Is 65 the new 140?

I've said for some time, just because you get 140 characters on Twitter doesn't mean you should use them.  And that it's no good to prattle on with "extensions."  You need to leave space for the retweet and comments, so keep it around 100 if you can.

Now this: 65 characters.

Why?  Found first as it relates to writing good headlines for media releases that will work well in Google's search.  Because the Google truncates heads past 65 characters.

But here's some compelling additional info on 65.  For email subject lines.  For SEO tagging. More and more items are wanting you to say it in less and less space.

Once upon a time, I wrote for the bible of preseason basketball: Street & Smith's.  Those stories had hard word counts that were inviolable.  You quickly learned to drop modifiers, bloat and words like inviolable.

Writing short, tight, meaningful prose is much harder than bloviating.

Forced Transparency (Not Yet)

Friends point out what I overlooked -- the new Facebook annotation of who actually posted on brands is for admins view only.

Hmm.

So when was the last time that a Facebook feature that reveals more about your data stayed private.

Betcha what I took the policy change to be comes to pass before it's all said and done.

For all the folks who want to keep their branded social shielded, consider my age old advice:  Digital assets are extremely portable and once posted are always available.

Can you say . . . screen captures?  Wanna know who really is doing Brand X's work for them?  Everyone an Edward Snowden.

Of FOIA and folly

Every public institution runs into the digital age dilemma: what should we archive and what are we required to archive?

One solid rule of thumb is making sure you can produce documents if asked that pertain to your business activity.  And doing that on Gmail to avoid the state's servers . . . . well, that is proven to not stand up in court.

Two recent FOIA-related articles via PRSA's daily email bring this balancing act into focus.  The first details the SNAFU by the U.S. Navy in sending its strategy memo of how to cut down on a FOIA request to the requester.

Ah, there are some old time favorites:  "encourage the sender to 'narrow the scope'" to avoid "fishing expeditions."  The tweet with the screen cap is here.

The other is this new product: Confide.  Marketing hype says it's "snapchat for the corner office."  In other words, a way to have erasable communications to avoid those pesky FOIA fishing expeditions.

As many have learned the hard way, Snapchat isn't as secure, and surely the same will be for Confide.

Forced Transparency

Starting Feb. 20, Facebook will take the veil off "brand" pages by revealing who is posting what.  I think it's a great move, and something that for the most part I've followed at all three stops along this social media way.

I did endorse the school speaking on the first announcement, but thereafter, you had to identify yourself at the end of the post.

Now, all posts will be annotated, and it will be a good thing.

Well, unless you are the mystery MSNBC tweeter that got fired a week ago for the comment about conservatives and the Cheerios commercial.  Can't get away with that anonymous post and departure on Facebook soon.

Thanks, Interaction and Bringing It

Jan. 25 we got into a twitter war with UALR.  Ah, not really, but the very fact that two university social feeds decided to go back and forth on the gameday of a pair of rivals drew attention.

Got the media's comment and student's attention.  "Did you see that?" one asked me.  Grinning, why yes, yes I did.  An incredulous look from another administrative functionary.  "Why I've never seen that before, you know, between two university accounts."

Good-natured ribbing over who was going to win the first meeting of the two basketball teams.  Why not?  It was great fun.  It mobilized both fan groups who retweeted and added to the back and forth.  We kept is civil (and so did the fans for the most part).

The goal of social media is interaction.  When "institutions" are too concerned with being formal all the time, people will not relate.

What makes Old Main so important to Arkansas grads?  The Columns a sentimental heart tug to Northwestern State alums?  The Arch at A-State?

It's not the freaking architecture, people.  It's like Soylent Green -- it's peeeeeople.

Betcha remember that line.

Thus my point.  A helpful instructor.  A mentoring adviser.  A band of brothers or sisters who ran together.  Sporting events.  Social events.  Milestone events.  A catchy turn of a phrase.

These are the emotional connections we ascribe to our alma maters and then to the brick and mortar.

So let's act like people rather than architecture.

I want to give a shout out to our colleagues at UALR for making it fun, and showing us this new little weblette tool, replygif.net.  Someone's GIF'd up movie clips, no sound.  Let's hope the studios don't take them down soon (it's still in beta).

