

Ken cautions businesses to use social media tools to their advantage. Now that I think about it, maybe this post is just an exploration of that advice. We need to start looking at these “tools” as a company’s irrevocable investment in social capital – it can no longer be just a technical term.

During my academic days I read a journal article that seems to perfectly apply to social media. The article is Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept by Paul Adler and Seok-Woo Kwon.

Social Capital Theory

Social capital is described as goodwill that others have toward us; a feeling that embodies sympathy, trust and forgiveness. Through investment in building their network of external relations, both individual and collective actors can strengthen their social capital and thereby gain benefits in the form of access to information, power and solidarity.

Similar to personal relationships, social capital needs maintenance – bonds need to be periodically renewed and reconfirmed. This intangible element is “located” not in the actors, but in their relations with others.

Application to Social Media

We can’t view social media as a means to an end. That is flawed thinking, which leads a brand to perish. Likewise, community engagement should not be pursued to solely fulfil quantifiable objectives that are internally created. It is about building relationships that are based on Adler and Kwon’s goodwill. Pure engagement is achieved when a brand builds a relationship formed on trust and transparency. Through understanding of and investment in PR2.0 strategies, businesses can build a community that yields access to their consumers, first and business objectives, second.

Just as Adler and Kwon note that social capital requires maintenance in the sociological sense, so does social capital in the social media sense. The digital community and its participants shape and re-shape relationships on a daily basis. Networks are readjusted and sentiment shifts. It is an organism that demands attention and authentic interaction.

Social Media’s Social Capital

Planning, preparation and detailed social media policies ensure a company has the necessary technical tools to respond and react to brand developments in the digital community. However, I believe social capital plays a bigger role in a brand’s success, as well as its ability to respond to a crisis.

It’s about being able to leverage your social capital (i.e. your relationships) to achieve certain objectives. We create and re-create the community around us. Those relationships don’t just represent a “customer” or number any more. They are elements of your brand’s social capital. The engagement with and nurturing of those relationships shape your company’s social media power and potential.

Relationships that are based on trust and goodwill create a community that replicates an emotional connection. Loyalty and unconditional engagement speaks volumes in this world and offers company’s unforeseen opportunities and vehicles to leverage in times when certain objectives need to be met.

But then again, does social capital even mean anything in our digital sphere or are relationships mere manifestations that we believe are there?

The term “groupthink” was coined by the renowned psychologist Irving Janis in 1972. Symptoms of this increasingly pronounced phenomenon are associated with poor and pressured decision making processes. This ground breaking qualitative study revealed that those who will be more susceptible to groupthink is directly correlated to the confidence those individuals embody in the decisions they make within the group.

Before delving into my post, I think it is appropriate to highlight several resources that are great reads on this topic. Mike Lesczinski’s article The Only Defence Against Boardroom Groupthink is a great take on today’s “yes men or women”. There is also a great study conducted by Henningsen, Eden, Henningsen and Cruz on the symptoms of groupthink. Finally, Peter Turkington, a great PR mind, touched on this topic in his blog.

The decisions that we make as professionals are grounded in our deliberated judgment, moral foundations and mental efficiency. However, groupthink has the ability to impair those faculties due to pressures that are insulated from other areas of life or industry.

Many of us would agree that in our professional positions there are not rigid rules or guidelines for decision making, nor should there be. But groupthink seems to have been reinvigorated by the popularization of social media.

From the ability to “retweet”, “like”, “quote” and “repost” content, many have lost the desire to question information, ideas and lists of the top 10 keys to (insert here). I had begun to see social media in a different light until just this past week when Judy Gombita, who is a great contributor to the PR field, decided to engage me in a great debate via Twitter on the difference between human-determined morality and business ethics within the PR industry. This was spurred by my post Our Battle With Ethics in PR. She revived my faith in the type of dialogue that is quickly vanishing in our 2.0 world.

