Now the discussions center around what, specifically, businesses should be measuring in their own context of goals and objectives, what social data points actually matter in a business context (and how they’ve evolved from more traditional metrics), and how to derive insights and map out plans based on what we learn.

I commented that the measurement move from outputs through outtakes to eventual outcomes in mainstream media measurement would be repeated in social media measurement.  We do a lot of descriptive measurement in both spaces — tonality, reach, message congruity and share of voice/discussion merely observe what is happening, with little connection to behavior on the part of the recipient. It’s a somewhat passive perspective, in part because the formation of opinion is so complex. Pesky humans — always drawing on multiple influences before deciding on something.

The next phase is outtakes (sometimes called communication outcomes).  Web traffic, email open rates, click-throughs, changes in awareness or understanding gleaned through surveys still don’t connect to revenue or expense as directly as the C-suite would like.  In some organizations, that’s not a problem. The boss trusts the communicators to do their thing and is satisfied that the thing is meaningful for the business.

The Holy Grail is measuring business outcomes, answering the question, “how does communication activity affect the bottom line?”  Much social media case work is on the marketing side of the line.  Just as our cousins in advertising can establish a minimum number of impressions needed to predict number of qualified leads (and sales), they can use e-commerce to assign dollar values to social media activities.  The boss understands the advertising/marketing impact on the business a lot better than the PR impact because of that frame of reference.

We know that reputation depends much more on actions than on words. But, is there a minimum number of media impressions (regardless of social or mainstream) required to move public opinion positively regarding reputation matters, rather than sales-related matters?  Does increasing your share of voice/discussion with positive messaging lead to improved awareness, favorability, etc. ?

What do you think?

Now, witness the spirited debate over on Mashable about the New York Times getting collaboration from Wikipedia in the case of kidnapped reporter David Rohde.  “the NYT kept the news from breaking out to increase his chance of survival. The hardest part of it? Keeping the news off Wikipedia.”

At the heart of Mashable’s quandary is “Wikipedia is supposed to be a democratic system; editors fix each other’s work until a consensus about the correctness of an article is reached. On this particular occasion, it wasn’t; an invisible hand of the Wikipedia overseers simply erased a part of the truth.”

Does this sound familiar?  In the MSM, if something is wrong, or you need to appeal to better instincts, there is someone you can approach. On the Web (and especially in Wiki-land) you have no idea whether anyone is who they say they are.  “[A]nyone can edit Wikipedia without providing their correct real life info and contact, you can’t even reach out to them, let alone persuade them to do this or that. In most cases, it ensures that the democratic process of editing on Wikipedia is preserved. In some cases, including this one, it’s a problem.”

With anonymity, there is no accountability, and therefore no authority; without some assurance of authority, how can a reader determine accuracy?

I know that Wikis depend on the pond of editors to correct each other, but what happens if I see a post in the morning that doesn’t get corrected until noon — or the next week?  Meanwhile, the mistaken, or wilfully inaccurate post makes its way around the interwebs.

We need a means to ensure accountability and authority that doesn’t depend on the unproven “wisdom of crowds.” After all, some crowds are merely mobs.

Authenticity, Transparency, Social Media and Relationships are all taken.  The “conversation” has been going on a while, and only now does it seem like adults are taking over the discussion.

Yet, we continue to be obsessed by the puerile and infantile, largely don’t discriminate between fact and opinion, and then act surprised when a heretic pops up to declare that the emperor is naked.

I’m not talking just about social media, but in many ways all media. Of what value is a media story when readers and viewers have strong misgivings about the authenticity of the media itself?  It almost seems easier to declare the era of new media begun and try to go directly to our customers. But they don’t trust us any more than other businesses, the media, regulators, government, the medical profession or investment bankers.

So what’s the next thing? Some say Twitter is jumping the shark alongside Facebook. Search Engine Optimization and advertising enable alteration (if not manipulation) on Google. How will we decide whom to trust?

I believe the answer starts with a willingness on our part — that is, those in the PR industry — to start with truth. Facts and data.

• Make no assertions or assumptions about the tools we employ; instead set measurable objectives and hold ourselves accountable to them.
• Operate from a base of research and make data-driven decisions.
• Consider audience perspectives in developing plans.
• Avoid “one size fits all” recommendations.