Sometime, no matter how cleaver you are, a picture tells the story better but video can evoke the motion best.

As we said back . . . .

Bring it.

The Social Media You May Not Monitor

Reading before the holidays a pair of references in the PRSA newsletter about the difficulties of brands dealing with errors on Wikipedia, I was aware of the twisted path I'd find myself on in early December.

 

As noted in the PRSA email, I do recognize there is a considerable amount of "Astroturfing" going on -- not just on the Wikis but all around the digital realm.

And in reading the accompanying column about the damage that inaccurate or maliciously false information on Wikipedia can do to brands, it got me watching a little closer.

Who knew I'd find myself inside Escher-like world of WikiProofing so soon after?

 

We talk at length about monitoring our social media and what our active folks in our organizations may be doing.  There's another social media you need to actively monitor.  The Wikis and similar born digital reference guides.

I want to make a quick preface to say, I use Wikipedia.  A lot.  But I also double check anything I personally don't know from my experience or my own historical background -- remember, the Dr in DrBS is a PhD in American history.  Teaching, no one was allowed to use WikiPedia as a primary source.  Why?

Our story begins with a passing mention in our media monitoring that our former Indian mascot made a list of eight insensitive Native American references.  Looking at the story on Indian Country Today Media Network, the author, Vincent Schilling, talked about the "Trail of Tears Classic" between Arkansas State and University of Louisiana at Monroe.

As a native of Monroe, graduate and former employee at the then Northeast Louisiana, I had never, ever heard the series with A-State called . . . well . . . anything.  Sure, these two Indian teams had that in common, but NLU's rival was Louisiana Tech; A-State far more interested in games with Memphis.

Both teams were mandated into mascot changes, so certainly there would not be any recent year Native American references.  With one exception -- the inside jokes passed among fans still upset about the change on message boards.  After a double check with both A-State and ULM officials, a note to Vincent with Indian Country Today Media Network to let him know his information was incorrect.

And that began the WikiOdessey.

Here are a series of links from the internet that prove the series is true, most of all, a Wikipedia entry by a poster I came to know by his screen name of Ejgreen77.  Ejgreen77 cited an online work from 2007 and a single news article which was not online.  I decided to make the correction myself.

This was my big mistake.

Truth did not matter.  What mattered to Ejgreen77 and the entirety of the WikiWorld was I was a WP:NO.  

"Based on this edit, it appears that you are a paid public-relations professional, employed by Arkansas State University. As such, please read WP:NO..."

Because I worked for A-State, I must have an agenda.  Because I knew the truth and dared to correct it, I was quickly labeled as a "hostile poster" and Ejgreen77 set about to have my account suspended.

This becomes the heart of the problem I have with Wikipedia, both as a public relations professional and as a professional historian.  Anyone can post things.  To paraphrase an old cliche, once it's on the internet, its the God's honest truth.  And under the rules of engagement from Wikipedia, only those without an interest can fix the internet.

 

(As you might expect, there is a Wikipedia page for the history of conflict of interest.  It's not really encouraging with the unrealistic line in the sand about "if you are paid by".  Guess if you get paid to teach or write American history, you shouldn't edit it on Wikipedia -- you have an interest in being right . . . )

Meanwhile, the media continued to not correct its story, but the editor sent a note to say that it didn't seem quite right and they would revise their story to say that certainly since the two schools changed their mascots during the early 2000s, the label wasn't currently being used.  But, because the Wikipedia entry persisted, they would not retract the story as based on inaccurate information.

Appealing to reviewers, a three-week process of near daily checking and updating information to plead the case began.  Throughout it all, the fact I had a PhD in history, that I had intimate knowledge of both programs, that I had grown up in the region, that I had worked in the sports media and could also speak to the inaccuracy -- all that mattered was I worked for A-State.

My level of frustration was high.  Now the mascot issue was on the other foot.  I had been labeled.  And I was not to be believed because of my associations.  I was being judged on the surface.

