A friend forwarded me this link to a new Unconference, PR Camp , taking place in New York on Friday, November 20, a day after the Web 2.0 Expo concludes in NYC. Given that I will be in New York, since the Podcamp Foundation is helping to organize the Open Unconference sessions at the Web 2.0 Expo, I was initially intrigued. I love Unconferences, and as Director of Operations for the Podcamp Foundation, I love to see how other people put them on.
Now, I have gotten into many interesting debates with people over what exactly constitutes an Unconference, and where the line between conference and unconference lies. We talk about scale, what elements are crucial to success, and which ones have some flex in them.
For me, the heart of the Unconference is the sharing. It’s speakers coming to educate, and to learn themselves, to be participants as much as leaders and educators. The essence to me is about learning and sharing, and that everyone has something to say and teach someone else.
The rules about “The Law of Two Feet” and being able to leave any sessions, to create your own experience, is important. The rules about “no pitches” and encouraging people to walk out of any session that becomes an infomercial is important to maintain the community spirit of the event. The rules about “No Rockstars- everyone is an equal” is important too, as is the fact that anyone can sign up to lead a session, which tend to be more discussion and questions and answer based, rather than lectures.
Barcamps tend to adhere pretty strictly to the rule that anyone can present, and the schedule is created that day- people can sign up for rooms and to lead sessions the morning of, not in advance. At Podcamp, we bend this rule a bit, and while we maintain open space where people can create content on the fly and in the moment, a good portion of the content, sessions and scheduling are set within a week or two of the event. Why did we make this choice?
After Podcamp NYC, where we had over 1,000 people sign up for the event and over 100 sessions in rooms of vastly different sizes in which to place these people, we decided that having people sign up for sessions in advance was crucial, as was organizing the sessions into some rough tracks, just to make the event logistics a bit easier for everyone. For example, one room night have great content about online video, while another focused on Search Engine optimization, and another on marketing your projects on the web. We found that Unconferences can scale, but logistics and fire codes are still important factors to consider!
The advance scheduling of sessions has had another interesting effect-people who typically might be a bit nervous about this Unconference thing attend, because they know a bit about what to expect in advance. They come and participate, and many have what I would call a conversion experience, where the differences in what they get out of an unconference compared to a traditional conference changes their minds completely about what a conference can be.
One of the things we say frequently about Podcamp is that at traditional conferences, the hallways and social events can be the best part of the event, and we try to turn the whole conference into the hallway. Chris Penn often says that we provide the canvas paint and brushes, but the experience and art you take away at the end of the day is up to you- you structure your experience to get the most out of it, rather than having it dictated for you.
So let’s take a look at PR Camp. It’s one day, limited to 200 people. So far, so good. The tickets range from $199 to $295, depending on when you sign up. That’s way out of the league of the charge of most unconferences, many of which are free. In fact, Podcamp Philly charges $20, but that money goes not to cover conference costs but to a local community charity, to help further support our community- this year was Covenant House. Likewise, Podcamp Boston charges $50, some of which covers operation expenses not covered by sponsors, and helps cover things like lunch, with any extra funds going to the Boston Foodbank. I have a hard time, even knowing what it costs to put on an event in NYC, how this pricing structure is in the Community-based, non-profit realm, which is also at the heart of most unconferences. Strike One.
The confirmed list of discussion speakers is a list of PR Professionals, but there seems to be no room for anyone in the community to sign up and lead a session. Strike Two.
I see a lot of people I know and who I know know unconferences participating, so I have some hopes that there will be some “unconference” in this event, but from the outside, it looks pretty much like a regular old conference to me.
I know that there are things the Unconference movement can bring to make any old conference better and more productive. But if you are going to call yourself a “camp”, if you are going to adopt the name unconference, particularly if you are in Public Relations, you have got to realize you are treading in shark-infested waters. Your PR brethren may not understand the difference, but there are legions of geeks who do who also consult to marketing and PR firms about the social web, and this is pretty much a poor PR move if ever there was one.
