New Media Today: Burying Internet Search Results

In just a couple short weeks, the voters will finally be heard.  The steady stream of political rhetoric populating our internet worlds -- email inboxes, Twitter and Facebook news feeds and everywhere we turn -- will thankfully start to come to a close.  It is my full expectation that any objective look into which political or third party issue advocacy campaigns were effective, which campaigns exceeded expectations and which were able to avoid disaster or accomplish miracles will have done so through the effective utilization of new media tools.  The end results will see demonstrated through that process should serve as an example and a warning to those groups and interests that want to impact policy after the elections.

Third party issue advocacy groups interested in impacting public policy, and corporate government relations and trade and professional associations that want to impact policymakers must have a presence in new media.  There are a great number of public relations and other firms more than willing to make that case to corporate and third-party America and separate those entities from their money.  Unfortunately, most of those public relations firms are simply using the same old communication models they practice with traditional media and simply targeting a larger universe by expanding their audience to include the blogosphere and other online entities.

It is better to proceed in that manner than not to proceed at all, but most of those organizations could spend their resources much more effectively and efficiently by operating not with traditional public relations firms, but by working with smaller, more agile, adaptable and creative firms.  These smaller firms are able to create news, build interest in issues to appeal to mainstream media and utilize other tactics to not only develop and drive messaging, but also to fight the efforts of their adversaries to spread undesirable messages about them.

It's no surprise that that business competitors have utilized a wide variety of tactics to tarnish the reputations of competitors or the image quality of their products or services.  The online world provides a myriad of opportunities to do so.  Wisely, current consumer product or service providers are using the internet and platforms like Facebook and Twitter to interact with customers whether those customers are happy or dissatisfied.  Are you having trouble with your particular internet service provider or your cellphone service provider?  Maybe you're having trouble with a particular brand of TV or mass email service provider.  If you are experiencing such problems, it might a lot more effective to simply have a lot of Twitter followers and speak loudly about the problems you're experiencing and have a lot of other Twitter followers be willing to dialogue with you or share your frustrations.

Companies are wisely monitoring dialogue about their companies in real times in places like Twitter and Facebook.  If you were having trouble with your cable TV provider and you commented as described above, you may very well be discovered and get someone working diligently to fix your problem before the story gets spread any further on Twitter or Facebook.  And as someone who has handled new media communications on a political campaign, I can tell you that nothing is as disconcerting as seeing negative comments about your candidate populate the tops of Twitter searches or Google or other search engine inquiries.

One of the more recent, but certainly very real developments in this environment is employing professional firms to monitor those developments in new media and with popular search engines like Google and to work to bury negative information about a candidate, a client or a specific product or service offered by a Company.  Without even getting to the veracity or significance of the actual allegations included in such inquiries, we're all familiar with the idea that perception is reality.  If I do a Google search for you as a political candidate, as a Company or about the product or service your company offers, my perception and willing to invest time, money or a vote on you will be greatly impacted by what I find when I search in Google, Twitter or look you up on Facebook.  

First, it's critically important that you have a targeted and deliberate effort to populate important places with positive information.  You should have a website.  It's probably a good idea to have a blog whether separate or incorporated in your website.  You should have a Facebook business page, a LinkedIn business or cause-related page and a Twitter identity (or several) that regularly populate the internet with favorable information about your company, your products and the service you provide.  That is the foundation where you start and you should ensure that your presence is at least as good (ideally is much better) than that of your competitors.  

Those tools allow you to have the online infrastructure in place to not only populate with favorable information that you can control, but also to allow you in a good position to respond to negative or crisis situations should they occur.  It's as simple as providing your company with insurance.  You may look at things and determine that you serve all your clients well, you have a steady stream of new clients and everyone is happy about what you have been able to do for them.  Well, that's ideal.  But it also means that someone else would like to have your clients whether they be existing or a percentage of your prospective new clients, so there is always incentive for people to spread negative information about you or your firm or organization. In yesterday's world, that simply meant a whisper campaign.  Nowadays those communications can be shared online and they can spread like wild fire.

It's critically important that your name and your reputation be monitored.  And if a competitor does decide to spread negative information about you, your firm or the service your provide (whether accurate or not) it is important that you have the ability to move that information way from the top of search results on Google, Facebook and Twitter with a positive campaign of your own.  Except for very specific researchers, most who search for information don't continue past the first page or two provided by Google.  If you are able to keep negative information on pages 4, 5 or 6 of a search (rather than popping on lines number 1, 2 or 3 of the first page) you will keep those negative perceptions away from millions of interested, seeking, viewing eyes.

