Yesterday a colleague noted that the front page image of a major Canadian newspaper was credited to Facebook, the social media site that many use to keep in touch with friends and families. Birthdays, family vacations and pictures from a golden wedding anniversary are the stuff of social media lore. Long-lost high school chums finding one another on Facebook were, for a time, a staple of soft journalism.

In an earlier era the Personals section of daily newspapers often carried short ads from people looking for lost loves, estranged family members, past neighbours and so forth. There was an element of sympathy for the person who placed an ad encouraging someone to “call home, all is forgiven” or wondering whatever happened to the boys from the Cub Pack.

We read these ads knowing we would never know what happened to long-lost Uncle Joe, or if John and Marsha patched things up.

The Viet Nam War—a miasma of grief broadcast to hundreds of millions of living rooms on the evening news decades ago—created the modern take on the storied war correspondent. Images from the battlefield, field hospital or ruins made war real, and perhaps routine, to the audience back home. Given the media consuming habits of the Viet Nam War generation (tune in at 6 for the evening news, with a trusted anchor) the war could be presented, positioned and edited for public consumption.

Someone, somewhere, was exercising final approval on what made it to the network. Brutal images (still available all over the internet) from Viet Nam played no small part in sickening public opinion and helped turn its tide.

In due course the public lost their appetite for the war and the confrontation ended, after too many years, with a whimper and not a bang. Perhaps the audience had seen too much?

The image on the newspaper yesterday was not edited. It was real, raw and as unscripted as life itself. The growing bank of images—of mind-numbing devastation coupled with the awareness that Haiti is a place of poverty, struggle, dictatorship, crime, violence and a complete lack of hope—are reaching a new audience.

The audience today has countless options for information. Social media updates about the earthquake in Haiti will continue to proliferate as NGOs, news organizations (legitimate and illegitimate), charities, support groups, interested bystanders, family members and the  public reach out online for information, images, context and, most importantly, understanding of the events in Haiti as they unfold. Moment by moment.

I believe that this change is a good one. Unhindered by an editorial bias, citizen journalists are at their best when presented with a story that begs to be shared with others. Sharing the images, stories, experiences and developments in Haiti using social media tools empowers us. It is impossible to ignore the suffering of strangers when our knowledge of that suffering comes from a stranger.

The late Walter Cronkite was often called “the most trusted man in America.” I trust the citizen journalists, social media users and others “broadcasting” from Haiti just as much.

We have watched the destruction and its aftermath. Social media tools and citizen journalists will enable us to watch the response and reconstruction. We will know what happened to the people affected by the earthquake; watch hospitals, schools, police stations and presidential palaces reopen and—thanks to strangers on the ground—remain involved.

I enjoy newspapers and still read—or at least scan—a few each day. The content is as interesting to me as the advertisements can be. Savvy readers today will note that there are fewer advertisements for high-end jewelery items and that car prices have dropped. Precipitously.

The Globe and Mail for Monday March 23rd (Globe Life Section; page L1) published an article outlining the pitfalls of social media tools used injudiciously. Net-net: Share judiciously. One citizen of the Twitterscene slagged a client (not a good idea) and another insulted a city that happens to be home to his client and their head office; also a bad idea.

Careeristinas with a past will recall—perhaps fondly—a time when office deportment was more strictly outlined. There were definite expectations for “professional” and “personal” spheres of life. It was not uncommon to know little about the private lives of colleagues; one woman I worked with some years ago kept her engagement and subsequent marriage so carefully under wraps that knowledge of both escaped notice until she arrived at the office on Monday sporting a wedding ring.

Social Media tools have changed how we communicate and how we expect to communicate with one another. Immediate communication tools, strategies and needs trump the now charming, decorous professional demeanour of yesteryear. There are no secrets on the Internet and exposing your life—in all its normal glory—is now commonplace.

The concept of the much-dreaded “personal phone call” at work is obsolete. Never mind a call from your physician, sibling or family lawyer: wide-open work spaces and team-based cubicles mean that co-workers often share intimate details merely by having ears. (Personal phone calls, fyi, are obsolete because cellular phones take up the slack.)

