Janet Lee Johnson | The Art of Marketing

There’s an interesting dialogue going on over on Doc Searls Weblog about him being nominated for deletion from Wikipedia. Doc is one of the authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto, and (while the discussion thread looks as if he’s going to stay) his entry on Wikipedia was originally deemed non-notable.

Head on over and read what Doc (and Tara Hunt, blogger at horsepigcow, author of upcoming book The Whuffie Factor, who was deleted) have to say. There’s also an interesting comment from Kathy Sierra (who would love the Wikipedia editors to have more awareness of editorial guidelines when it comes to living people).

I have nothing more to add, as these people are far more notable and eloquent than I am…

I finished teaching a series of classes today for a client called “SEMPR 2008: A Summer of Social Media,” and it was one of the most delightful projects I’ve worked on in the past couple of years. I was able to teach a group of smart people to fish, rather than fish for them.

My client is a very successful, forward-thinking, Portland-based public relations firm who keeps getting asked by clients, “Can you help me with our Search Engine Marketing?” (I’m writing this without knowing whether they’d want me to name them - so I won’t - in case their new-found knowledge would be considered a secret weapon. Of course, if they want to comment here to tell the world who they are, that’s fine with me, too.)

I had lunch with the CEO in late spring. She wanted to know whether I thought she should bring SEM expertise in-house (build), or to leverage their SEM partner’s expertise (buy) for their growing client base; my response was this:

Why not give your team a solid foundation in the basics of SEM? That way, you can help your clients, you can outsource what you don’t want to tackle, and your team and clients will benefit from the integration of search engine marketing best practices into public relations, and vice versa (what I call SEMPR).

She liked the idea. I’m fortunate she did. I drew up a series of lessons for the team:

101 Level:
SEM + SEO - A Basic Primer -

- why search matters
- how spiders “see” web content
- how people search
- why do blogs work so well in search?
- what happens for your clients when you are smart about relevant keywords
- free tools to use to create, track and optimize content
- measuring success for clients - what does that look like?

Social Media for PR Professionals - Managing the Cacophony of Voices

- blogging basics
- relevancy, authority and links
- best practices overview
- tools to build influencer lists and optimize conversations
- conversation management: how to help your clients leverage memes, buzz
- crisis communications - what should you do when something goes awry?

201 Level:
The Art and Danger of Pitching Bloggers -

- how are bloggers different from traditional media?
- building relationships before you need them
- how to select bloggers to pitch
- what do bloggers need from you to write about your client?
- the art of the 140 character pitch
- managing client expectations in social media

Optimizing Content for Spiders and Searchers

- the “must-have” SEO checklist (title tags, headlines, smart links)
- developing a link strategy within a site
- tier 1 and tier 2 keywords, how to determine what to optimize for
- managing site graphics for search
- YouTube and local search - how they’re changing the game
- social media strategy - knowing how to leverage, track, engage safely

To my absolute delight, we had our final homework assignment report out today (yes, there was a homework assignment at the end of every class) and the team seemed happy with their new understanding of the world of SEM, and how it’s intricately related to PR. My client told me the lessons had spurred some significant conversations among the team… and I’m betting with their clients, too.

So for the rest of the Summer 2008? I’m working now on developing my own expertise in 300-level SEMPR activities for another client, and am learning from the best - Marshall Kirkpatrick - who’s teaching me to fish in deeper waters. Tomorrow, for example, I’m digging into Yahoo Pipes and Dapper.

Now that holds promise to be some wonderful dog days of the Summer of Social Media for me!

Woof.

In a relatively uncharacteristic rant the other week, I described Wikipedia’s editors as “a secret sect” and as having “control beyond words.” Well, I got an email the other day from a friend wanting to understand exactly what I meant by my rant - was I being rational, or was I being perhaps a teensy bit defensive for Anvil and Attensa?

So, in an effort to further clarify my stance, I’ve asked if she minded if I blogged the answer to her questions? I’m grateful that she said go for it.

She: I’ve been meaning to ask you about Anvil and the Wikipedia incident.

Is it true that you’re not supposed to get paid for posting to Wikipedia? Did they get paid for their postings? I understand from his blog post and the comments that’s what happened.