Please don't hesitate to take a look at www.brownstonecommunications.us if you would like to learn more about how to drive your messages or utilize online tools to both drive your positive message or protect your company, your campaign, your product or service from the negative perceptions being perpetuated by your competitors.  You can't avoid being part of the online discussion about your company, your product and your services.  You can ensure that the favorable messages you control will be seen in that world.  And you can be sure to create the online infrastructure necessary to put into action if any competitors attempt to disseminate any negative information about you or your business.  It's up to you to put yourself in that position of power.     

Coalition Building is Critical in Attempting to Influence Public Policy and Elections

It is impossible to develop a truly efficient public and/or government relations campaign effort without maximizing opportunities to build coalitions that allow client strengths to grow exponentially. Those who are fighting in the public policy arena gain great benefit by employing experienced and proven legislative counsel. Such counsel is expensive and sometimes out of reach of some organizations. Whether one has the ability to retain that counsel or not, it is imperative for companies or associations to identify, plan and build coalitions that suit the particular company, industry or issue. 


Successful coalition building doesn't happen by accident.  First and foremost, relationships and existing networks are the place to begin.  Brownstone Communications works with a broad network of professionals from a variety of disciplines in all 50 states across the country and in the District of Columbia.  Additionally, Brian Fojtik, the President of  Brownstone Communications and those with whom he works enjoy broad experience in working as active, long-term members of national policy-based legislative organizations, national professional organizations, partisan networks that span all fifty states and the broad span of individuals, corporations, professional and trade associations (retail, wholesale, manufacturing, commerce and others) and with members who make up the core constituencies of these organizations.


The importance of the relationships cannot be underscored enough in building successful and effective coalitions.  Relationships alone, however, will not get the job done.  In addition organizations attempting to impact public policy or elections must rely on professional and creative coalition builders with experience.  Such coalitions start with the organizations and individuals themselves.  They expand to primary stakeholders and secondary stakeholders.  Who is directly impacted by the policies or action of interest?  Who is secondarily impacted from a professional, financial or employment perspective?  How about from a personal perspective?  And which organizations or individuals have the most impact or could potentially impact decision makers the most?  Political donors?  Friends?  Family?  Political supporters?  And what ability exists to reach those individuals and convince them of their stake in the issue?  A thorough assessment by a creative professional is key to maximizing the voice of your movement or organization.

Brownstone Communications clients can be assured that no matter what the level of resources available for a specific program, creative, aggressive and effective coalition-building skills will be put to work to support their programs.  You can learn more about Brownstone and the services they provide at www.BrownstoneCommunications.us   Brownstone represents unparalleled experience and relationships in the coalition- building world that puts your efforts well-ahead of that of your competitors from day one.

New Media: Big Firms Often Come Up Short

It has become clear that organizations, movements and businesses across the globe have increasingly recognized that they need a new media presence or program, while simultaneously recognizing that they have no idea how to go about doing it.  It's also increasingly clear that there are many public relations and "new media consultants" working diligently to separate those entities from their money and provide little in return.

I don't know a lot about automobile maintenance and the functioning and repair of my car.  But I know enough that I need my car to be maintained and serviced when there is a problem.  I've learned that my ignorance makes me vulnerable to those that want to separate me from my money.  It's no different in the still emerging field of new media consulting.  I've worked for over two decades in politics, government and government relations.  In that time, I'm proud of the creative solutions I've devised to meet challenges that occur in a legislative setting.

In order to successfully confront those challenges, you need to understand your audience, the specific history and rules of the venue in which you're operating and how to successfully develop meaningful coalitions that strengthen your position.  It's also helpful to identify the proper way to message your issue and motivate key stakeholders in the public doman to weigh in with legislators.  As President of Brownstone Communications (www.brownstonecommunications.us) I'm good at managing those issues and challenges after doing so at a very high rate for over 13 years for highly-targeted industries under very intense pressure.  Admittedly, there are others who are excel in this field.

There are also folks who excel at internet marketing and messaging.  There are very few that excel at government relations, political campaigning, issue advocacy and effective online communications, but there are a great number of firms professing to be able to do so.  In my most recent experience, most of those firms excel at neither.  These firms are generally media firms or public relations firms that operate under the old model of taking a news story for a client to the mainstream media (whether it be print, radio or TV) and pitching the story in the hopes that someone will run with it to the benefit of their client or cause.  Rather than creatively use new media to message effectively, these firms fall flat.