Eventually, allies came to my side, and several of them came to the same conclusion: none of this seemed to exist prior to the mascot changes.  I also found and supplied scans of books on college and regional sports history -- since the media guides of either school were not considered viable "truth".  After all, they were the product of WP:NO.

I also made the argument, if this series was real, where was the trophy like the Arkansas-LSU or Northwestern State-Stephen F. Austin series.  These also had Wiki entries, and photos of the trophies -- the Golden Boot and the giant cigar store Indian Chief Caddo.

Two days before Christmas, the Wiki court ruled in our favor, and changed the entry "permanently" to the Arkansas State-ULM Series.  Ejgreen77 went to the end believing in his story, and as far as I know, believing I had done some eeeeeeevil PR work.

To the full credit of Indian Country, once they saw the evidence and that Wikipedia had stricken the entry, they were more than gracious in removing their story.

And this is the heart of the story.  If this was a more visible, more contentious matter of brand reputation in which the media source was Wikipedia, what damage would result due to Wikipedia's policy to not take the word of those of us who happen to work for a group?

Is the takeaway of the story that we all have to buddy-up with someone we can call on to correct our inaccuracies that is not "connected" by a paycheck to our schools?

This seems like a poor way to run an encyclopedia.  It certainly isn't the Associated Press or any other reasonable media or governmental standard.  If the institution can prove an error, it gets corrected.

 

This all comes back around to the key points in the PRSA's survey: takes too long to respond, factual errors not addressed.

But the moral of both the article and our story:

Some Viewed Making Changes as Near Impossible: 23% of respondents felt that making changes to Wikipedia articles for their company or client was “near impossible” in 2012 and 2013.

 

Amen.

You Wanted Inside the Game

What do Madonna and Richard Sherman have in common? We just heard the voices inside their head.

Both find themselves the subject of our clucking disdain today for what they said out loud.  Madonna in social media and Sherman on the regular.

Madonna's Instagram message to her son using the N word that she pulled back saying she was not racist and that it was what goes for an inside joke is pretty straightforward social media faux pas.

But what of Sherman? His outburst at the close of the AFC Championship game set social media ablaze with recriminations for his corse behavior and turned the country against the Seattle Seahawks.

The shock and borderline horror in Erin Andrews eyes as he erupted in pure angry emotion during the post game interview tells you everything you need to know.

The network finally went too far.

The cameras on sidelines, in the sidelines, in the faces of injured or emotional players.  The in-game interviews with coaches.

All of it designed to "take you inside the game."

Well, you just got to go there, America. How do you like it now?

Should he have composed himself? Absolutely. Does he need some media training? Maybe.

There is a reason why there is a cooling off period after games before players and coaches are allowed to talk to the media.

The warrior mentality required of young men to stand alone out there on the island that is cornerback was revealed for all to see.

Did I not react to Sherman's self-absorbed outburst? Oh no, I thought it was terrible for the team and really soiled the joy of victory for the fans.

Was I surprised? Not really. Young players haven't had the years of experience controlling that raw emotional and taking it back to the locker room.

Will that happen again? Sure, but the league and the network will have some strong discussions about avoiding it.

That's the key - walking right up to the line but not crossing over.  Knowing how far you can go and pushing that limit.

Kinda like a quarterback lobbing for the back corner of the end zone, trying a cornerback's skill.

Sometimes, you get the ball slapped right back in your face.

Not So Happy New Year

Regrets for the lack of activity.  The combination of a bowl game with a trip to CASE national in DC followed by a serious shot of winter cold/walking pneumonia . . . . well, I'll catch you up with some new entries this week.

100% Reason to Remember the Name

While Louisiana legend ascribes colorful former LSU head coach Dale Brown with a version of it, P.T. Barnum is often credited with the famous line: "I don’t care what you say about me, just spell my name right."

On New Year's Eve Eve, the circus came calling in Brown's old home town of Baton Rouge, albeit on the northside at Southern University.  The Jaguars broke the NCAA record for best start in a Division I basketball game by holding hapless Champion Baptist College scoreless while racking up 44 unanswered.  It led to a 116-12 final score.