I have seen all to often people in industry and in society relinquish their desire to form independent thoughts in favour of jumping on the proverbial bandwagon. It isn’t anything new. It is ever present at our offices, in our social lives, at school – just about anywhere. But social media publicized and highlighted our impulse to agree with whatever is being said without pause for contemplation.

Is it that we fear to be questioned? Do we want to gain more followers? Do we want to be part of the latest idea or fad? Or is it just that we don’t want to be the one to lend a critical analyzing lens to a story or article?

Throughout my childhood, academia and now during my professional career, I have always sought to critically examine the world around me. Whether it is a communications strategy, a pitch, a new idea or research, I believe it is healthy to engage in dialogue and discussion on any topic. I would be remiss if I didn’t state outright that I don’t mean we should be going through everything with a fine tooth comb searching for an issue to expose. I am merely suggesting that we need to revitalize the discourse on social media platforms.

Groupthink has laid down deep roots in social media. I believe there is a stigma that revolves around debate on Twitter or Facebook. We are too eager to further the conversation in terms of analytics and popularity, than we are in furthering the knowledge economy of the topic at hand.

I am not perfect, I have found at times that I am searching to break free of the incredible hold groupthink has on the decisions you make. Today’s professional environment is one where groupthink thrives. Your success, in some industries, is defined by how well you fall in line.

I find that many are blinded by the popularity and allure of more followers on social media. This new 2.0 phenomenon has thus shaped our online engagement and interaction processes. The dialogue has shifted from constructivism into one of impulsive and unconditional agreement.

Is there anything we can do?

I think it would be foolish to believe that we can ratify the social media environment that has become so widespread. The realist in my sees social media as more of a place to only share and re-share information and ideas, not a place to view these concepts with a critical lens. But maybe that’s just the way it’s supposed to be.

It should be noted that there are a number of online chats (Twitter specifically) that you can take part in. I find these to be extremely beneficial and is a move in the right direction. However, these are based more on the sharing of information and tips than it is based on analysis and debate.

Social media connects us with professionals from across the globe. This is an invaluable tool when searching to be better at what we do. It has offered us an opportunity to learn from and engage people without boundaries. We have the ability to  discuss ideas and concepts with people we normally would never have even met.

I think we need to realize the power of social media, from a PR development point of view. It isn’t just about how many followers you have or how many re-Tweets you can garner. It is about contributing to the evolution of the industry and those around you.

I will continue to strive to engage those around me because I see it as a way to learn.

By: @TylerOrchard

There have been numerous articles written by very reputable PR professionals about the ethical foundation of this industry. This includes Ethics and Disclosure by Gini Dietrich, Ethics in PR by John Cass, or Is Wikipedia Too Hard for PR? by David King, which can be found on Steve Farnworth’s blog.

Ethics, in my opinion, is highly regarded as an intangible necessity for any professional. The definition of “ethics” can be debated. I believe each one of us defines it differently as it is shaped by our morals and virtues. Attempting to define ethics in PR is almost as a fruitless an undertaking as it is to try and define what PR is.

Whether you work in the political PR industry, like myself, or the consumer field, you pitch ideas, stories or products on behalf of someone else. There is a certain expectation placed upon you. You are expected to deliver a specific, and often predetermined, level of success. Many times the worth of your work is defined by the return on investment (ROI) you provide your client or political figure.

Expectations, performance measurement standards and ROI can be pressure-inducing stressors that, as we have seen, have the ability to reshape one’s ethical and moral compass. We have recently witnessed the power that expectations can wield. One being the Lowe’s fiasco and the more recent Chiquita Banana episode.

I have met many individuals in business who say that they will sell anything if it isn’t illegal. This ideology is often transfered into the PR industry. Professionals who will promote anything, by any method, as long as it isn’t illegal is a perfect example of someone who places ethics and morals to the side in pursuit of a certain level of success.

Beyond the simplistic suggestion that ethical PR practices could encompass everything short of illegal seems ill-defined.

