Mckinsey wrote a report on 2.0

Another report on 2.0 and how corporations are using it. This one’s from Mckinsey and it’s called Six ways to make Web 2.0 work.

It’s okay-ish. If you’re an enthusiast, then you’ll probably like it. But it’s not very good at pointing out that:

Edelman digital trends series

Edelman’s Steve Rubel is publishing a series of  ‘insights‘ into digital trends.

I’ve read the first one (17 Feb, pdf 2mb) and it’s a pretty good overview.

Corporate blogging

Had to stop and think when I read the corpcomms magazine’s feature story about corporate blogging.

According to the article PR departments don’t get it:

“Blogs are supposed to be personal, opinionated, informal and discursive. The idea is to create a buzz, to start a debate and to stimulate interest. But a lot of buttoned-up, controlling PR departments just fail to understand this.”

What does the article’s author want: corporate courage? For the sake of what? A low-cost marketing tool?

Press releases, templates, activity over passivity

Todd Defren, Shift Communications, has posted the company’s updated social media press release.

Helping companies structure their online content is always a good thing. It’s quite generous of Shift to offer the template for free.

One of the template’s strengths is it’s using the medium’s innovative structuring potential and moving beyond the metaphor of the *page* (avoiding using the web as a kind of backlit book).

Over-tubed

Definition: when a company’s web 2.0 presence out-ranks its official or sales sites on Google and other search engines.

Overclocking the web activity for an organisation might go like this:

A contentious blog posted the Xmas before last by the ex-web editor comes top in Google rankings.

Royal YouTube

While *Le Web 3* organizers happily parlay about their version of Web 3.0, and while developers continue work to realise Tim Berners Lee’s conception of Web 3.0 (Symantic Web/giant datatbase), Web 2.0 has just received the royal stamp of approval.

The UK’s first Family has dived into YouTube, adding its home videos to hundreds of thousands of other people’s. They’ve called it the The Royal Channel.

Social networking for doctors and … er… drug companies?

For those companies looking at web 2.0 as a means of brand building and marketing, take notes on this collaboration.

Pfizer’s just hooked up with social/medical networking website sermo.com, which boasts 30,000 members and 2,000 new doctors signing up per week (USA only at this stage).

Sermo’s business model doesn’t include advertising or sign-up fees. It says:

“On Sermo, there is no cost to physicians to participate. In fact, Sermo also enables physicians to be financially rewarded for their astute observations and clinical insights. The source of the rewards is financial institutions who access a stream of fresh and actionable information on emerging trends and market-changing events in healthcare. A cash reserve is set-aside to compensate physicians for observations that are deemed highly relevant and valuable. ” sermo.com/about

And: “Sermo’s community of physicians will have access to Pfizer’s clinical content in tangible ways that allow for the transparent and efficient exchange of knowledge.” Sermo/Pfizer press release

You’ve got to give to get?

Let’s see if this social networking model works.

NB. For more on medical communities and web 2.0 see Clinical Cases: Medicine 2.0 as a start.

>Pfizer takes a leaf out of Facebook, Financial Times, 141007
>Drug company wants to poke your doctor, Valleywag, 151007

Facebook suicide: lessons for “e” communications

The Times author of a recent story about Facebook suicide, or ending your online social networking account, went to psychologists for comment.

One made the point that cues of spoken and written communications are different or absent in electronic communications.

The topic is covered by David Crystal in his book “How Language Works“, (Penguin, 2007, see also August blogpost) in the chapter, “How the electronic medium differs”.

The differences between e-communications and speech and writing range from the obvious, such as no simultaneous feedback, or that online text isn’t static (unlike its printed counterpart), to the not-so-obvious, such as turn-taking can be ballsed up by software.

Okay, so what?

As Crystal and the psychologists in The Times article point out, these differences in cues can cause misunderstandings. (This applies to email as much as social networking, or any other means of online communications that is text-based.)

At the moment, companies are keen to take advantage of opportunities opened up by Web 2.0. They toy with (and try) blogs, social networking, forums, live interviews with experts, and so on.

How many companies that are experimenting with 2.0 forms are taking into account the medium’s specific communications parameters, and therefore doing what they can to avoid the “misunderstandings” that can, and will inevitably, occur?

A report about that would be fascinating.

Facebook Suicide: the end to a virtual life. The Times (150907)
Valleywag on The Times story (140907)

PR needs some PR

A friend of mine has being doing lots of interesting research into PR and online communications.

I know from my own experience that the way PR departments handle online activities leaves a lot to be desired. Some are worse than others, usually for investment (or lack of it) reasons, but also because of a lack of interest, direct contact with journalists being the main focus.

I don’t want to plug a company but looking at these guys’ reports at Shift Communications is an interesting place to start thinking about where online (in-house as opposed to consultancy) PR might be if it looked over the wall and engaged with the medium.

At the end of the day Public Relations as a business discipline doesn’t have a good reputation and there are as many reasons for that as there are companies with communications and PR departments. See Ipsos MORI for a 2002 survey into where journalists prefer to get their information.