Last night, Southern and Champion made the ESPN ticker during bowl games.  Dominated a light evening of college basketball with the hysterical, er, historical note.

Oh the humanity.

At what price fame?  Fox Sports, ESPN, Bleacher Report, Sports Illustrated, et al, had their fun with this.  Southern got some better local pub -- considering a Google for the university also brings up some investigations into the law school today.  While many are making fun of Champion (lots of how can you be a Champion . . .) there is growing complaint about Southern, notably that they should not have taken advantage of a non-NCAA team or that the game and record are not legitimate.

No one starts out to have this result, but let's be honest -- everyone knows what is going on.  Southern played teams who wanted them for practice; why do we fault the Jags for same.  Let's not act like this is a product of the 21st century money-driven horror show of college sports.  This was going on with regularity in the 19th century.  Colleges played all-star teams, local high schools, business colleges, schools for the deaf, military bases, their own alumni.

Champion Baptist gets 7,000-plus notes in Google's news today, and they trended hard on Twitter last night.  SB Nation's Mid-Major Madness had a little perspective on both sides.  The Topsy score was 56, so to the plus side of sentiment.  Tweet of the day goes to Gary Parrish at CBS:  "You know what’s coming next season, right? Champion Baptist at Grinnell College. Book it."  Lost in the mix is at their own level, CBC was a national champion among other Christian private schools.

At the end of the day, this is takeaway.  USA TODAY sports writer Dan Wolkin who grew up in Hot Springs admitted he had never heard of Champion.

Now he has.

Off-Topic Post Script: Take a moment and read through Micheal Turney's excellent tracing of the origins of the P.T. Barnum quote from the first link above.  A good read that once again proves my Harry Truman approach to America: The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know. As a Post-Post Script: Enjoy #5 on this link to Truman's value of history.

MF's Tweeting Yourself to Unemployment

On this day of the latest version, I can't beat what Mental Floss did today.  Enjoy their recap and share with your friends, staff and students.

Now within that, on #6 and #12, I recall also the infamous Red Cross drunk tweet. Or frankly, @ArkRazorbacks' FU on a stolen phone. Bad tweet doesn't always lead to dismissal if handled well.

Then again, on the other 14 - and today's edition from South Africa and yesterday's rehash of the KU professor - sometimes you can't.  And they can cause you legal trouble both before - the Astoria, Ore., teen's hit and run - and after - a California young man seeing his charges upgraded.

Kansas Raises the Bar on Social Liability

An update on earlier notation that David Guth would become the next battleground for academic freedom and social media regulation.  The Kansas Board of Regents voted unanimously to give its campus leaders, quoting from The Chronicle, the ability“to suspend, dismiss, or terminate from employment any faculty or staff member who makes improper use of social media.”

Remember that Guth was suspended for his comments about NRA members after the Navy Yard shooting.

Let's remember, Kansas already had a very broad hate speech policy and that it had on the books the statement that social media was covered under that guideline.

This makes it crystal clear.

Facebook's Sports Play

For a long time, college athletic programs put their majority focus into Twitter.  As a 2004 adopter, myself among them.  Over time and new responsibilities, I've gotten a stronger sense of the need to be in both spaces -- Facebook and Twitter -- but with the right content and the right timing (in other words, yet another time to say delink your damn accounts).

Facebook's aging demo plays well toward alumni, parents and influencers -- especially outside the urban markets -- but it has not been a big factor in sports.

Until this week.  Yes, Facebook lost out on SnapChat in a bid to get younger, but it just vacuumed up SportsStream.

The product creates a second screen using the streams from Twitter, official team data (live stats) and visuals from InstaGram and others.  Sort of automating the kind of live blogging many do with tools like CoverItLive.

Paul Allen believed in the concept, and now the Zuck is on board.

End of the Internet, or Anonymous Posting?

When the big guns come out, must be something to it. The DMCA's "safe harbor" on copyright was the last time Google, et al, united.

Now they come to the rescue of TheDirty versus "that cheerleader".

Sarah Jones became the subject of postings that she claims were false, and she has sued.

The People vs Larry Flynt? Maybe. But the fear that a loss for TheDirty (home of Anthony Weiner, well, you know) could put liability on all online "news" groups.