And if I think this use of the terms Camp and Unconference is over the line and not appropriate for this conference, being the poster child of the Hybrid Conference myself and constantly getting heat from Barcamp folks about it, all I can say is: batten down the hatches and good luck. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.
When it comes to the new FTC regulations regarding disclosure in advertising, the best way to learn what to do is to read the examples given in the Guidelines themselves, or to see examples of how disclosure is done well, so you can model your disclosure accordingly.
Blogging/Magazine Article Example
One great example is a piece that Kristin Brandt from the Manic Mommies podcast did in a recent article for Real Simple Magazine. For “teaching” purposes, I’l excerpt some examples here, with permission of the author. Kristin was reviewing different sets of headphones, several of which she has acquired in association with her podcast, Manic Mommies.
Here’s what I’ve discovered – there is no one perfect solution. Instead, I’ve found a couple favorite headsets which, together, make the (almost) perfect solution for me:
I’m certainly not the first person to complain about the earbuds which come with my iPhone (my biggest issue is they wouldn’t stay in my ear). But I liked the combination of a headset which I could use to listen to podcasts and music, as well as talk on the phone. So, upon the recommendation of some of my Facebook friends, I purchased a pair of Apple In-Ear Headphones, which come with three sets of ear cups, meaning I could select the size which worked best for me (and stayed in my ear).
I don’t really use the remote function of the headset, so if I had to do it again, I might chose theJBL ROXY In-Ear Headphones with Microphone which has the same listening/speaking capability at half the cost.
In this first paragraph, Kristin talks about what she purchased and who recommended them to her. She probably did not have to say her Facebook friends recommended these to her, and she was not legally obligated to do so, but it works with the narrative perfectly, and sets up the other sources of the products below. This is probably a case of more disclosure than perfectly necessary, but it also sets her up as a credible source, because she is talking about where she gets her information before trying a product. Next paragraph:
Sometimes, like when I’m exercising or editing our podcast, I just want a simple pair of headphones. I have a ton of “free” headphones kicking around the house, but most slip off my head and have terrible sound quality.
When I was sent two pairs of Toxix headphones to try, I actually thought they were for the kids. But after using them while on the treadmill, I came to appreciate these deceptively cute pair of headphones. They are well designed to stay on your head, even if you are bouncing around, they are tough enough to throw into my laptop case and at just under $20 I don’t worry about letting the kids use them. My kids have co-opted the headsets we received, which gives me an excuse to buy a pink pair for myself.
This is a great example, where Kristin says she was sent two pairs of headphones to try, and liked them enough she’s willing to buy a pair herself. While she might want to say who sent her the headphones, she has disclosed that she did not purchase them herself- this is an example of a good disclosure that lets the reader know what the writer has received and they can figure out the credibility of the writer accordingly. Example Three:
I’ll admit that I’ve dreamed of being able to cut the cord, and listen to my iPhone without a headset cable getting in my way (how many times have I dipped a cable into paint or caught it on something). Which is why I was so excited when we received the Jabra Halo Stereo Bluetooth headset at Manic Mommies HQ. After charging the headset, I was able to pair my iPhone to the headset and was soon listening to tunes sans wires. It was awesome.
I did have one issue with the headphones – the volume control is, well, difficult to control. Sliding your finger up and down the side of one of the ear pieces is supposed to control the volume. But I found it was very touchy and, in the end, I didn’t seem to be able to control the volume much. They also cost more than I would normally pay for a pair of headphones, so I can understand how they may not be right for everyone.
Again, Kristin discloses that they got this headset through Manic Mommies HQ- clearly a promotional item sent to them, in hopes they would review it. Kristin then does a great review of the pros and cons of the item. We know she did not purchase the item herself, and her review seems honest and straightforward. This should please both the person promoting the headset and the FTC because the review is based on the experiences of an actual user, with disclosure as to what sort of exchange or quid pro quo (ie. sample headset) was involved, so any consumer could figure out the believability of the review.
