The recent debate over net neutrality is a heated one (to say the least). Since Google and Verizon’s talks made the news a few weeks ago, the media has been peppered with headlines discussing the issue. Big questions at the heart of the debate include who should get priority on the Web, how this will impact innovation and small business, whether the government can police this effectively, if this is just a play for big business to benefit, and the overall implications for consumers.

Given the tremendous amount of ink already given to these questions, I’ll save my opinions for another day when the dust settles a bit more. Instead, let’s take a look at the impact to Google’s brand: will net neutrality be the tipping point for trust in Google, transforming them from the company with the “don’t be evil” motto into a “corporate behemoth”?

Based on discussions brewing on the Web, it appears trust could be on the line. Consumers are noting they are moving to new search engines, that the company has lost its connection with its start-up roots and that they are moving away from their entrepreneurial positions to ones that benefit them as a large business. Even comedian Jon Stewart has joined the discussion, documenting the variance in Google’s message from 2006 to present (in his unique way of course).

Jon Stewart on Net Neutrality

The change in their position alone could have huge implications for the company and Google will have to carefully navigate how they reconcile their former “free Internet for everyone” stance with what is a very complicated issue. Consumers could see this as creating a hierarchy for Internet access, with big business looking to line their pockets at their expense. This story isn’t new, and the headlines could increasingly take a turn for the worse from Google’s perspective (insert “evil empire”).

The imperatives for Google: show how net neutrality still aligns to their original position and be clear on the benefits to consumers and small business. If it doesn’t line up, it will be interesting to see how Google is discussed going forward.  One thing for certain, the Google brand is rapidly moving from warm fuzzy search company, to tech titan.

Well, despite the fact that Toyota is a case study for how not to handle a crisis situation…they’ve sure come up with a catchy new YouTube campaign for their new minivan. I’ve seen this video posted all over Facebook and sent numerous times over email. It seems to be a YouTube sensation with 3,347,969 views, you can also find the commercials featuring this same couple, the “Meet the Parents” commercial has 774,232 views!

This campaign has definitely taken on a life of its own, even in light of Toyota’s recent troubles. With safety obviously being one of the number one concerns with their cars, you can bet it’s even more of a factor in marketing their minivan. Instead of focusing on the safety, however, they’ve been able to capture a “coolness” factor which personalizes this car to their target market and perhaps is helping people to forget about the whole sticky gas pedal issue.

I guess laughter really is the best medicine…well played Toyota!

Over the past few weeks there’s been a lot of discussion about privacy policies on the Web. As reported in a recent CNETarticle, the discussion has focused on Facebook’s deployment of a “Like” button that publishers can place on their Web site. So what’s the harm in a small icon on a Web site? Privacy experts and advocacy groups aren’t happy.

Even if someone is not a Facebook user or is not logged in, Facebook’s social plug-ins collect the address of the Web page being visited and the Internet address of the visitor as soon as the page is loaded–clicking on the Like button is not required. If enough sites participate, that permits Facebook to assemble a vast amount of data about Internet users’ browsing habits.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had to do a lot of backpedaling to cover his company’s bases on this one. You can see him interviewed on the topic of privacy and the backlash of sharing people’s information by the Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg at D8. As he publicly admitted in Mashable, “we’ve made a bunch of mistakes.” In fact, he had an e-mail exchange with noted blogger Robert Scoble about the issue and came out publicly via an e-mail, which Scoble published with Zuckerberg’s permission, that said “We’re going to be ready to start talking about some of the new things we’ve built this week. I want to make sure we get this stuff right this time.”

The growth of the Web and proliferation of social media sites appears to have opened up a Pandora’s box of privacy issues. Is it fair for companies like Facebook, Google, or MySpace to capture data about your viewing habits and then sell them?

The more I read about this issue the more I thought about how privacy policies can impact your brand. Has Facebook suffered a loss in customers from this snafu? Did Google loose web traffic last summer when it caught flak for launching Google Web History, “which records the sites you visit, searches you make, images and videos you view, and even sites you haven’t been to but may like.” I doubt it.