Social Media tools—from MSN as an inter-office yakker to the Biggies like Twitter and Facebook—enable people to indulge in sharing, posting, commenting and more from the relative comfort of their keyboard and an ergonomic chair.

Social Media tools are, however, forever. Each tweet, update and notification is a public announcement.

The ability to instantly communicate is wonderful. It is also powerful in more than one sense of the word and it includes the ability to have your thoughts spread like wildfire across a digital network of untold numbers of people. Publish for sure, but don’t publish and perish because you hit “send” before reflecting on your post.

Readers can consider this a blog post by popular demand. The blogosphere and twitterscene (a word I hope I just coined) are small places; look around and you’ll see a familiar handle.

Futurecasting—something I enjoy as a mild hobby—is a career byproduct. Most PR counsellors practice it at some level. As a lazy blogger (I want to, but I find I don’t make time for it) I have been encouraged to blog more, worry about it less, and go for broke.

This, therefore, is broke. This is what I am following, noticing, observing and paying attention to across various media, scenes, sites and places:

The world’s greatest ponzi scheme is unfolding; Bernard Madoff (which google) is in jail and the legal entities of the United States and Elsewhere are now eyeing his family’s assets with narrowing eyes and a sceptical expression. In a time when many people are questioning how oversight bodies (SEC et al) failed to catch a theft of such magnificent proportion it behooves government agencies to now—perhaps “at last”—step in and show that they are up to the job at hand. That means that la famille Madoff can expect a large team of forensic accountants to exhume every cheque, chit, IOU and other financial instrument going back to who-knows-when and—I hereby predict—confiscate anything that isn’t nailed down. (Even the family piano, according to one report, is under threat of immediate confiscation.) Taking possession of Mrs Madoff’s piano will not nullify her husband’s crimes, but it looks good (the optics of it, if you will) for a public eager to see justice served no matter how late or cold.

Live cheaper to live better? When times get tough people turn to kith and kin for solace and comfort. What is more comforting than a home-cooked meal? A pleasant stroll through a local bookstore conglomerate reveals the new reality of kitchen fun: Cookbooks promoting casserole cooking, slow cooking (see: Futurecasting) and all manner of delectable meals on the cheap are currently in vogue. The very notion of “cooking” is now back in vogue after a long-ish hiatus as a pleasant pass time for busy people. Cooking—the dreary need to prepare meals for yourself or family—was a basic fact of life through much of history. In the latter end of the 20th century, however, cooking—the bane of housewives for eons—morphed into a soci0-economic totem of the good life. Cooking became an activity for couples to share as they entertained on weekends with artfully turned out meals paired with the proper wines, artisan cheeses and unique appetizers. By the turn of the century (that is, 1999 into 2000) fast food, take-out, home delivery, personal chefs and “assembled meals” had taken precedence at the family table and cooking was firmly established as a hobby.

Luxury that shows is no longer desirable. Famous brands (Royal Daulton, Waterford Crystal, Wedgwood) that reigned for the longest possible time in the finest homes and dining rooms are facing the sad fact that they are in trouble. Public Luxury—which used to something most people aspired to—is now unfashionable. While it is possible to hide your luxury at home (you can drink beer in a Waterford goblet if you draw the curtains) it is impossible to hide your luxury in public. Famous automobile marques (Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Bentley and so forth) will sit longer on the showroom floor while a careful public reconsiders its values. Marketing luxury in an economic storm requires a deft touch; the focus needs to change to “value” and “craftsmanship” and there can be no references to ego-features (custom stitching on leather seats, say, or engines with 8 more cylinders than are strictly required) as in the good old days of joyful and exuberant conspicuous consumption.

This blog is dedicated to Jason Ashton.

More knowledge from the recent Social Media for Government conference that took place in Ottawa this week.

Following demographic developments is a fascinating study. Society is changing as new technological advances change the face of one generation and redefine how that group interacts, understands, consumes and advances their culture.