Podcasting example
Another great example of disclosure can be found on almost any episode of Marketing Over Coffee. Chris Penn and John Wall regularly not only thank their sponsors, but when talking about their use of Blue Sky’s email service, or Hubspot’s various products or ventures, they mention that they have also been sponsors of the show. No one is left with any unclear or misleading impression of what Chis and John’s interest in promoting the sponsors might be, and when they talk about the products and services, they are doing it as genuine customers of the services they discuss. As long as Chris and John disclose the name of the sponsors, and whatever products they get to use or play with, if provided for free or as part of a larger sponsorship or product placement, they satisfy all the FTC requirements well.
Chris does Marketing over Coffee on his own; it’s not part of his job at the Student Loan Network. But you’ll notice if Chris talks about his day job, it’s an example of what they do during the day. This could be seen as a promotion or testimonial about the day job, however, this is not a communication covered by the new FTC regulations. Why? Because the Student Loan Network is not and has not paid Chris to talk about their products on Marketing Over Coffee- there is no quid pro quo regarding Chris’s possible endorsement on Marketing over Coffee and its blog. Therefore, no disclosure is necessary. Chris is clearly interested in having us all use the great services the Student Loan Network provides, because it’s what he does, but this is not a paid endorsement, so it is not subject to a fine if Chris talks about his day job and forgets to mention the name of his company at the time.
Current Example- This Post
The information given above has not been paid for by anyone nor written in exchange for any product or service- it is a non-commercial transaction. I don’t even have any affiliate ads other than a link to my Amazon Store on the “Building Blocks” page of this site, so I will tell you that all the content I produce here is done free of any sponsorship whatsoever at this point. If you decide to buy a book I like from my Amazon store, they will give me a few pennies as a bounty on the sale, so to speak, but it’s usually less than a dollar per book- equivalent to a postage stamp.
I have, on occassion, received an item in the mail and have disclosed where it came from when I have reviewed the same and will continue to do so.
Now, while I do not formally have to disclose that I happen to know and like John, Chris and Kristin and consider them all friends, it’s probably something that makes these examples more valuable to you, the reader. And this is what is at the heart of the FTC’s new guidelines- they want to make sure consumers and readers of reviews, endorsements and testimonials understand what they can realistically expect and make sure they aren’t getting ripped off. They have to have information to know how biased the reviewer may or may not be; they have to have information in order to judge the trustworthiness of the reviewer before the rule of Caveat Emptor or “Buyer Beware” takes over.
I wouldn’t have to disclose any relationship with anyone in these examples, because this is a non-commercial transaction, at best taking place within the Trust Economy, as Chris Brogan and Julien Smith might say. It’s outside the regulation of the FTC, since there isn’t an exchange or expectation of a quid pro quo.
I hope these examples help- please keep asking questions in the comments, and I’ll try to help you sort out what may or may not be covered. Again, the regulations go into effect December 1, 2009, and we’ll learn more and more about what’s okay and what’s not as more and more cases in the gray area are brought up.
And the bottom line is: when in doubt, disclose. These are good rules, helping everyone be straightforward and honest about their opinions and biases for the public. There’s nothing onerous and evil about any of this. And if we’re lucky, blatant spam on social networks might ease up a bit, too. Here’s hoping.
For those of you who may be new here, I’ve been “embedded” in social media now for almost three years. Not as long as some, longer than others. I never saw myself as doing anything radical, or against the tide. I always saw new media as a way to express and publicize my ideas, as a virtual resume for my opinions and beliefs.