In my professional position, I have lead several negative PR campaigns (or attack ads, but I don’t love that description). This is something I have been highly successful at. These strategies had the ability to garner vast national media consumption. The ROI on these campaigns was immense and far-reaching. I never fabricated a lie, I never stretched the truth or made personal comments, but I utilized strategic communications, social media and traditional methods to re-define the political landscape and voters public perception.

Would you define my actions as unethical or immoral?

Negative communications campaigns in Canadian politics grew during the last federal election. Many journalists and columnists condemned the direction of political campaigns in our country, while others praised, as some defined it, its Americanization. I am quite sure that some would take offence to the communications strategies that I employed, but I am positive others praised the work of our campaign.

I don’t believe my personal actions were immoral or unethical. I have too strong of a conscience to act immoral. I never broke any laws, but is ethics just a personal manifestation that we chose to ignore at times, or are we as professionals bound by a certain level of morality that transcends individual virtues?

My definition of ethical communications and PR may be in direct conflict with yours.

Pressure and expectations exert significant powers of persuasion. Ethics is not black and white. It is shaped by who you are and what you stand for. However, your view of morality may not be aligned with that of your employer or client.

I believe it is important to define what ethics means to you. Do away with trying to find a consensual definition of such a philosophical word. Establish your professional ethical compass and maintain that level ethicality in your work. Never fall victim to expectations or pressure if it conflicts with who you are.

Many have failed to truly act ethically in the PR field. Shift the onus from the industry defining what is ethical to personally defining what it means to be ethical. Hard work, experience and unique strategies will shape your career, not taking short cuts in exchange for a quick ROI.

We continue to battle with what ethics is, but we need to start learning how to win the fight between the power expectations hold and our focus as professionals.

My hope is to create dialogue and conversation with this post.

By: @TylerOrchard

It is the second occurrence in a very short period of time that we have witnessed a large, multinational company surrender to a vocal group with certain ideological views. Recently, and well summed up by Gini Dietrich, Lowe’s caved to pressure from the Florida Family Association to remove its advertising during the TLC program, All-American Muslim.

Now, Chiquita Brands Company, in an attempt to appease environmental activists in the United States, has decided to publicly boycott Canadian oil. This ill-advised decision has shifted public sentiment in the opposite direction of where they intended. Even though Chiquita’s unwavering holistic messaging satisfies some, the underlying fundamentals that initiated this endeavour are flawed.

Chiquita believed it would be good for their future to set their sights on Canada. It was a decision that was supposed to shift the image and reputation of Chiquita Brands in a direction that was more aligned with environmental sustainability and ethical cultivation of fuel. However, this PR strategy has backfired in the most amazing way.

The decision to publicly boycott Canadian oil has left little to the imagination. By disconnection themselves from Canadian-derived fuel, Chiquita has, by method of elimination, sided with OPEC’s oil choices – which are obtained through unethical and conflictual means. Whether it is human rights concerns or significantly lower standards than found in Canada, the decision by Chiquita has dealt an unexpectedly sizable blow to their image and reputation.

Chiquita’s boycott stunt, materialized by PR professionals that seem to be disconnected from reality, sent a clear message: Canadian oil is unworthy for their corporate consumption and posses a significant environmental liability to their company.

Yet, as Ethical Oil clearly outlines for us, Canadian oil is produced ethically and complies with some of the world’s highest standards and regulations. In an event that was probably not initially thought of by Chiquita, thousands of customers and citizens across Canada took to the streets, malls and grocery stores to advance the boycott of Chiquita products. Even the Canadian Trucking Alliance weighed in on the situation:

“I have to say that I a

m dismayed and utterly amazed that a company such as Chiquita would be so uninformed on the facts regarding the environmental realities of the oilsands and the national energy implications of such a directive,” wrote CTA president and chief executive David Bradley in a letter to Chiquita.

In a sheer panic to address the crisis situation they were dramatically placed in, Chiquita denied any such boycott. As far as crisis communications goes, haphazardly censoring certain public comments and outright denying the decision are not high up on the professional “must-do” list. They claim that they are not boycotting all Canadian oil, only that which comes from the oils ands – spin that was dead upon delivery as three quarters of Canadian oil exported to the United States is from our Alberta oil sands.