The "new media consultants" or media/PR firms that profess an expertise in "new media" or "online marketing" generally have little or no expertise in all the tools available to benefit their clients and causes.  Instead, they simply practice the same model of "pitching stories" in an expanded universe that includes a variety of different blogs and other non-traditional venues.  I applaud them for expanding the universe, but I caution potential clients not to see beyond the limitations of these firms.

When pitching potential clients, these firms are at the same advantage as the auto mechanic is in pitching me.  I'm a sitting duck when my engine is making a funny noise and so are the potential clients of these media firms.  One certain warning sign to look for are any firms that claim to have been experts in this emerging field for the last decade.  The field hasn't seriously existed in the last decade.  The 2008 Obama campaign is held up as an example of great use of online marketing.  And to put it in perspective, the Facebook and Twitter we know today didn't really even exist two years ago.

Whether your challenge is providing a profile for your business that allows you to maintain relationships with current clients or customers or expose your business to potential new customers, you need a firm that will allow you to make news and noise with your targeted audience, not simply use the old model of pitching the occasional news story and allowing yourself to be heard only at the whim of others who control the information gate.  The current new media environment gives you the keys to the information gate.  Unfortunately, too many firms are ill-equipped or too lazy to use those keys.

There are opportunities for businesses, political campaigns, issue advocacy campaigns and any organization to use existing websites and blogs, to create websites and blogs, to take advantage of online radio and terrestrial radio, YouTube and other video formats and use Facebook groups to promote your unique story and messaging with audiences that need to hear it.  Social networking such as LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook and advertising there and with Google and other locales provide other unique opportunities.  It's still useful to use relationships to pitch stories to mainstream media and prominent blogs that reach targeted audiences.  But you can strengthen that pitch dramatically by making your story a true story that is attracting attention and interest and action before you pitch it to more traditional media outlets.

It's a dramatically changing world.  The world today provides extraordinary opportunities and few have the expertise to take advantage for those in the public forum.

Social Media Crash Course for NLC's "Internet, Politics & Technology" Weekend // Leslie Bradshaw // 4.18.09

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Social Media Crash Course for NLC's "Internet, Politics & Technology" Weekend // Leslie Bradshaw // 4.18.09

View more presentations from Leslie Bradshaw.

"Procrastination" Tales Of Mere Existence

More Art Than Science: New Media Advocacy

There are a lot of media and public relations firms marketing themselves as new media experts to political candidates, corporations, non-profits and trade/business associations. A lot of these firms are finding the market to be profitable. Businesses, non-profits, associations and political campaigns, however, are attempting to quantify the value received from these investments. Anyone who has studied or participated in this evolving field recognizes the significant challenges inherent in specifically quantifying the benefits utilizing traditional business measuring sticks.

Regardless of the ability to accurately measure the value of activity in the new media marketplace, organizations are beginning to understand that they risk being left behind if they do not at least begin to dip their proverbial big toe into the new media waters. I have the benefit of working with clients on efforts unrelated to their new media efforts and working with clients directly and specifically related to new media efforts. That experience includes using or observing efforts related to direct candidate committees in a political campaign, third party political campaigns, and issue advocacy from a political and corporate perspective.

It's fascinating. There are a lot of tools available to assist such efforts. At the end of the day, the tools are merely that -- tools that assist thoughtful human efforts to accomplish real human interaction, foster relationships and build a distribution network for relevant information. There is no magic program that will compensate for deliberate, thoughtful and artistic human activity. In my most recent endeavors into this arena, I have directly participated and helped construct a successful political venture in new media. We had an engaging and exciting candidate. The candidate was willing and interested in being personally engaged in all aspects of new media and truly believed it was an important endeavor. Likewise, limited financial resources forced us to seriously focus efforts on new media activities.

By successfully utilizing Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, blogs, websites and online radio, we were able to both develop a body of material to share and the means to distribute that information to an interested public. The successful utilization of online tools such as these do not generally or significantly lead to votes. While the number of voters who are actively engaged in each of those networks is growing, that in and of itself is generally not enough to win an election. It is, however, an excellent tool to provide exposure of a candidate to national and local media and to expose a candidate to opinion makers and shapers who can make a difference in a myriad of ways.