Yesterday, for the first time, I attended BlogHer. Blogher DC was part of BlogHer’s Reach Out tour- smaller, local versions of their bigger annual blogging and business conferences. I estimate there was probably about 250 women in attendance, and about 8 men, maximum. (As an aside, this is probably about the same proportion of men to women at most of the Knitting/Fiber festivals like Maryland Sheep & Wool or Stitches East, based on my past experience- not exactly testosterone friendly events.) I understand the GirlPower aspects of the conference, the striving to identify our voices and perhaps even the perception of not being taken as seriously as men are in the tech world. But I wonder if the name of the conference “warns off” the guys to an extent where they don’t feel welcome, and therefore, half the conversation we want to have is missing. This, and the all-Women speaker policy doesn’t exactly invite men to participate- it’s pretty much excluding them from the conference and saying “you don’t belong here”.
This is not necessarily a bad thing- I think there are plenty of ways to define and divide a community. I think having women-oriented events are empowering. It’s a great opportunity for sponsors to reach a very specific market. It gives opportunity for many women to speak freely and have a chance to sit on high-powered panels. But then again, since I have run many Podcamps where anyone can speak, I haven’t found women prohibited from participating in any of these formats.
I wonder if the all-women format does make BlogHer more niche, than say, South by Southwest or other tech conferences.
A friend of mine attended the BlogHer Boston Reach Out this past weekend, and ended up having a conversation with someone who wondered why the social media guys in the Boston area didn’t attend the conference. I had this same conversation with DigitalSista on Twitter at BlogHer DC, and extended it during the cocktail party. She remarked to a few of the male attendees who went out to catch a few minutes of playoff baseball that it was “funny how you guys continue to bail when they are out numbered by strong women in the social media space.” I tweeted back that I didn’t think BlogHer did much to make them feel welcomed, and DigitalSista replied that she didn’t feel the guys in the social media space did much to make women feel welcomed.
This has been so counter to my whole experience in the space, I was shocked. In fact, from my very first New Media conference, Podcamp Boston, Chris Brogan and Chris Penn made me feel very much at home. I was overwhelmed by getting to meet people like CC Chapman, and CC simply gave me a big hug, made me feel like I had something to say. All of these guys are not only my personal friends now, but they are colleagues. Subsequently, I’ve had the pleasure to work with others like John Havens, Howard Greenstein, Eric Skiff, Dan Patterson, and others, and have never felt like I am somehow “the little mommy” or anything other than a total equal.
I have a ton of male friends in this space, where, traditionally, men have tended to dominate, and I have never once felt marginalized in any way, shape or form. The only time I ever feel that I am treated differently is when they make sure someone walks me to my car after a late night event, or offer to carry something heavy for me. That’s manners, not condescension. And when I had an incident where I was accused of being a bitch for enforcing rules at Podcamp NYC, each and every one of these colleagues weighed in positively, supportively, without asking, on my behalf. I could not have a better or more loyal group of friends, male or female, period.
So I was pretty taken aback that whether or not guys were attending BlogHer was even an issue. If they want to come, fantastic! But I didn’t expect it, for the exact same reasons I don’t want to join a fraternity, which raising two sons has given me some perspective on, frankly. If the purpose of the conference is to reach out to women and that demographic, it’s kind of silly to think that all the male bloggers and web types in the area would be dying to come on down.
The event knows this, and the sponsors do as well. This is an event where door prizes are things like MAC makeup bags and giveaways like fuzzy slippers. Meals are salad and soup, not burgers and fries. It’s a girl conference, playing to a girl crowd, and that’s fantastic.
But if you are creating a sorority, with the intent of supporting women in the blogosphere, why should anyone be surprised the guys don’t automatically come and join?
Michael Gray wrote a post this summer about whether BlogHer conferences were sexist by design. The New York Times wrote a big article about the BlogHer conference, that generated a lot of blowback in part because it appeared not in the news or tech section of the paper, but the Style section. You can read more about that controversy in this article on Salon.com, and there’s a great video by Rebecca Traister from Salon about the controversy here.
Leslie Stahl, who has started a social network for women called WowOWow, Women on the Web, said in her presentation that she never would have predicted back in the 1970’s that the US still wouldn’t have a female president by 2008. She would have said that was simply crazy. But politics is a field where you have to be smart and aggressive, and many women have a hard time walking the aggression/not being labelled a B&^%ch line. In fact, one of the things DigitalSista mentioned is how hard it was for many women to walk into a room of men and feel comfortable. Well, isn’t that exactly the reason why more women aren’t in politics?
