Slowly but surely the other side of the Kryptonite lock picking story is coming out - Francois touches on this also. OK, some of the bloggers got it wrong - nothing new there.

I still maintain Kryptonite handled his terribly. Any crisis can be mitigated through effective communication. The vacuum of silence will be filled by misrepresentation, drivel and poison (I think Schopenhauer said that).

All the interviews reinforce for me is that as a business they responded well (except it turns out the problem had been flagged years before and they did nothing then). As communicators, they did lousy. If they knew about the commentary, but didn't respond, it's pretty much the same as not knowing and not responding. No response is no response.

And for the record, about that time I bought a neat new mountain bike. I needed a lock. The blog coverage specifically caused me not to buy their product. If they had communicated what they are communicating now, I might have done so.  To answer the question posed by Kryptonite: "here are millions of blogs, but what are the audiences of these blogs?" - it's me, the bike owner. The interview gets worse, reinforcing further cluelessness about the blogosphere: "We know that lots of teens and college students have blogs and, mainly use them to communicate with friends and family. These are our customers, but are they going to corporate blogs? Not so sure about that."

And then, worse still, they correct the misperception that they only found out about the problem in last year when bloggers started getting into it. Oh no, they knew about it in 1992 - and it would appear they did nothing? That's meant to inspire confidence?

I had the privilege of working around some of the best crisis communicators in my agency days. I once asked why there were so few case studies on this type of thing. I got an interesting response - post crisis, all you want the focus to be on is how the business is moving forward - you don't want to get into the mechanics of the crisis, it just casts further light on your problems - A pretty good idea in my book. Seems like Kryptonite is determined to teach us what not to do pre, during and post crisis.

>> from a post over at Andy's blog

C/Net has long been one of my first reads. There is a new C/Net on the way. Take a look at this very cool beta site.

What is really cool is the center section in which stories are ranked in terms of the conversation - based on comments. This is a fantastic idea. Those that are participating in the news, get to set the editorial flow.

Also love the scroll through treatment of the mast area. Idea. Also like how they have moved away from the traditional industry segmentation navigation. And a new, Media 2.0 news section. That's smart.

This is a vastly improved version of an important news site. Anyway, I'll keep looking and sharing views.

Great read from GAIN with Ivy Ross over at Matell on brands and innovation. Tackles the issue of how you take a large, existing organization and encourage innovation:

GAIN: And the normal company structure didn’t allow for this type of exploration?

ROSS: I have 450 people who work for me. Everyone is busy all the time - practically 24/7 - just growing our existing brands. No one has time to become truly immersed in the possibilities. Through this project we are trying to create a way of working together that is more of a living system. Take a cow, for example. If you want to get milk out of a cow, you have to give it time to graze. These days, no one has time to graze. No one has time to explore. It's not just about giving people the best equipment and software to work with, it's about feeding their soul, their mind and creating an environment that each of them can grow in.

I've long advocated the need for the PR industry to embrace commoditized media measurement in order to direct more dollars to measuring what matters. Seems the Advertising industry is heading in this direction.

A joint-task force composed of members of the Association of National Advertisers, American Association of Advertising Agencies and the Advertising Research Foundation yesterday unveiled an initiative that would shake up the classic equation of advertising math that determines consumer exposure to an ad. It would replace the concept of frequency -- the number of exposures to an ad -- with “engagement,” a metric that could better reflect the growing number of media choices facing consumers, from cell phones and the Internet to video games and podcasts. [AdAge]

This will only become more important as communicators discover the need to measure the degree to which customers are participating in their communities and brands. The best campiagns will measure what changed: did we move markets, change minds and increase sales? This isn't just about driving communications accountability, its also about driving marketing accountability.

Interesting piece by Al Ries on Hilton and the need for clear brand positioning. (logon required).

Do you know your brand?
What’s your brand? If you can’t answer that question about your own brand in two or three words, your brand’s in trouble.
Powerful, long-lasting brands are built by owning a word in the mind.
What’s a Volvo? A safe car.
What’s a BMW? Fun to drive.
What’s a Barilla? Italy’s No. 1 pasta.

Johnnie's terrific post on Skype below inspired an entry over at my blog which a few of you suggested I post here... So, here you go.

Skype is a brilliant example of the power of nurturing communities with a high-quality product, continued innovation and ease of connection. While recognizing that in this instance it's also the essence of the product, that's a sub-text.

Compare Skype to Vonage for a second and you will see what I mean. I "joined" Vonage about four months ago. They treat me just like SBC or Verizon. Every add-on costs more. I get a bill and little else other than the product. The quality is pretty suspect. And while cheaper than Verizon, it ain't cheaper than Skype.