I don’t believe that this public backlash has hurt either of these companies so far. But if important private data would have been leaked, or Facebook or Google had clearly lied to customers, I’m sure that their brands would have been tarnished.

If you look beyond concerns about privacy policy for a minute – after all policies are easily fixed and everyone moves on – a bigger problem is those having to do with old fashioned computer security. As reported here, social networking sites as well as Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo! are not exactly enterprise grade when it comes to security. People generally use weak passwords that open the door to all kinds of malfeasance. Its one thing to have your surfing habits tracked, but entirely different when your identity and credit cards get into the wrong hands.

So how much does trust enter into the equation when you’re working with companies? If you don’t trust Facebook with data about your viewing habits – or other personal information – will you stop visiting the site, or just scale back? How important is trust when it comes to brand loyalty? More important, can trust be regained after an issue like the one outlined above? What’s your opinion?

I’ve been thinking a lot about how recent world and industry news have given us more than enough examples of how important establishing trust is to an organization. We all grew up in the world of “PR Spin,” but that doesn’t feel like a good term anymore. Our jobs as PR professionals are fundamentally changing, in relation to the counsel we need to be giving to our clients. I saw the following post on the PRSA site reflecting this thinking:

Transparency has become increasingly necessary in our society. As communicators, we are tasked with sharing information from our organizations with members of the public. How can a communicator assure the public the organization he or she represents is a transparent one? How should a communicator handle information that is negative?

These are all questions we need to be asking ourselves as PR professionals with consumers and businesses prioritizing trust and transparency in an organization over products or services. How do we help create that trust for the organizations we represent? How does that effect the counsel we give regarding messages and how to communicate those messages? All questions I will be thinking (and blogging) about in the months to come.

When you hear the names Proctor & Gamble and BlueCross BlueShield what images come to mind? Conservative? Old school? Bureaucratic? I think it’s safe to say that these two companies, fairly or unfairly, aren’t exactly known for being progressive or nimble. Yet both of these well-known American brands have recently implemented programs that might surprise you.

P&G is letting several hundred of its workers use their own laptops as part of a workplace experiment.

This pilot program is based on a simple idea: many of P&G’s younger employees would rather use their own laptops than corporate-issued systems.

BlueCross BlueShield plans to introduce online care this year, a service that allows patients to connect with a physician on-demand 24 hours a day using webcams for video links, or secure text messages or telephone conversations.

I find that the word “brand” is thrown around quite loosely nowadays. Establishing brand takes careful planning, time and smart execution. Yet all the hard work in the world can be thrown by the wayside by a simple misstep – think Toyota could have handled that little gas pedal/floor mat issue any better?

If someone were to ask me what companies come to mind when I hear the words progressive, nimble, risk taking, I don’t think of P&G or BlueCross BlueShield. Yet both of these companies, albeit for different reasons, have adopted new technologies and policies which have helped to strengthen their already strong brands. By implementing these two new programs I believe that both companies are doing a good job of reinforcing their already strong brands by leveraging technology to adapt with the times.

By using new technologies and new methods of communicating with their employees and customers, both P&G and BlueCross BlueShield have shown that they have the guts (in a rough economy) to evolve their own brand strategies and take chances.

Are there other conservative, old school companies out there that are showing a willingness to adapt to the modern times?

Over the years, Apple has done a masterful job of building its brand.  From the epic 1984 commercial that launched the Mac to the cute and effective “I’m a Mac” campaign, Apple just seems to be operating at a different level from everyone else in the tech industry.

Apple fans are everywhere, willing to pony up a significant premium for spendy Apple computers and gadgets. For the perceived design and innovation they overlook considerable product flaws like crummy battery life or Apple’s proprietary, controlling policies. The Apple brand and flashy UIs mean that much for many consumers.