Without delving into the unpleasant history of the Chiquita Brands Company it is safe to state that they were in no position to question the ethicality of Canadian oil or our corporate social responsibility. The focus of their boycott is ill-advised and hastily assembled. It’s a PR stunt that was blinded by the need to appease certain benefactors. This decision raises increasingly damaging questions about the sincerity of their green initiative and the moral makeup of their company.

The PR department at Chiquita must still be sitting at their desks, stunned by the ramifications of their strategy. Crisis communications or damage control doesn’t seem to capture the reality of where Chiquita now stands in the market, let alone the public’s eye. It has not only hurt their image and reputation, but with the staunch opposition from consumers, it has hurt their bottom line across Canada.

Chiquita made a decision that turned an entire country against them, solidified numerous adversaries and opponents from all walks of life and thrust their own unethical past back into the spotlight.

Ethics play a large part in PR – that is how professionals and departments are defined. Ethics shape how you relay information and what you stand for. This is a prime example of a company that ignored all conventional and albeit sane methods of image enhancement in favour of a strategy that was unprincipled to the core. This isn’t a situation that can be fixed with traditional PR skills, as it was a decision conjured up by people who don’t follow the ethical principles of the profession. We have witnessed a company self-destruct under the expectations and pressure from a small vocal segment of society yet again.

This story teaches us what ethics truly means, how PR can define a company, how important it is to logically think about the consequences of your actions and the words you chose to use, and most importantly, it teaches us how to be better at

what we do.

Support Boycott Chiquita

I have read numerous articles that praise these brands’ social media prowess and branding techniques. For example, one of the best ones I have read recently was by Kevin Dugan (@PRBlog) on sensory branding. However, more note-taking and attention needs to be paid to start-up companies and small enterprises, because on the grass roots level, the consumer level, they teach us how to effectively use social media.

The measurement of social media effectiveness has been described by thousands, all trying to define what it means to be successful at using this customer-facing tool. There is very little consensus on this topic and I tend to agree that multiple definitions can operate in this space.

Major, multinational companies shape the environment around them. Their marketing, PR and advertising budgets are unbelievable and they have some of the brightest minds working for them.  Many people assume that they are the experts at using social media and you wouldn’t be completely wrong if you believed in this basic definition of success (size = success).

However, I don’t.

When you examine large companies’ social media sites, be it Facebook or Twitter, the first thing you notice is the number of followers or people who have “liked” their page. Many correlate this to their level of success.

But I believe it comes down to engagement. By that, I mean deconstructed, interpersonal interaction between the brand and their customers. RTing a companies Tweet or “liking” their statement is only part of their ability to appease their customers. However, it doesn’t mean they are truly engaging their audience.

Engagement is a conversation, a natural interaction that means more than simple agreement (of a statement or announcement). Engaging your customers on any level shows your ability to understand, relate to and share with your audience.

To me, this is social media success. It is the true understanding of how social media connects us. Major brands don’t do this as effectively as smaller, more customer driven companies.

Take a look at these screen shots. What sets these companies apart? Look at their following, but also look at their engagement style and number of Tweets. There is a difference between a strong and popular brand and a brand that knows how to utilize social media.

The small companies (Mill Street, a local Toronto brewery and Dogfish Head Beer) take a much different approach to social media than the larger, more established, multinational brands. Look at the messaging, the content and the approach.

What Small Companies Teach Us About Social Media

1. Attention

Small companies understand that engagement is founded on attending to your customers. Not responding or getting around to answering a comment 4 days later is perceived by many that you have no time for your audience. By thanking your customers, going that extra step or proactively interacting with people provides a return on your investment that is much higher than any other strategy.

2. Relationships

Start-up businesses seem to know their customer much more intimately than large brands. There is not buffer between the company and the consumer. They interact on a level that transcends the brand-customer relationship. Being personal via social media isn’t always easy, but these companies have mastered that challenge.