Me: The premise of Wikipedia is that it’s non-commercial. That is, it’s a “marketing free” zone protected by “the people.” In the case of Anvil and Attensa, Anvil worked within the Wikipedia guidelines to create “marketing free” content on Wikipedia about Attensa. And yes, I’m pretty sure Anvil got paid for doing so.

Once the Wikipedia editors found out that the content on Wikipedia was responsible for driving quality leads to Attensa, they threw out Anvil’s edits - on not only the Attensa entry, but all other entries Anvil had created for their other clients.

“The people” who protect this marketing free zone are volunteer editors. Anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, as long as they follow the guidelines. (I feel funny writing that, but that’s what they say.) There are uber editors who have thousands of entries under their belts. These people are unknown to us, and are the people with the most power and control. They are the “editorial community.”

Writers and companies can be blocked from entries on Wikipedia - and blocked for life. I’m assuming Anvil has been, at least from any IP address that can be traced back to them. I don’t have any confirmation of that, it’s a big assumption on my part, but folks over on the Wikipedia Review (including current editors) talk about being blocked all the time, and are afraid to use their real Wikipedia editor names there, for fear of being blocked for life.

She: …I wonder if your defense of them, that they’re beyond reproach, is really deserved.

Me: The fact that the content:

1. Had been approved by Wikipedia editors (adhering to their written guidelines)
2. Stayed relatively intact for months before the article in MarketingSherpa appeared
3. Was torn down within hours after the MarketingSherpa article appeared

…indicated to me that Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “the rules”) are apparently taken loosely by the Wikipedia editorial community. Apparently they can remove content - previously blessed and not deemed controversial - upon exposure as a successful marketing tactic.

Regardless of Anvil’s intention (I’m sure Kent and Scott intended that the Attensa entries would provide Attensa added benefits of some sort); they followed the rules of the land. They didn’t break the rules. I stand by my defense of them as such. Had they broken the rules, I would not be so defensive of them.

She: And I’m wondering what you meant about companies not being able to correct factual errors. Is there really no process for this?

Me: Oh, there’s a process for correcting factual errors, described here. (Seriously, go wade through that process.) I’m sure it works, were it not for all the caveats:

(my emphases throughout)

“The editorial community is responsible for almost all decisions about article content, and handling of editorial disputes…”

“Routine editorial decisions are usually made by the editorial community; OTRS team members will gladly advise and will take action in certain cases, but do not normally override communal decisions (in which all readers and users can participate) unless exceptional considerations or concerns are relevant.”

Most businesses can correct factual errors by following the guidelines here.

The problem is exacerbated in highly regulated industries, where “marketing free” messages are also required - e.g. the pharmaceutical industry. I did hear many responsible pharmaceutical representatives (who were required by law to state “the opinions I am expressing are my own, not of my company” when giving presentations) admit that they were told not to change Wikipedia entries. Because one touch of an “official edit” would (by the very nature of a wiki) make an entire entry sanctioned by the organization. And when entries change at the whim of an editor, just keeping up with the (potentially constantly) changing information becomes a time and energy drain most businesses can’t imagine.

So they let things stand, in error.

I guess I really haven’t changed my tune, have I, Katherine? But since then, I’ve done a little more research, offered up an alternative that I hope businesses wholly embrace (wikiinvest) and tried to demystify the process of businesses making tough decisions when faced with social media hyperspeed, hypersensitivity, inaccuracies and cloaked identity.

Thanks again for asking.

I’ve just added a new tool to the research belt, a site called wikiinvest. I’m sort of a business junkie, and enjoy reading/listening to market news and information. This is a site that is creating some information-rich, enlightening and fun (for me) profiles.

They have (so far):

• 821 companies profiled (anyone is welcome to sign up and start a profile of a company - they focus on companies with $100M and up in market capitalization)
• 155 concepts - on concepts ranging from aging baby boomers to US economic cycles profiled (as above)
• 1177 contributors writing and editing content, annotating stock charts (Apple stock example here) and providing other industry research

I had a look at Southwest Airlines, for example, and found their annotated stock chart updated in real time, a list of their top contributors to their pages (take that! Wikipedia), and a whole bunch of other very interesting information about the company, at-a-glance.

As much as I’ve been on rants about business’ dependence of Wikipedia lately, I’m very, very pleased to be able to pass the word about this wiki site along to anyone looking for real, nimble, interesting business information.