How about that? Some old fashioned got to have a name and an address, maybe even a call back number, to put your letter to the editor out there.

Right after the Ed O'Bannon suit, this could be the most important legislation impacting college sports.

Kodak Moments for the 21st Century

No surprise to the regulars of the blog, I'm a huge fan of the GoPro.  A first-gen owner, I've used them for years.

60 Minutes featured the founder of GoPro Nick Woodman.  If you don't get what GoPro is about, and how you MUST use them, watch the story.  Aside from a traditional American success story, it's a visual presentation of all the memes associated with GoPro.

At the close of the piece, Woodman says something profound regarding both the camera and the way people relate to it.

"It's a marketer's dream.  It's all based off authenticity. Our customers doing interesting things around the world and they're so stoked . . . . that when they share the video, they often give us credit.  My GoPro ski trip.  My GoPro day at the park with my kids . . ."

That's when it hits me.  When George Eastman changed the way we captured the world in still photographs, the late 19th and entire 20th century were dominated by the Kodak moment.  That became synonymous with a heartwarming event, saved forever in celluloid.

The 21st century equivalent? When I GoPro my fill-in-the-blank.  And thanks to the technology I can both be in the moment and preserve it in motion.

Why all that?

To say this: replace GoPro with your university name from Woodman's quote.  Is that how graduates view their experience, their learning, their transformation while at your university?  Do they send you photos and emails from their lives around the world?  Staying connected to where they learned their skills, or built their social networks?

If they do, your "brand" shall increase.  If they don't, you're just issuing credentials and certificates.

Find a way to engage through the authenticity of your unique experience.

Tarkin Doctrine Finally Fails Olympics

Or maybe I should make another SciFi reference by saying the International Olympic Committee has decided to stop Fighting the Future.  New guidelines that recognize both the nature of (and the benefits accrued from) social media.  At Sochi, social is in.

A good read from USA TODAY about the shift that allows those who are accredited media to use their information and stills to report and promote.  It is another step forward after London where the Five Rings recognized that those who "would not profit" could do the same.  Video is still off limits, but in a rights-holder world, most can accept that.

We have come a long way from Beijing.

The opposite from Oklahoma State earlier this month as a clash between the media relations office and student media becomes nasty he tweets, they tweet battle over who "broke" the news of what would happen at an athletic department event.

Reminds me a bit of institutions that still won't credential born digital or participatory media.

Oh, and if you don't get the Star Wars reference in the headline . . .

Bad Behavior Equal Time

Much space devoted to athletes and others doing stupid things on social, sometimes with career changing consequences.  Today, let me share a little equal time for the fans.  Courtesy of Matt Ferguson of the Arkansas State Scout site, enjoy some slices of Bad Tweets Theatre.

It's not quite when the father threaten the family with gun violence over the outcome of a game a couple of years ago, but the rants over the Missou kicker's miss are getting there.

The Un-Anonymous

Perhaps like zombies, the undead, we should consider those who put WAY too much faith in analog concepts of secrecy in these digital days as the unanonymous.

Latest cases in point:  From On the Media's new side feed, the story of a former NSA staffer (no, not Snowden) getting live-tweeted as he was on the phone riding the train.  Turns into a double bust.  Please click link to read -- don't want to give away the surprises, but promise you won't be disappointed.

The other is the unsavory tale of former high school coach and athletic director Barry Gebhart.  He was arrested by Rogers police in a digital honey pot -- officer posing as the 14-year-old girl that Gebhart thought he was safe swapping photos and lewd suggestions with.

(A moment of disclosure: I do have a child still at FHS)

Among the details: Gebhart was using Whispers to cover his tracks and his personal smartphone to stay off the public school network and computers.  Oops -- GPS in the phone helped link the texting and emails to his office at Fayetteville High and his home address.

The arrest record and details -- Gebhart admitted to the events and has resigned -- are across Arkansas media, but we'll give the link to our friends at Fayetteville Flyer.

Which part of the mantra didn't you pick up: No more secrets.