Given the power and advantages afforded by this brand, why on earth is Apple throwing it away because it thinks HTC – and of greater concern, Google’s Android OS – might be stepping on some of the almost laughable patents it secured on gestures?  With Google’s backing, HTC has little to worry about.  But it stands to gain a lot of brand equity.  An obscure Taiwanese maker of smartphones, HTC must be doing something right if Apple is worried. The exposure alone has been worth a mint.

Apple was, somewhat bizarrely, able to get a patent for a swipe as shown from the patent app. Is there an app for that?

Meanwhile, suing little guys doesn’t do the Apple brand much good. Nobody wants to see the hip Mac dude running around slapping lawsuits on people. Doesn’t really fit with the friendly, funny persona. Evil is more like it. Steve Jobs with horns?  I don’t think I’m alone in saying that I’m pulling for HTC and Google in this one. It’s tough to feel sorry for billionaire bullies.

What I expect from Apple is a way to buy the iPhone on a better network. How about Verzion for starters? How about some different variants of the iPhone? How about cooking up ways to deliver unlimited 4G bandwidth for $10 a month? Apple should keep thinking about the needs of customers and finding ways to help the industry to put our needs first. Lawsuits?  This is not making me happy.

As ex-Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz details in what possibly might be one of the best blog posts of all time, patent wars among tech titans have been going for a long time.  Most of the time, Company A steps on Company B’s IP, but it turns out that Company B is also stepping on Company A’s IP, so they leave each other alone. Nobody wins in a nuclear war.

In this case, Apple might have the upper hand from a patent volume perspective CNN reports. But winning the courtroom battle will be a wan victory if it leaves the Apple brand bludgeoned beyond repair.

Committing to buying a spot in the Super Bowl is always a big risk due to the vast sums of money at stake.  For those with the wherewithal to pull it off, a big splash around the Super Bowl may generate more buzz than a year’s worth of mediocrity.

The year’s game, featuring one of football’s biggest stars in Peyton Manning and the feel good story of the past year in the New Orleans Saints, was the most watched TV show in the United States ever with 106.5 million viewers.  With all the entertainment options people have now compared to when the previous record was set by the MASH finale in 1983, this is an amazing accomplishment.  (more…)

One of the more important relationships tech firms needs to have is with industry analysts. It’s quite a symbiotic relationship. Industry analysts from the likes of Gartner, Forrester and AMR need to be kept up to date as to what new technology is being created or is available now in order to seem knowledgeable with their clients. At the same time tech vendors need to secure the air cover that analysts provide when a firm is announcing new products or new strategies. The relationship has to work both ways for each side to prosper.

However, while I hold many industry analysts in high regard, I’ve often chuckled at the thought of someone actually holding analysts accountable on industry predictions. On some level aren’t analysts just as bad about predictions as your local weatherman? (more…)

As anyone who has been in the technology industry for a while knows, the heyday of the IT publications has long since past. I remember when PC Magazine was the size of one of the bridal magazines – a veritable tome chock full of reviews, commentary and, of course, tons of ads. Now the few publications that still do hardcopy are the size of pamphlets.

More alarming, however, is what the move to an online model is doing to the quality of the journalism and reporting, or lack therefore. The most recent example is the bogus report of a “black screen of death” in Windows 7.  Security research firm – at least that what they say they are – Prevx published a blog post that a new patch was impacting “millions of users.”

As PC World reported several days after its earlier erroneous reports:

The initial blog post from Prevx on Black Friday claims that “millions” of Windows 7, Vista, and XP systems are impacted by the black screen of death issue, and that the problem is caused by updates Microsoft pushed out during the November Patch Tuesday. Neither of those claims has turned out to be true.

Reporters with even a modicum of training and discipline would have questioned the Prevx blog posting and gotten a second verification before running with the story.  As I learned in J-school 101, the fallacy of the expert is a trap avoid. Ed Bott of ZD-Net does a great job of walking through the “sordid, depressing episode” as he calls it.