Then there is my Skype account. I get more and more value from neat add-ons developed by Skype and its community. The price and quality are much better than anything Vonage offers. And the community just gets better as a result of this innovation. Then vSkype comes along and adds to my Skype experience with video calling. Bam! The community activates and becomes more valuable - to Skype and to each other. vSkype's CEO says in an email that in the first 36 hours they had 50,000 downloads while some 8 hours later they zipped past 100,000. That's momentum.

Skype Journal has a terrific interview with Stuart Jacobson. In the Participatory Era Skype is establishing an incredible lead over Vonage - in participatory terms,

Skype is an engaged brand. It is engaged with its community. It has engaged with its users. So many brands forget this. They sell, you buy and that's it. Nada.

C/Net reports on Sun's launch of Open Solaris in which blogs feature prominently.

This is the first time we've seen social networking technology integrated so fully into a launch. It's appropriate that an open source product would so actively use open source marketing to engage with its community.

I'm sure the skeptics will dismiss this as yet another PR stunt but it simply isn't (although I won't deny the PR benefit).

Sun deserves credit for the geek-centric approach, said RedMonk analyst Stephen O'Grady. "The best aspect of it for me is seeing a rather large software organization actually recognize the audience they want to be speaking to--in this case the developers." - Shankland, C/Net

This is a really smart and deep use of a complete spectrum of participatory communications technology to enhance and streamline communications with a fast growing community - it goes well beyond the standard corporate blog which for the most part is still about transmitting information and soliciting a response. I like how they are providing tags as well. Then there are the photos on Flickr. And, Johnny L - Sun's head of software launched his blog. It's a regular blogfest!

They've lit up the Open Solaris community inside Sun to light up the community outside Sun. You need to be a tripped-out geek to get some of this but the mobilization of the Sun team to provide different views on the product is great.

Conversations are a feature of the launch. Having spent 18 years in tech I can't tell you how different this is - most launches follow a standard pattern of big transmission followed by an expectation that what was transmitted will be written about then read.

The launch is about inviting participation. Shankland points to a great example of this as Sun flags 300 bugs in the product and invites the community to get involved with fixing them. Here is Liane Praza's first bug-fix.

Stephen has a terrific Q&A over at the Tecosystems blog, an excerpt from which looks at Sun's blog-fest:

Q: What did you find most interesting about the launch itself?

A: The way that it targeted the most important constituency of all; developers. Back in April, I posted the following note:

Spoke to a vendor marketing representative yesterday who I won't name (though they should feel free to identify themselves if they wish) that actually initiated a dialogue around del.icio.us, Flickr and tagging in general. First time that I can recall that's happened. Very refreshing, and a good sign for the product line in question.

Well, that person was Claire Giordano, and the product line was OpenSolaris. Her hand is directly visible on the OpenSolaris.org page itself with links to developer-friendly services like del.icio.us and Flickr, and also in the lack of a big bang style launch, press release, etc. The focus has instead been on conversational and participatory launch mechanisms like the aforementioned services and an explosion of related blog entries. OpenSolaris, as with any other product, will ultimately sink or swim on its own merits. But if those merits will jointly determined by Sun and the community around OpenSolaris, it's obvious that engaging developers using the means and mechanisms that they prefer is imperative. Given that context, I'd say that today's launch was an excellent start.

Couldn't agree more. Gold stars to Sun. Great reporting by Shankland. Great analysis by Stephen.

It's time for you to understand the role of media beyond advertising. Adage gets right to the heart of the issue on the escalating practice of pulling advertising based on media bias...

The primary reasons for advertisers to invest in any media product should be the bond that product has with its audience and the relevance of that audience as a marketing target. Such relationships are often based on trust and credibility. Tools such as ad-pull policies can damage that credibility. They make clear to editors and publishers that if they don't create an editorial environment friendly to a marketer's message, the money will go elsewhere. - AdAge

Moreover, it's time for all PR teams to get ahead of this issue by briefing both their procurement functions and media buying teams on media policies and editorial. This issue could easily be corrected by a little education... I feel for the communicator that once jumped by this issue, then has to manage it.

A separate story points to thinking gone astray: "The memo cites a new BP policy document entitled "2005 BP Corporate-RFP" that demands that ad-accepting publications inform BP in advance of any news text or visuals they plan to publish that directly mention the company, a competitor or the oil-and-energy industry."

BP says: "This is not meant to be Draconian or to influence coverage. We are just asking for a head's up" about a cover story about the oil industry. We never asked to read [editorial] copy in advance."

Um, if you aren't going to influence coverage why do you need to know at all?  Of course the intent here is to influence coverage by pulling advertising from unfavorable editions. This is nothing short of reprehensible however innocent it might seem.