3. It’s Not Always About You

Social media is a great tool for publicity, advertisement and self-promotion. But there is a threshold for that type of outward content. Small enterprises have clearly understood that to build a brand they need to engage, they need to add value and they need to pay it forward. This isn’t achieved through self-promotion. It’s achieved through pure and personable interaction and sharing.

@TylerOrchard

There is still a misunderstanding between quantity and quality.  Actually, Tara Hunt (@missrogue) provided a great take on this in her post titled The Decline of Original Content. While originality seems to be dwindling, the type of messaging and the effort that is put into this process seems to be mimicking that decline.

Content originality, in my opinion, is something that ensures you stand out in the market. But originality has to be coupled with more than knowledge and understanding of your market, the consumer and the environment you operate in. Originality is shaped by your passion for that project. But originality does not equate directly to success.

Your message shapes your business’ reputation, its sales, its following and its branding structure.

Here are 5 things to remember when delivering messaging to your audience.

2. Be Succinct

Your message must be an extension of who you are representing. A message that deviates from the overall direction of the company or its values is perceived from your audience as being confused. If there is one thing that you don’t want your customers or clients to see is confusion. We all operate in chaos, but ensuring your message is on point carries the brand.

2. Test Details

Too many times I have seen messaging that fails to align itself with its audience’s makeup. We have to remember that we are engaging an audience that is diverse. A blanket messaging strategy fails to address the subtle nuances of who you are speaking with. Testing a message may be an extra step in the process, but it pays dividends.

3. Clarity and Simplicity

No one wants to read messaging that is seemingly written by an individual with a strong relationship with his or her thesaurus. A colleague once told me that you are engaging an audience with an average grade 9 reading level. Whether this is a quantitative fact or not, it is a great rule of thumb to operate by. Keep your message as concise and simple as possible, while remaining creative and on point.

4. Evaluate What You Want to Achieve

Before beginning any brainstorming or strategizing, clearly articulate exactly what you want to achieve with your message to everyone involved or remotely connected. Is it to pull on a heartstring, do you want to invoke laughter or is it a serious focus. Whichever it may be, you must be sure to evaluate the words you choose and how they are positioned. Minute details have the ability to shift a messages focus and trajectory – something that you don’t want to have happen, unless you’re itching for crisis communications experience.

5. Monitor, Analyze and Share

How do we get better at what we do? We learn from what we have done. Messaging is criticized, commented on and discussed. Learn from those conversations, tweak your campaign accordingly and most importantly, relay what you have gained from your analysis to every corner of your team. Communication within a comms/PR team is ironically something that isn’t always present. To ensure you remain on message, you must collectively learn as a team.

Overall, messaging from the centre ensures your campaigns are effective, focused and successful. When confusion is present in your comms/PR team, your campaign reflects that. Operate from a centralized position of creativity where delivering content is manageable.

@TylerOrchard

Twitter for example is a tool that can change a company’s future – for the good or the bad. I am not about to go into why social media is a critical piece of any business plan, however, Steve Farnsworth (@Steveology) provides a great cost-benefit analysis.

Companies that decide to implement a social media strategy need to fully understand the scope, purpose and repercussions it has if not managed properly. I have seen all too often companies investing time and effort into a social media campaign without a focus.

Engagement with consumers through social media has had proven success – this is undeniable. However, there is still a departure between true engagement and customer service experiences in large corporate environments. It becomes a silo issue and it has the ability to place a company’s reputation and brand in jeopardy.

Corporate entities need to understand that social media is a tool to connect with people, whether it is customers, influencers, employees or the greater public. The “interaction” aspect seems to be forgotten at times. Social media engagement is a relationship with your customer – one that shifts the onus on you to protect and nurture.

A chilling fact was raised by Brian Solis [@briansolis] during yesterday’s #predu webinar hosted by Michael Pranikoff [@mpranikoff] of @prnewswire. He states that 71% of customer inquiries go unanswered on Twitter.