Anonymous? I Think Not @NatSecWonk

Let us begin with another chapter in the saga of social costing people jobs.  Jofi Joseph is gone from a federal post in the White House when revealed as the person behind the snarky @NatSecWonk Twitter feed.  Jump over to MSN News for the whole story, but let's just Cliffs Note it:

Joseph saw things.  He gave his unabashed opinion about them.  You can't do that in politics unless, to paraphrase in the Billy Joel, you spend a lotta money.

Come on, Jofi.  You work inside the U.S. govt.  Do the letters "N", "S" and "A" ring a bell, NatSecWonk?

Tea Party Tigers?

I caution all sides to take care with their rhetoric over the Grambling football team - and let me take some runs to conclusion of the varied sides of these events.

At the start of collegiate athletics, it truly was a volunteer, student oriented sport in which teams opted in and out of seasons. The was no guarantee that teams would show for contests.

Of course, the modern era carries with it certain obligations. This is what the administrators of universities and conferences will imply.  The national media will split between student rights and what is right for the school.

And there is the rub.

Eddie Robinson is likely spinning in his grave . . . furious at both sides of this equation. Coach Rob would not have tolerated the level of insubordination from his team. Discipline was a hallmark of a Grambling man.  For that matter, neither would have the Tigers legendary basketball coaches.

But before invoking the soul of one of America's coaching legends, he would have never let his players endure some of the treatment they have received. Grambling without the era of Robinson has fallen into disrepair. If the photos and health reports are to be believed, this is a rough situation.

Standing up for principle - I'm sure that is how the football team sees it.  Even if it cost Jackson State a homecoming.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.  Even if it threatens a bedrock institution of the SWAC, of HBCUs - the Bayou Classic.  That annual game at the Superdome with a national NBC broadcast audience is millions on the line.

See where this is headed?

The Republicans "shut down" the government - mainly caused great inconveniences - because the Democrats and the President wouldn't negotiate.

So the players have shut down the Tiger football program - because the administration won't meet their demands. Clean uniforms, modern accommodations.

Which moral side can you take based on your feeling about the last month of politics? Does that make them the Tea Party Tigers? Or the John Carlos and Tommy Smith of their generation?

Ah, what of those lofty goals of amateurism.

Don't go there too fast. Because these young men signed scholarships to perform as college football players in return for education.

So they are obligated to play.  To represent Grambling.

Why?

Because the are schedules. And contracts. And television. And revenue generation on the line.  Without the financial engine of football, there is very little else in college sport portfolios that can finance the other teams.

Well now, somewhere in California, Ed O'Bannon is smiling. In the Midwest, the Drake Commission is grinning ear to ear.

You say those boys HAVE to get on the bus? HAVE to play the game? Because of their obligation?

Sounds like one legal brief away from uncompensated employment. Perhaps a labor dispute over working conditions.

Every case is unique, but let's suppose that Grambling disciplines the players in some way. Will that squelch the movement? If they don't, what happens with the next Rutgers basketball team situation?

Are You A Brand of One?

The start of October has been filled with frustration for many.  For some, it is difficulty with financial aid systems at one university.  For another, it's a horrid start to a football season.  For way to many, it is the blind actions of politics - from the Second World War memorial in DC to furloughs on a campus near you.  For me, an incredibly frustrating encounter with the U.S. Army and our ROTC.

So all that to say this (thinking of the Army):  Are you a brand of one?

Scott Stratten is a refreshing "unmarketer" and his message is simple.  There is no such thing as branding.  Your customer determines what they think of you, and one interaction at a time that reputation either goes up or down.

Take an hour.  Watch (or listen) to this all the way through.  When it is over, ask yourself:

Do you students get attention they deserve from service areas?

Do you make your media jump through hoops regularly?

On your interactions with the public, are you moving the brand up or down one person at a time?

From time at Northwestern State, I can testify to what this means.  Students who complained about troubles with the student record system and refunds that we interacted with -- and publicly --  on the official Facebook page were more informed, less likely to continue to rail (once we explained) and some became our advocates (stepping in to threads to say . . . did you contact the Facebook page for help?).  It didn't solve the problems, but it did take some of the sting out.