There is no one way to do it. Every candidate, every campaign and every situation is different. And the media is changing as fast as you're reading right now. Just think how much Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube changed since the 2008 election of Barack Obama. Were you even on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube in 2008? I'm guessing many of you were not. Some of you still aren't. And MySpace and MeetUp which played roles earlier have essentially disappeared. And there are dozens of other services that impact the ability to effectively distribute information and create networks. It will change even more by 2012. If anyone suggests they have it all completely mastered today, new developments are already making them liars tomorrow.

For comparison's sake, I observed the new media effort of a corporate client with which I was not involved (my activities on behalf of this client are not related to their new media efforts). A wise friend once pointed out that cute, cuddly puppies don't need lobbyists. It fits this client as they are representative of an industry that is often vilified. This client attempts to advocate for or against specific public policies, but it is handicapped by its unpopularity. We have significant challenges in attempting to convince the general public to adopt our policy positions, but we have experienced remarkable successes despite those challenges. Like I wrote earlier, every situation, candidate and effort, is different.

In this instance, the client has a website and a twitter identity expressly labeled with the largely unpopular cause. I believe that those two components are absolutely essential to the effort. It's honest and straightforward, but should be enhanced by being simply a part of a larger, more comprehensive effort. If I were directing this program for the client, I would suggest a number of approaches. First of all, I would create or become involved with one or more third-party advocacy groups that can more broadly make policy arguments without being dismissed out of hand as an unpopular messenger. Secondly, I would inventory all the third-party groups with whom the organization already enjoys relationships and connect the new media efforts of those groups with the company's effort. Thirdly, I would create Facebook groups, create an appropriately broad twitter presence, integrate all of the above together and begin cultivating networks and developing relationships with interested individuals before they are needed to specifically impact public policy. Online radio, YouTube, websites, use of existing blogs and creation of new blogs could all be a part of this network. It's not happening.

I give immense credit to this organization for having the foresight to begin the process of entering the world of new media. That is the first step and it's a critical step. But when this organization audits their investment into this new venture, determines how much they are spending and attempts to quantify the benefits they are receiving, they may be disappointed. One can only hope that the company recognizes not that the decision to invest in new media and online issue advocacy was a bad investment. Rather, the decision demonstrates proactive effort and foresight. Companies like this one just need to change how how they invest in such a program. Increasingly, organizations are learning that firms which claim they've got a perfect program or complete mastery of this universe are selling a bill of goods.

Bring me five different entities such as an individual candidate for office, an independent expenditure organization attempting to influence several campaigns, an industry association fighting for or against specific policy campaigns, a non-profit issue-oriented campaign and an individual corporation attempting to protect and promote its interests and you will have five very different campaigns. Give me five examples of any of one of those different categories and you will have five extremely different situations with different needs. And every one of those situations evolves over time. Some efforts will unexpectedly gain traction. Others, disappointingly, will not. And all of it occurs in a new media environment with new players and changing rules from week to week. Understanding the challenges and devising a strategies to confront them requires significant knowledge and experience in a variety of disciplines. It's also a lot more art than it is science.

Viral Marketing and Social Networking in Political Campaigns and Issue Advocacy

The game is changing and changing fast. Any political consultant (or "new media" or "social networking" consultant) who claims they have a complete grasp on how websites, the internet, email, YouTube and social networking/media/bookmarking sites like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, CafeMom, Bebo, BlackPlanet, LinkedIn, del.icio.us, Digg, Reddit, Furl, StumbleUpon and Mixx (and many others, some which have yet to be created) will impact the upcoming elections is selling a bill of goods. But, they already are having a huge impact.

The fact of the matter is creative internet marketing as it relates to political campaigns is light years away from where it was just five or six years ago. It's light years away from where it was in November 2008 and in 12 months it will be vastly different from where we are now. Scott Brown, Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia, respectively are the latest big-time examples. It's not just about knowing the tools and putting messages out, it's creating the right messages and fully understanding how the tools interact with one another and can work together to achieve particular objectives.

While the Brown, Christie and McDonnell campaigns utilized social network/media marketing in their efforts, one could reasonably argue that the independent efforts of each campaign were more than buoyed by existing (independent and otherwise) efforts by disenfranchised and frustrated Americans who disagree with the policies of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama on a host of issues. The "tea party-esque" network of social media sites have grown organically and allowed these folks, like Ron Paul supporters before them, to broadcast and share opinions like never before. Just as importantly, to find and network with one another. Nearly every valid and independent study or poll demonstrates that Republicans and conservatives are (currently) using these tools much more effectively than Democrats or the left, but perhaps necessity breeds invention for those who are out of power and trying to unite against the establishment.