Brands are dependent on a free media environment. One in which Darwinistic forces exit and incompetence, poor quality and hubris can be punished or exposed. Trying to manipulate this environment so overtly is incredibly short sighted.

As an aside, this points to the prevailing environment in which media buying teams rarely speak to communications teams. Any PR team worth their salt could let the media buying team know which stories are in play with which publications.

Saying that I'm going to indulge in what might be seen as hypocrisy - but isn't. I've been a big advocate of companies not funding media or analysts that they deem to be unfairly reporting on them - the media have a right to free speech as much as companies have to free investment of marketing dollars.

But only in the most extreme circumstances and only where all other channels have been exhausted. And on this basis the GM action against the LA Times might be warranted.

Implementing this as a standard operating practice is just plain wrong and amounts to a futile attempt to manipulate the media. Shame on anyone who attempts to do it and good on AdAge for calling it into question.

One of the key features proponents of the GoogleNews brand have put forward is it's lack of bias. Machines do the work to assemble stories from media outlets that are, well, biased. It seems that GoogleNews might not be as clean as it seems.

A study by USC Annenberg School for Communication suggests that  "Articles returned by Google News tend to be significantly more biased in one direction or the other than articles from Yahoo News." And that non-traditional news sources are a cause of that bias. Some background:

Google News, still in beta three and a half years after its launch, tracks the top stories on some 4,500 English-language news sites, updating its index roughly every 15 minutes. The ability to effectively search this huge collection of timely information has helped make Google News one of the Internet’s most popular news portals, drawing about 5.9 million visitors a month... Ranking news stories based on some measure of quality may be a step in the right direction, but to maintain its credibility, Google News needs transparency – both in its selection criteria and its list of sources.

First it was Carley's comments at a graduation - now it's Pepsi with CEO Indra Nooyi making inflamatory remarks regarding America's role in the world today:

After talking of her childhood back in India, Ms. Nooyi began to compare the world and its five major continents (excl. Antarctica and Australia) to the human hand. First was Africa - the pinky finger - small and somewhat insignificant but when hurt, the entire hand hurt with it. Next was Asia - the thumb - strong and powerful, yearning to become a bigger player on the world stage. Third was Europe - the index finger - pointing the way. Fourth was South America - the ring finger - the finger which symbolizes love and sensualness. Finally, the US (not Canada mind you) - yes, you guessed it - the middle finger. She then launched into a diatribe about how the US is seen as the middle finger to the rest of the world. The rest of the world sees us as an overbearing, insensitive and disrespectful nation that gives the middle finger to the rest of the world. According to Ms. Nooyi, we cause the other finger nations to cower under our presence.

Pepsi has posted a comment and a copy of her remarks. The blogosphere is wound-up on this one. Frankly, it isn't a great speech, it's geographically incorrect, the metaphor doesn't work and is offensive, and the comments are definitely controversial...

It breaks most of the rules of effective public speaking, some of which are - ensure your content, tone and comments are in line with your brand - both personal and company; ensure the topic illuminates the brand and doesn't detract from it; focus on subject matter that is relevant to your message; use clean and clear metaphors that aren't so multilayered that they cloud the content and your message... the list is a long one. What did Pepsi hope to gain from speaking on this topic?

More here...

Aside from all that, there is another lesson here for all communicators in that the blogosphere is an incredibly powerful medium for distributing executive's remarks, and stimulating debate on them - so much more than conventional media.

Brands are being shaped at wire-speed in the blogosphere. Having a blog might not just be a proactive communications tactic but also vital for reactive communications. Rather than the staid press release or statement, imagine a Pepsi blog right now with dialgoue taking place and Indra engaging with the enraged community of Pepsi drinkers. She might even rally a few supporters along the way.

Transparency and open dialogue would have enabled a much better response to an unfortunate metaphor.

More and more product launches, communities and brands are incorporating blogs as a way of engaging with their constituents. Today's new entrant is Star Wars who have buried blogs in their community site. To find them you are going to need to force on your side but they are there! Here you go...

Blogs are much more than traditional brand extensions. They are brand activators, providing a platform on which the community can come together to share, interact and broaden their experience. You've got to pay to play, but hey, every community membership has its price.

This time with a twist... it seems another journo was being paid to do political reporting on the side has been busted and fired. But apparently Purcell disclosed his 'night job':

He said he disclosed the environmental state contract to the Herald and got clearance from the state ethics commission. His state contract pays $60 per hour, with a maximum of $10,000.

So what's the problem?

So what's the issue? If Purcell was reporting on the people or organizations paying him to also craft op-eds and assist in other writing then there clearly is a massive conflict of interest. A bit like an industry analyst being paid for consulting by a company and then writing suposedly independent reports on that company and the industry.