Indeed, it is sordid and depressing. But it’s hardly the first time and definitely won’t be the last. While publishing houses like IDC are no longer enjoying the bountiful revenue streams of the past, their influence still extends far and wide.  With the decreased revenue streams, editorial budgets and staff have been sliced. This means more junior reporters with less editorial oversight. At the same, reporters feel the heat to deliver breaking news in real time.  As Prevx demonstrated, this system is easily gamed to the detriment of all.

The tech media, unfortunately, appears to be trapped in negative feedback loop. As ad spending declines, editorial staff is cut back, this lowers editorial quality creating inaccuracies and errors, this turns off readers, the publication loses circulation, and ultimately ad revenue declines further, restarting the cycle. Continued shakeout is inevitable.

Given the flimsy state of the tech media, technology companies (and I’d venture companies in other industries as well) can ill-afford to have mainstream media be the primary method of communication to the market.  It’s critical to use social media tools and build an effective channel that lets you talk directly to your customers and partners. Chances are your customers are much more likely to believe what your CEO writes on his blog over what some “research” firm with an agenda feeds to the media.

While blogging has been largely accepted in most companies, there are many details still to be sorted out. One significant grey area is around what’s acceptable in corporate vs. personal blogs.

Many employees share insights and information in their company-sponsored wikis and blogs. Yet those same employees also may participate in non-work related blogs, tweets or wikis. When talking about a company-sponsored social media tool, the question becomes “on the corporate level who determines what is and what isn’t acceptable language?” We’re not talking about swearing or vulgar language, rather, we’re talking about what does an employee think they can share on a blog (whether public or private) vs. what the employer thinks is acceptable?

I recently ran across an interesting story in EContent Magazine titled “Companies Struggle with Social Media Guidelines.” The story is about a social media policy that The Washington Post recently implemented and the backlash they received from employees. Here is the explanation of the policy:

The policy covers routine issues for a media organization when it says, for example: “When using these networks, nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment. We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.”

I realize that working for a new organization puts those employees into a unique situation since they must maintain their impartiality. But how does this apply to a typical corporation?  What rights and responsibilities do employees have when their name is attached to their company?

Another example from the EContent story is a lesson to learn from. A waiter at a posh L.A. restaurant commented on his blog, “How to Succeed as a Failure,” that a famous actress left the restaurant without paying her bill or leaving a tip. The waiter has tweeted about other celebrity issues in his restaurant, but this issue caught the eyes of the restaurant’s corporate team and the waiter was fired. The waiter had this to say about the incident:

“I have to admit that what I did might not have had my own best interest at hand. I did not think anyone, other than the 22 people following me, would read what I tweeted. That was my ignorance to the power of social media.”

The waiter lost his job but he noted that he had only 22 followers on Twitter when the incident occurred, and now he has 1,365.

I believe that if employees are writing on a company blog or wiki, then they should be required to follow their company’s basic social media  guidelines. However, as the EContent story suggests, you can attract more bees with honey than you can with vinegar.

The EContent story talks about how IBM, “a company with 400,000 employees worldwide, an estimated 17,000 of whom are bloggers and 200,000 of whom are on LinkedIn,” implemented a policy that included input from employees. Instead of simply laying down a draconian law with regards to blog and wikis, IBM solicited input from employees and made them feel a part of the decision-making process. That simple act, garnering input and making the employees feel as though they had skin in the game, made everything work smoothly.

Noted blogger Tim O’Reilly has created at Draft Blogger’s Code of Conduct which does a good job of addressing the issue of guidelines for blogging. Here are the six rules O’Reilly asks everyone to consider:

1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.
2. We won’t say anything online that we wouldn’t say in person.
3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.
5. We do not allow anonymous comments.
6. We ignore the trolls.

It’s a very slippery slope when freedom of speech becomes involved. As an employee do I give up some of those rights? What are your thoughts on the responsibility of the person who is tweeting and posting? What is your point of view on the topic of social media guidelines?