From a presentation from some thinkers at the ROM (Royal Ontario Museum I learned about Millennials (for more on the ROM surf this). Intrigued by this demographic, I did some research.

Millennials are broadly described as being born post 1980 (say, between 1982 and 1994) and only know a world with digital technology. They signal the largest shift in media and behaviour since the dawn of television, which separates them in numerous ways from an older generation of media consumers.

Millennials have some interesting characteristics that further define them as a demographic group.

Socially expressive and inquisitive individuals, Millennials are the product of a society that included high rates of divorce and two-income families. Some theorists believe this translates into Millennials lacking an automatic deferral to authority and a new take on romantic and personal expression.

The ability to recreate, remix, retrieve and reconfigure the past (through technology) is expected. Millennials are resourceful and collaborative and have proven to be innovative thinkers.

Highly social and interconnected, Millennials work well in teams but are not considered highly loyal to employers, work places, or even–it is believed–romantic partners. There is no broad consensus if this “lack of loyalty” stems from social conditions (for example, divorce rates) or from some other factor. Millennials expect–and subsequently create–challenging and stimulating work experiences and places with a strong focus on the “team” and social life. (That is, they work and play together.)

This is an interesting demographic now assuming positions in the workforce and in the broader community of consumers. It will be interesting to watch them and their impact on society, consumer culture, communications and social media development.

Yesterday I substituted for Joe Thornley and chaired a conference in Ottawa about Social Media for Government. The conference was hosted by the Advanced Learning Institute under the direction of Kelly Flynn, who put together a one-of-a-kind event.

The attendees were engaged, interested (and interesting) and all were either operating with social media tools now or preparing to launch them in the near future. It was a high-energy day with ideas, innovation, thought-leaders and learners collaborating together in sessions, presentations and meals. (Kudos to ALI for creating dynamic lunch and supper sessions that offered both choice and networking.)

Joe has a following among innovators who are active with social media tools and there were a number of people who already interact and communicate with him now plus a new cadre of people who joined social media sites–for the first time–yesterday and learned directly from Joe how to make these cutting-edge tools a part of their work lives.

This was a connected day. I was learning myself while chairing the day and I made some great contacts among the crowd.

Today (Weds) Thornley Fallis was again present; Joe is back to chair and lead the day while John Sobol and Nick Rusczkowski (my colleagues) presented at the morning session.

I will be adding more information about individual sessions as soon as I touch base with the presenters. As a teaser, however, I can announce that there are a number of federal government entities who are planning to launch social media tools in the near future. What I would like to do is post some Q&A sessions on CapitalPR with these innovators and share their message and knowledge with  an even broader base.

Blogs, links, jumps, sidebars, comments and emails. Spend enough time on the Internet and you will come across hundreds of thousands of each one.

This one lead me to this.

Then I saw this and I encourage you to read it. It is important, it is Canadian, and it is good. I am even going to encourage you to forward the link to people you know.

Then I read this.

No matter what happens over the next few weeks the spirit of these discussions will not go away. Even the requirement that foreign journalists will need to apply for access to Tiananmen Square 24 hours in advance if they want to interview, broadcast or film in the plaza won’t turn this story off. (Intrepid journalists will, I believe, find people to interview, film, record and photograph at other venues. I’ve visited Tiananmen Square and it isn’t the only venue in Beijing where one can reasonably expect to find citizens milling about. It is, after all, a big city.)

It is just not possible, you see, to shut the Internet down. Nor can true public conversation be silenced. Shouts might become whispers but never silence.

I have been labouring under the misconception that people (youthful ones, usually) were “running the Internet” but it appears now that I have been wrong. All this time the ‘net has been under the control of the Chinese government.

If you don’t believe me click here.

Promising journalists one thing and then delivering another is never a wise move.

Quoted:

HE SAID:
Jacques Rogge, IOC President

“I’m not going to make an apology for something that the IOC is not responsible for,” Rogge said. “We are not running the internet in China. The Chinese authorities are running the internet.”

SHE SAID:
Giselle Davies, IOC Spokeswoman

IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies blamed Rogge’s use of the words “no censorship” on the fact that English is not the Belgian’s first language.