But if Purcell wasn't, what's the harm in taking a 'night job' - I think they call it freelance work. (I'm being facetious). Is the implication of much of the commentary on this that a journo can only do freelance work inside the profession - other reporting?

Where this is different - and Malkin gets at this albeit with an extreme parallel - is that this is in effect a Government subsidy. She says,  "government subsidies for conservative columnists are as odious as government subsidies for crucifix-defiling "artists". She's getting at the perception issue:

Do we really need another paid partisan hack to confirm what the liberal MSM already unfairly assumes of all conservatives in the media--that we're all on the payroll of the Republican Party and incapable of independent journalism?

Dan is pretty clear on his POV:

Two things here. First, the Herald's initial response was shameful. This guy should have been shown the door the second his government payoff became known.

Second, the conservative wing of the blogosphere has been all too silent to the poisoning of journalistic integrity represented by this example and others like it. (There are exceptions, I'm glad to say.)

This needs to stop if the media - the whole media - are to retain credibility. And the same standards need to be extended to the world of analysts. The same rule applies whether it is a corporate or government subsidy.

Media and analysts need to recognize that there is a difference between transparency and opacity. Behavior like this drives opacity, even when disclosing the details in advance with the intent of being transparent and ethical.

Interesting read over at Slate on this week's media wars.

This week two giant companies took extraordinary efforts to gin up more favorable press coverage. GM, the largest automaker, said it would yank its advertising from the Los Angeles Times—the largest paper in the nation's largest car market—because it was unhappy with the Times' coverage. And Wal-Mart, which generally treats the press like a dead fish, invited reporters to its Bentonville, Ark., bunker for a media day. - Daniel Gross

I've been in their shoes before - both with media and analysts. Respect for independent journalism or analysis shouldn't come with a requirement to support that "reporting" with advertising dollars. I'm surprised more companies don't exercise their right to not fund views that don't agree with.

It's interesting that, even in the Slate story, there is an implication that advertising dollars result in a more compliant media - and that this is the intent of these companies. Maybe so. But maybe these companies just don't want to fund those views they regard to be as unfair or inaccurate. Or, whose bias they accept but don't agree with and don't want to fund. The implicit assumption in the media's argument is that journalists and their editors are fair, professional and without bias. Which as we have seen in the last year couldn't be further from the truth. Now I'm not attempting to brush all journalists with the same brush. There are many great reporters who are ethical, fair and accurate. There are many companies of a similar ilk.

Where the Slate story is right is that if companies engage in these kinds of activity with the belief they can influence the analysis or reporting, they are generally wrong. Vengence would be stupidity in this instance. Especially when it comes to Big Media. All they are likely to do is aggravate the situation.

For embattled executives, it's easy and convenient to think that the media—not their business model or management—is the problem. Morgan Stanley CEO Philip Purcell, fighting off an attempted coup, told the Financial Times today that the challenges will go away if the media stop quoting the dissidents. - Daniel Gross

The morals here for communicators are common ones - pick your battles carefully and get your own house in order before criticizing another. And be clear on what you are trying to achieve - are you trying to punish the media, make a point or simply not fund a point of view? If it's the last of these, you'd better prepared for a long hard road and one heck of a lot of confusion as to your motives. If it's the first two, there are much better ways of achieving your goal.

Either way, how you behave in responding to and dealing with the media says a great deal about your brand. Not only it's quality and integrity, but it's current status and challenges. Perhaps the very act of media relations needs to be considered more carefully by brandistas as a powerful influencer of the brand?

We've written a few times about brand pull through - where one brand (iPod) pulls another through in its wake (iMac). Accoring to Good Morning Silicon Valley the brand pull-through at Apple is exceeding forecasts:

iPod, therefore iMac: And here I thought iPod's halo effect was just spillover from Apple CEO Steve Jobs' reality distortion field. Turns out I was wrong. According to a new survey by Morgan Stanley, Apple's iPod is funneling customers to the company's PC business. The research outfit surveyed 400 iPod users and found that 19 percent expect to convert from PC to Macintosh. That's twice what Morgan Stanley expected. "We believe the Mac conversion rate within Apple's iPod customer base is roughly double what the market expects today," Morgan Stanley analyst Rebecca Runkle told clients "... The street still underestimates the power of Apple's iPod." Indeed, Runkle noted that forward intentions indicate the Mac conversion rate could track closer to the 25 percent range going forward. If Apple plays its cards right, it could soon control 5 percent of the desktop computer market.

This is all food for thought, and perhaps a new metric for brand marketers - the extent to which one brand is driving loyalty and recommendation effects in another category. It also proves - again - the power of brand synergy, or, how different products benefit from a common brand experience and halo. We celebrate the difference and buy the similarity.