I don’t think it’s fair to blame men for this entirely. I think women have to go to events and just assume they belong, speak intelligently, and get taken seriously because they are smart and serious people. That way, people see Smart and intelligent first, not all the sexism stuff. Even when working for such male bastions as the NFL, I’ve found leading with smarts is the quickest way to get respect and a seat at the table than anything else. If women have a self-esteem or feel like the other, there’s not a lot other people can do, men or women, to make that go away.
Yes, as more women enter new media and do well, as more role models exist, the more people feel that this is a place where they belong and can succeed. I agree the trailblazers make it easier for everyone else. But I think the most important thing women have to stop doing is assuming they have to ask for permission or await an engraved invitation. We have to be bold and take charge. Assume you belong. And go and prove you can make significant and positive contributions.
The biggest obstacle to the women’s movement is women sometimes. Falling back on being shy is a bad thing. If you want to have a voice, you need to use the one you have. We have to have the self-confidence to participate and run things as well, if not better than our male counterparts. We have to stop looking to men to act as our ambassadors, but look to them as colleagues and mentors. Men don’t marginalize us- we marginalize ourselves by assuming we’re not good enough.
This means doing some hard work and finding how you can best learn and contribute, rather than assuming it’s someone else’s responsibility to make you feel welcome. We can hope men decide to be as charming and welcoming as the best hostess on the planet, but that won’t make it happen any sooner. But by showing them how much we have to offer- that makes us not a curiosity, but a force to be reckoned with.
BlogHer is fantastic and a great opportunity for women to feel safe and venture out into public a bit more- but the true success will be when there’s not a need to segregate events based on gender- when gender becomes just a context or a point of view, and not a be-all and end-all. And I think that was the original point of the women’s movement. But since gender is a biological fact we can’t change, let’s own it, accept it, and make it just like having brown hair or blue eyes- part of our identity, but not the whole thing.
Chris Brogan had a very interesting post on Trust Agents this morning. It got me thinking about how people become trustworthy in the internet age, when relationships may be many, but have weaker bonds than say, the friendships you make in your off-line life, through work, school, church, or other daily encounters.
In a presentation this weekend at Podcamp Philly, Christopher Penn said everything is customer service, and every step along a transaction chain, in effect, is an opportunity to provide customer service. This got me thinking about how important customer service is becoming in most of my business and personal financial transactions. Why now? Why didn’t customer service weigh so heavily for me in the past? Let me talk for a brief bit about abundance.
Below is a great talk Malcolm Gladwell did at the TED conference in 2004, talking about how the abundance of consumer products we find on the shelves is largely due to the insights of one man, Howard Moskowitz. (This, and so many other TED talks are definitely worth your time, so be sure to check out others as well, hopefully after you have finished reading this post….)
** Chris Anderson wrote a book a few years ago called The Long Tail, which also discusses the almost infinite choice of things we now have online, and Seth Godin frequently discusses the difficulty of differentiating yourself from the pack out there on the tail, encouraging all of us to Be Remarkable and stick up above the rest of the sameness that’s out there now. But how do you become remarkable?
So let’s do some “sociological math” here and add up these insights. If you take the insight that customer service, or the opportunity to provide customer service is everywhere, and consider that in light of the abundance of choice we all face with every purchase, whether it’s online or in person, I came to the following conclusion:
Now, in an age of abundance, the only differentiation besides price is customer service, or the Relationship you create between your brand and your audience.
Let’s add in the foloowing as well: Ze Frank describes a brand as the “emotional aftertaste” you get from an interaction, and Chris Penn elaborates on this by comparing the difference in your likelihood to buy “Grandma’s Cookies” versus “Old People Cookies”- Grandma’s emotional aftertaste tends to be more loving and sweet, and much less generic than “old people”, unless you REALLY dislike your Grandma.