“There’s been no change in the IOC’s position,” she said. “Again, I think we are trying to hang on every single word often spoken by people whose mother tongue isn’t English. Let me be clear again: The IOC would like to see open access for the media to be able to do their job.”

HE CLARIFIED:
Kevan Gosper, IOC Press Commission

IOC press commission head Kevan Gosper has said that open reporting may not be possible with the Olympics in a “communist society.”

“I guess there will be some debate as we move toward the games if there are sites that may or may not be open,” Gosper said.

“And the line between what could be considered as a national-interest issue might be a bit blurred. But we’ll work on it and we will deal with any potential grievances.”

As we draw closer to the start of the Beijing Olympics savvy media dwellers will start to tally the number of Beijing-Olympics-focused articles, features, editorials, op-ed pieces, essays, rants, opinions, diatribes, thoughts and so forth spreading through all forms of media.

Topics will be all over the map, of course, but look for some tried-and-true pieces that are already part of the public conversation.

Tibet will appear here and there, with all manner of references to the mechanisms put in place by the Chinese government to stifle any possible suggestion of even a whisper of discord. These stories will dovetail with references to “protest pens” and increased border security measures to make sure no one smuggles a “Free Tibet” lapel pin into China. If (and this is a big if) an athlete stands to accept a medal and–gasp–whips out a protest lapel pin the world media will take loud notice.

Look for a few heartwarming notes about athletes away from home, forging new friendships in the Olympic Village, and adjusting to training conditions in Beijing. Blogs home to hometown newspapers are a nice touch, but a cozy blogpost home to the neighbourhood might be difficult to see and hear amid the media clutter of the Olympics.

The pollution in Beijing will be given a great deal of coverage. I visited Beijing in late 1999 and while there was, indeed, a 30 storey building across the broad avenue from my hotel I couldn’t see it 5 mornings out of 7. Back in those dark days daylight could not penetrate the morning smog (cheerfully called “fog” by private and state tour guides) and the city planners devised an ingenious solution for lighting the murky streets.

Streetlights about 4 feet tall interspersed with their regular counterparts serve to illuminate the day, like taller versions of garden or pool lighting found here at home, because light does not sink to street level. Pedestrians would be hopelessly lost without these lamp posts in miniature and I used them as dim beacons leading me back to my hotel. The air quality truly is terrible.

The old adage taught to children, “Stop, look and listen before you cross the street” is a handy guide for any visitor to Beijing where crossing even the quietest backstreet is an exercise in both courage and luck. Passenger cars are being reduced from the local trafficsape (a word I hope I just coined) using a “day on/day off” plan while old beaters that are deemed to be embarrassingly high on the pollution inducing scale are made to disappear. Reducing vehicular traffic is a clever move–look for media features about how citizens are coping without their cars–and will have the pleasant side effect of making crosswalks safer. (Urgent Footnote: When in Beijing always cross the street in a crowd. There is safety in pedestrian numbers.)

Since joining Thornley-Fallis a few weeks ago (and particularly since arriving here earlier this week) I’ve been receiving a lot of questions from friends, colleagues and associates in response to the announcement I forwarded to my contacts revealing my new career direction.

Q: Why did you move to Ottawa? (from everyone I have ever met)
A: I moved to O after 20+ years in TO because I wanted a lifestyle change. There are no reasons more sinister than that.

Q: Why did you join Thornley-Fallis? (from a client)
A: A career in public relations is a very public experience. After 8 years with my own practice it was time to challenge myself and invigorate my career with new colleagues, new experiences and I wanted to have partners with whom I could work and grow a business. I made sure that the jump I was making was the right jump for me. I wanted to be able to contribute and have a learning curve at the same time. I also knew that change is good. (It is not, however, anywhere as good as a rest despite the old adage.)

Q: Was this a rash decision? (from family)
A: I never make rash decisions. I decided in early 2008 to make some career changes and I joined T-F in July. I spent time networking and speaking to a lot of people. I touched base with people whom I consider to be mentors, plus with clients and friends who knew me and my career path. I also trusted my own instincts.