This exemplifies the need for corporate PR and communications departments to have a structured plan that addresses the entire reason why they are using social media: to enhance the customer experience and providing flawless customer service.

Here are four steps that your company needs to remember when they engage the social media world, because rputation is everything:

1. Plan Before Action

Before jumping on the social media band wagon, you must plan for how your company will monitor its usage, how it will respond to inquiries and you must ensure there are clear processes for how this will all be accomplished. Setting out timelines for responses and inquiries is crucial.

2. Response and Attention

Social media is there to engage your audience, to speak with them and to respond to questions or criticisms. Your reputation depends on your ability to effectively respond to customers in a professional, and most importantly, a timely manner. Remember it’s about generating results for that person – the very essence of customer service.

3. Break the Silo

Corporate clients who use social media must understand that this tool does not mix with the silo mentality. Departments must work cross-functionally to address issues and respond to inquiries – a process that is dependent on communication.

4. Engage, Listen and Learn

Regardless of the industry you are in when you engage your audience through social media, you must listen and learn from the conversations that take place. Discuss issues with consumers, respond to questions or complaints and ensure that your company learns from these dialogues and relationships. This shapes your company’s reputation and, through social media, you have the ability to make an impact in the market.

@Tyler Orchard

Many large urban centres have an abundance of local and ethnic media outlets.  For example, Toronto has hundreds of small ethnic media outlets that span every community imaginable. I’m not suggesting that the same amount of time goes into pitching these outlets, but in some cases they are completely ignored as viable contacts in the PR world.

This may be because there still is a perception that major media reaches everyone. This is false. This leads us to believe that leveraging smaller media outlets is a waste of our time or won’t yield a high enough return on our investment. This thought process is alive and well today in PR and it has the ability to cripple your communications strategy.

Many tend to believe that local and ethnic media aren’t popular, they have no power and any coverage in these types of outlets just doesn’t matter.

However, these outlets have considerable reach and influence in their respected communities. Many of these newspapers have tens of thousands of readers and continue to expand their reach. Not to mention, many have expanded into the social media and online section of the industry. These outlets not only have an impressive following, but readers share a connection with that media, especially in ethnic communities. This relationship is unique.

It is a connection that shapes public opinion, understanding and perception within a community. Although its scope may be smaller in terms of geographical size, its ability to steer public sentiment is strategically invaluable.

Branding, messaging and publicity efforts should not only be aimed at the big picture. Connecting with today’s diverse communities and audiences demand that PR professionals expand their outreach and engagement methods. Whether it is branding, responding to a crisis or engaging a certain community on a distinct issue or product, we need to understand that these outlets have the ability to generate considerable results.

Here are four reasons to consider local and ethnic media as part and parcel of your PR strategies:

1. Local and Ethnic Media Have a Very Loyal Following

This can be used to strengthen your branding approach. It is a connection that is personal and intimate – a relationship that can be used to shift perception and increase sales.

2. The Strategy of Targeted Placement

Smaller and more targeted media outlets allow you to approach different audiences in very distinct ways. Shifting your strategy to one that connects with a certain media entity can yield considerable awareness and leads.

Some examples include:

• Gateway to Care in Houston Texas searching to increase enrollment.
• The Boston Globe: The Importance of Ethnic Media

3. Ignoring Leads to Alienation

Ignoring these media players can have a large impact on your ability to connect with your intended audience. Alienation is a by-product we should not need to worry about. It is much more difficult and time-consuming to try to win back a media outlet once they feel ignored. And on the local level, that has serious repercussions within the community.

4. Leveraging Your Comprehensive Network

Building strong relationships with local and ethnic media outlets provides you with a network to leverage in key situations where messaging on the grassroots level is imperative.

Developing a comprehensive communications and PR strategy for your client is something that means something totally different than in the past. With a population that is so diverse, yet so connected, you cannot rely on traditional methods (i.e. major outlets) to reach your entire audience. We need to expand our efforts and leverage the rise of local and ethnic media to make a connection that means something and shapes who you are as a PR professional.

@TylerOrchard