That’s not an easy path — especially when  a prospective client (even an internal one…) starts the conversation with the wrong question: “How can we use this new media stuff?”  The right question is, “How can we make our communication activities more effective?”  That question leads to strategic planning, to research, and to tactics that actually acheive what we set out to do.

We don’t need more people climbing on the cluetrain — we do need the people on the train to have a lot more than just a clue.

There was one paragraph that made me stop and reread:

• Caution, however, isn’t something we throw to the wind.  Within social networks and the blogosphere, the rules of engagement are currently in the process of definition. History serves as a foundation for intelligence. However, as historians evaluate events outside of their historical setting, in this case behavior in social networks vs. the efficiencies and lessons learned in the era of broadcast marketing, history ceases to be history and starts to transform into sociology. There’s much to learn, but we can’t grasp or master anything by sitting idly and watching the world pass us by. Nor, can we jump in with both feet and engage without observing how we effectively contribute value and also earn the relationships that spark communities, associations, and ultimately action and/or commerce.

Indeed the rules of engagement ARE being defined — and that accounts, I believe, for the lack of authority in this communication space.

He adds:

• We’re intrigued and infatuated with “social media” and we’re lured into the illusion of expertise through experimentation when we’re not quite sure of how our personal endeavors translate into the unique cultures, business climates, market challenges, competitor history, state of customer perception, an understanding of customer pains and requirements, and where they seek guidance.

What we all need is a dose of healthy skepticism about all of these tools, and our tried and true strategies for public relations. This skepticism isn’t negativity, nay-saying or failure to “get it.” It’s merely a sense of caution derived from our logical desire to use our organization’s funds (or those of our clients) on strategies that are likely to bring about business results.

As the measurement and evaluation corner of the PR world continues to explore the best ways of determining the effectiveness of social media activities, we should expect those approving those activities to be skeptical.  After all, this is the undiscovered country. There are case studies that suggest organizations can make money in this space — Southwest Airlines, Dell, even Comcast have made hay in the Web. 2.0 space. But have we seen reputable research on impact on organizational reputation? What about research delineating the relative impact on business results of specific social media strategies (Twitter, blogs, comments on discussion boards, etc.)?

The fact is, even the “experts” are making assumptions about these impacts, in part because the cost of research is so great and the existing body of research in that area so small.

So, the pitcher of “Kool-Aid” is on the countertop, with glasses all around — take a sip?  Sure! But maybe taste it BEFORE you add the sugar and guzzle it down.

But as the head of the Independent Community Bankers of America said on CNBC Squawk Box Friday morning, it’s the most heavily regulated portion of the financial business that’s going to see the greatest addition to its paperwork burdens.

Cam Fine, president and CEO of ICBA said that there already is significant consumer protection in the existing bank regulatory regime, and that the administration’s planned overhaul isn’t focused on the portions of the industry that “led the industry over the cliff.”  Fine described the bank examination process as a conflict between safety and soundness, which is designed to protect investors, and consumer advocacy.  He said his own bank (Midwest Independent Bank of Jefferson City, Mo.) would get examiners looking at each constituency and calling for opposite actions.   The Safety and Soundness examiners would tell him to make fewer of a certain type of loan, while the Consumer-side examiners would call for more of the same type of loan.

At least both sets of examiners were led by the same organization and the same leadership, Fine said. That gave him the ability to appeal to higher-ups to arbitrate the dispute.  Now, with a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency in the mix, that appeal becomes a manifestly more complicated process.

Community bankers have been running a PR campaign touting their safety and soundess as compared to the “too big to fail” megabanks.

Having spent most of my professional life in financial services PR/Communications, I see troublesome consequences on the communication side.

If the examiners tell us to make fewer loans with lower risk profiles, and the CFPA tells us we need to make more of them, how will we handle communicating those directives, and what will be the impact on compensation?  As ICBA’s Fine said, this type of activity was a relatively small part of the financial crisis — the hedge funds and derivative groups weren’t regulated at all, and in the case of derivatives such as credit-default swaps, didn’t even have a sunshine provision to reveal a bank’s position in those risky institutional investments.