Examples of Creating a Relationship and Becoming a Trust Agent
Let’s take a quick look at some consumer experiences I’ve had to illustrate the point.
For example, Apple wins, for me, because the customer service is great, the “community” users have created from the days of the Macintosh User Groups, and whether thecompany allows social networking on their site or not, the forums still allow users to help each other out- and that’s probably good enough.
Likewise, when I go to an Apple Store or call customer support, I get actual human support. I get people who are understanding and wait, talking to me, while I download a third party plug-in for imovie so I can get my kid’s video project for school finished, and wait with me until everything is working. That keeps me delighted- that is remarkable, and that’s why the next computer we buy will also be an Apple. The price is always a differentiation in the marketplace, but the relationship tips the balance where it matters.
Similarly, Land’s End delighted me almost fifteen years ago now, when a coat of mine developed a hole in the pocket shortly after getting it. I called customer service, and they insisted on sending me a new coat, so I wouldn’t go a day without one, and could use that box to send the old one back. This was back in 1992 or 1993, but this takes any possible fear out of any email/catalog/web transaction with them. They earned my trust, and as a result, not only do I spread this story to all my friends, but I always consider their products before looking at a competitor, say, LL Bean, because of it. (And I do like LL Bean as well, for the record.)
Price isn’t the only factor in the decision matrix anymore.
Last example- FiOS is finally coming to my neighborhood, and I have had intermittent problems with Comcast. But I also have Comcast Cares, Frank Eliason, from twitter on my side- any problems, Frank makes sure I get taken care of, and has called me at home, from his home, to make sure everything is fine. I haven’t yet met Frank in person, but I feel a loyalty to him and the company because they have gone above and beyond to make sure I have what I need- and this makes me very unlikely to switch, even if I suspect FiOS might be a bit better, or maybe even a bit cheaper- it has to be more than just nominal price and quality to disrupt what I currently have, when I have Frank for customer care.
Can We Quantify This?
Every business wants to know the Return on Investment, or ROI for its customer service/community evangelists/Outreach efforts- I suggest the following equation for the math geeks out there:
Purchase = Remarkability or Necessity
We make a purchase when something is really special and catches our eye, like that cute item in the checkout aisle at the bookstore, you don’t really need, or when we have a real need to fulfill.
Remarkability = (Brand experience + Price) x Customer Service Experience
To be remarkable, the brand experience, combined with price is important, but it is enhanced considerably by the customer service experience. I may like a brand, or have heard good things about it. I may be willing to pay the price, high or low, or take a chance on a new version of a product, say, V8 fusion, if I already like V8 juice. If the prior relationship with that brand is positive, I’m more likely to give your new product a go, and less likely if the prior experience is poor or non-remarkable in any way.
But what is tipping the balance between all the brands on the shelf, virtual and physical, is becoming more and more dependent on the customer service I receive, or the customer stories you hear from others.
The Long Tail of Customer Experience
Just like I indicated above, Land’s End still gets business from me, not only because their products fill a need, but they enjoy a long tail of customer service excellence- I like them, even if I haven’t needed a lot of customer service since that incident, because they treated me well back then. Sites like Amazon.com, DealTime, Consumer Reports and more collect stories from customers about what they like and hate about products. Even Twitter and other social networks provide information to people every day on what brands seem great and which have led to less than great experiences. And this information stays in Google and on the Web for a long, long time. This means every time you have a chance to interact with a customer, any issues, especially if they aren’t addressed, may haunt you forever online. And this means, long after that particular not-so-great transaction took place, you may still lose sales to competitors based on one bad experience- consumers can now broadcast, making every mistake you make all that more costly when it comes to relationships online.
One answer would be to never make mistakes, but that’s simply not practical. The other option is to make sure you are human; that you understand that each of those customer service experiences act as a multiplier towards your positive or negative remarkability, and then you can reap the true ROI of social media investment- creating a brand aftertaste everyone wants to try.