Q: Don’t you miss Toronto each and every day? (from a downtown TO hipster)
A: I miss the club sandwiches at Swan on Queen Street each and every day.

Q: Are you still in touch with your colleagues and biz associates in TO? (from a friend)
A: Of course. It’s called email.

Q: Are you having fun? What’s T-F like? (from a colleague contemplating a career change of her own)
A: I am having fun. I am growing. I am learning and I am making a contribution. I am working with smart people who are dedicated. I’ve been fortunate that throughout my career I have been able to work with people who are at the top of their game and Thornley-Fallis is no different.

Q: Did you manage to find parking? (from my father)
A: At long last. And it is no cheaper than parking in the financial district in Toronto. Go figure.

Q: What are your colleagues like? (from a client)
A: Solid. Check out their bios and see for yourself. Note who has published a book or an article or who is a thought-leader in social media. Check out the diverse experience and wide range of talent. Surf around our design shop–76design–or read a few blogs. Note the wide range of clients and if you want to learn more just call me.

Q: Who got your apartment in Toronto? (from a contact who wants to move)
A: Faysal Jaber worked for me for a few years and he scored the apartment at Avenue Road and St Clair. Faysal is completing his MBA and the apartment, which must be the most valuable parting gift ever presented to an employee, is now his. (If you want to get your hands on it you’ll have to negotiate a deal with him.)

Q: What are you working on? (from an old client and friend)
A: Lots. Check back in from time to time but in the meantime I am working on some interesting projects for a variety of clients. I am also reaching out to former clients to see what we can do for them. I am crafting some proposals for some projects that are challenging, unique and destined to be fun.

Q: Are you back to blogging? (from a webhead who lives online)
A: I never left. If I am guilty of anything it is lurking, not leaving.

Q: How do I reach you? (from a person who lost my number)
A: bmw@thornleyfallis.com or 613-231-3355 x 225

These are very useful devices.

Everyday, more and more people get one and use it to stay connected while away from their office.  However, if you’ve ever used one to exchange emails back and forth with a person or people who’s organization(s) insists on adding a ‘Notice of Confidentiality’ (in Canada often in both English and French) like this at the bottom of every message, you know it becomes a real pain in the ass to scroll through a thread.

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY
This communication including any information transmitted with it is intended only for the use of the addressees and is confidential. If you are not an intended recipient or responsible for delivering the message to an intended recipient, any review, disclosure, conversion to hard copy, dissemination, reproduction or other use of any part of this communication is strictly prohibited, as is the taking or omitting of any action in reliance upon this communication. If you receive this communication in error or without authorization please notify us immediately by return e-mail or otherwise and permanently delete the entire communication from any computer, disk drive, or other storage medium.

If the above disclaimer is not properly readable, it can be found at: abc.com/legal 

AVERTISSEMENT DE CONFIDENTIALITE
Ce courriel, ainsi que tout renseignement ci-inclus, destiné uniquement aux destinataires susmentionnés, est confidentiel. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire prévu ou un agent responsable de la livraison de ce courriel, tout examen, divulgation, copie, impression, reproduction, distribution, ou autre utilisation d’une partie de ce courriel est strictement interdit de même que toute intervention ou abstraction à cet égard. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur ou sans autorisation, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l’expéditeur par retour de courriel ou par un autre moyen et supprimer immédiatement cette communication entière de tout système électronique.

Si l’avis de non-responsabilité ci-dessus n’est pas lisible, vous pouvez le consulter à abc.com/legale

COME ON!  Is all this text really necessary in every email sent from every person in your organization?  Particularly when some email messages are only a sentence or less (e.g. Yes, No, OK).

Do organizations actually think people read these notices and take the action of notifying the organization if they receive the message in error?

If a Notice of Confidentially absolutely needs to be there, would something simple like this, on one or two lines, not be sufficent?

Notice of Confidentiality: abc.com/legal  / Avertissement de confidentialite: abc.com/legale