Fine also pointed out that the current documentation for mortgage loans is already so extensive and complex that its unread and poorly understood.  With new regulating bodies, how likely is it that the documentation will be shorter and clearer? Employees are going to have to learn a whole new lexicon of regulatory language, likely will have to receive extensive training on the new regime and have ongoing testing to be sure they have it all right.

Meanwhile, the newest crop of employees has the expectation of real-time, continual communication from company and colleagues (and friends, family and neighbors, perhaps even the occasional celebrity).   The financial community hasn’t been the fastest to embrace social media, in part because of concerns about client confidentiality, data security and the distraction to customer service, among other factors. Plus, the government is going to have its eye on all of this, as I mentioned in a previous post.

Social media adherents who might have been counting on a financial industry in-enterprise expansion of the social media carousel might want to keep calm a little while longer.

New regulatory agencies, federal watchdogs, and higher capital requirements shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone paying a bit of attention to the past two years.  The predictable arguments now will break out — The Wall Street Journal runs 50-point type above the fold, with comprehensive (and as usual, well-written) coverage of the individual aspects of the planned changes — with the left saying the plan doesn’t go far enough and the right saying that it goes way too far.

Regardless of your political leanings, I believe there are good reasons to be concerned.  There is no doubt that the financial industry behaved like a college junior on 21st birthday night. But now regulation will stand in opposition to much policy regarding home ownership, consumer and business spending, and other financial matters that would contribute to the financial recovery.

For financial PR people, this means further scrutiny by lawyers and compliance folks for public statements. Much of their work will be very difficult, as passing the laws is just half of what has to happen. The remainder is more important and more taxing — actually writing the regulations that will govern the procedures associated with the new laws, new agencies and new policies.  Without those details, the lawyers will be flying blind — lawyers don’t like that and tend to retreat when pressed to approve something.

Additionally, the balance among the agencies will become more difficult — SEC/Federal Reserve/CFTC/Consumer advocate will have slightly different responsibilities for the same batch of financial products. New capital requirements will take funds out of the lending pool, leading to higher interest rates, higher fees and tighter credit. Sure, a contributing factor to the financial crisis was cheap money and loose requirements, but the screws are already tightening, and now the new agencies will need funding — is that the best way to make the industry healthier?

The causes of the financial crisis are many — and blame is due to a lot of people.  The governmental oversight program failed miserably and deserves to be replaced.

How will PR work through these changes? Will it be through more transparency and more forthright communication, or will the generals of caution reign, retreating to less openness?  I’ve spent 70% of my career in financial services. I have no idea. But I plan to continue to advocate for transparency, openness and honesty.

The article goes on to suggest that, “After being named to the “suggested user” list, Twitterers can gain more than 500,000 followers who get their brief updates via a cellphone or the Internet.”  NYT gives several examples.

This would constitute another drawback to the Twitterverse for me — how did Twitter make this decision?

“A writer with an interest in comic books can become the expert on comic books; a political pundit with a radio show ends up having a greater audience online than on the air; and an actor like LaVar Burton, decades away from his glory days as a star of the TV drama “Roots,” has a personal audience of 635,000.

“And just as publicity agents used to inveigle syndicated columnists like Walter Winchell into giving their clients a mention, modern-day publicity hounds are already trying to game the list.

The Web entrepreneur Jason Calacanis declared that he would pay $250,000 to be on Twitter’s suggestion list for two years. He says the offer was only ‘half-real.’”

Though Twitter insists that it has no plans to accept remuneration to place people on the exalted list, certainly it will face a difficult decision in the future.  After all, no one knows if Twitter makes money — advertising doesn’t seem a good fit, and tiers of membership might drive away users. How will they make money if not by selling access to its users, whether directly, or indirectly?

It seems to me that the Twitter platform originated for one purpose — peer to peer communications — and now is on the verge of being seized for more commercial purpose.  It’s a business, and businesses that don’t make money aren’t around for very long. What will happen to it after it does figure out how to get paid? Will anyone want to use it once it does?

Might it become PNC Bank Twitter one day and KeyBank Twitter the next?

But I have few misgivings about this mini-blogging sensation.

Did we need another vehicle that offers little context, detail or thought? At 140 characters per posting, there isn’t a lot one can say, except slogans, headlines, snarky asides and other markedly brief quips. You cannot explain anything, including your own post. You can instantaneously post whatever thoughts or actions are right at the top of mind — so, there’s little chance to reflect. Plus, your audience is somewhat invisible — no pesky “To” field on the email, let alone an address to write on an envelope. There’s not even an automatic spell check to halt you on your forced march; oh, the red squiggle is there, but largely there is no pause between thought and action.

You can pass along to your followers something you received from someone else. All it takes is two clicks — again, not much cogitation or consideration. No integral understanding that what you’re passing along has the imprint of your approval and support. More on that in a minute.

You can reply to a posting – but the original post, which most likely your followers don’t have, isn’t there. So, some recipients will be wondering what the heck is going on.

I speak from bitter recent experience, as I furthered a Twitter discussion of which I wasn’t a part, and about which I did not know squat — this is dangerous. I succumbed to the excitement of the moment and didn’t consider the wider context of my forwardings, retweetings and summaries.  It was wrong, and I apologized.  That’s not happening again.

Twitter’s great utility is speed — it forces you by its nature to focus and write crisply.  That’s also its great failure, especially during a time of historic complexity in so many aspects of our society.

I’ll still use it, but you can bet I’ll be a lot more careful.

A quick check of my Blackberry — my family is known to email me on weekend afternoons — reveals a couple of new messages. One of them carries the subject line, “Go check u’re Twitter feed for @amandachapel comments,” and the other is from Amanda Chapel.

This is a two-fold mystery for me on a sunny Sunday. Why would there be anything in the Twitterverse connecting me and Amanda C.?

According to the @AmandaChapel Twitter stream, someone had claimed to be me, and had engaged in a lengthy, heated Twitter debate with Amanda. This led to Amanda connecting this individual’s Twitter handle to me, including at one point linking to my LinkedIn profile in a Tweet. Amanda’s tweets included IABC and PRSA leaders. I stood accused of violating these professional organizations’ codes of ethics.

I was frantic. I’m serious. This was a “When did you stop beating your wife?” moment.  What recourse did I have besides denying the allegations?  Of course, this has been one of Amanda’s best themes in her criticism — on the Internet, anonymity breeds unaccountability, and without authority, where is accuracy?

I replied to Amanda’s email, offering a character witness and declaiming knowledge of why she’s sent me the note. I Tweeted, declaring the same thing. I added a second Tweet, referencing @AmandaChapel, saying that this was mistaken identity. Whether this other Cleveland-area, IABC member, PR measurement guy had appropriated my name or what, I had no clue. Nor did I have any idea what to do. My Sunday evening was quite a bit less sylvan as a result.

I’ve enjoyed reading “Amanda” for several years. She’s mordantly funny, sharply witty, and performs an excellent service — attempting to keep the PR profession from taking itself so seriously. She’s a critic, a gadfly, even, calling out PR people and especially, social media fans with razor comments, frequently calling into question the entire orthodoxy of social media. For Amanda, the wisdom of crowds celebrates the mob, the Cluetrain carrying public relations to perdition.

What had I done to get called out myself?

While following a social media conference on Twitter a few days ago, I Tweeted that I was enjoying following the conference, except for Amanda’s rants (particularly profane that day). Did that push me onto the radar screen? When Kent State’s professor Bill Sledzik interviewed Strumpette co-creator Brian Connolly earlier this year on Tough Sledding, Bill’s blog, I commented critically (but, I thought, respectfully) on several of the video posts. Was this a contributor? Or was it the other guy, choosing to offer my name as his own?

If a member of the news media says bad things about me, I have recourse — that’s not the case on the Internet. Journalists have (are supposed to have) a strong ethical base — if they get the story wrong, they’re accountable for getting it right.

As it turns out, Amanda posted an apology to me, and said she’d removed my name and @CommAmmo handle from her Tweets, and requested Twitter do the same. I appreciate that very much — and on two levels. One, it takes grace to admit you’re wrong. Two, it demonstrates that some people in social media have an ethical base. Amanda also declared that she “quit” — I assume that means quitting Twitter. Her updates are now protected. I hope she’ll remain on the Web at Strumpette. Despite this personal and rather scary incident, Amanda’s good for our profession.

But this has me spooked. I blogged earlier about the blurring of the lines between the public and private, and this is a situation I didn’t anticipate. I was thinking theory, abstraction, ideas.

Now, I just have to see about getting this wound stitched up.