It didn't start with conservatives or Republicans, however. In 2004, former Vermont Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean changed the way the internet was viewed by political consultants, the mainstream media and voters. All too often, in politics as in business, innovation starts with seemingly insurmountable odds, lack of resources and insurgency. Dean was a little-known candidate from a small state without the institutional financial and political backing to win the race the way other candidates could. Ultimately, Dean didn't win the race, but he did put his mark on history. Howard Dean used the internet in ways that no one (in politics) thought could be done to network supporters and raise money. In effect, what he did made a political nobody into a political somebody that had to be taken seriously.

Like big government and big business and big advertising, big-time politics is big-time risk averse. Governments and big corporations have stifling bureaucratic processes that stifle creativity and "thinking outside the box." Big advertising agency and big-time political campaigns aren't much different. When you think of the phrase "too many chefs" or "too many chiefs" you can just as easily apply it to a big ad agency or a big national political campaign as you can to a less-than-great kitchen or a tribal strategy session that doesn't pack any punch.

Creativity is risky. And Howard Dean needed to take risks. He had no name. He had no money. No one knew who he was. As the Governor of a small state that seemed foreign and inconsequential to many across the country, about the only thing he did have going for him was that he was articulate, he was passionate and he was a physician. Well, that and $3.25 will get you a pretty good latte at Starbucks. Dean's campaign used a web tool called Meetup to organize passionate, motivated supporters. It started small but grew like the old Breck commercial. "I told two friends. And we told two friends. And so on. And so on." Dean's campaign found supporters via this web tool. The supporters grew and donated money. The money earned Dean respect from the mainstream media, more coverage and more momentum. Thus, more people were motivated to join the campaign until Dean's primal and final scream in Iowa represented the end to a great venture. Make no mistake, more than John Kerry, Howard Dean made political history.

Fast forward four years and it's a lot easier to remember how the Presidential campaign of an unknown first term U.S. Senator from Illinois who was African-American, had a strange name, had little money or institutional support (compared to Senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton) harnessed the power of the internet in his successful effort. If one was watching, he had to be shocked, amazed, surprised and impressed every single day of the last Presidential campaign. Every day, various audiences experienced another creative way that the Obama campaign was using another tool on the internet to reach out to them and connect them to one another. It is hard to imagine an effort being more effective. Just like in business and advertising, political campaigns take what works and use it. Over and over and over again. They keep using it. The same model. To be more creative or do something different is too risky. Ads look the same. Fundraisers look the same. Comments from the candidates sound the same. Until someone shifts the paradigm.

Dean shifted the paradigm and Obama had already begun learning from Dean's experience in his race for the US Senate in 2004. Dean was out by February 2004. Obama's US Senate election wasn't until November. And Obama was an insurgent, unknown, underfunded, underdog at that time. The campaign, to its credit, used everything Dean taught them and beat all the big money, all the institutional candidates and all the candidates with more familiar names -- in a landslide. Once again, the upstart, underfunded, long-shot candidate broke the rules and made history. The Obama U.S. Senate campaign learned from Howard Dean, improved upon it and changed the rules of the game. Obama's Presidential campaign took that to new heights.

Many don't realize that one of the founders of Facebook, Chris Hughes left Facebook and joined the Obama campaign early in the process. Obama had a website that was user-friendly and easy to network with other supporters, donate money, volunteer and provide relevant information that the campaign used to keep in touch, to share targeted information with targeted audiences and to grow support. While Obama had over 3,000,000 supporters on Facebook McCain's support crested at more like 200,000. And Obama had presence on MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites including those that targeted specific ethnic, racial, gender or other things that drew them together.

The Obama Presidential campaign, as far as internet savvy, effectiveness and reach, was like the Dean Presidential Campaign or Obama U.S. Senate Campaign on steroids. So, the natural reaction by the establishment is to look at what Obama accomplished and simply choose to duplicate it. Well, let's be honest, if a candidate can come close to duplicating it, he or she would be at a good place to start. If a candidate has an established name, has a good fundraising base and has a reasonable amount of charisma and attractiveness, that candidate will likely be well-served by generally following the Obama model. But if that candidate is going to be beaten, in large part it will be because they are out organized, out-hustled and out-thought by motivated and better-networked organization in this ever-changing landscape.

The universe is changed. How many of you on Twitter today were on Twitter when Hillary Clinton started campaigning for the Presidency and the young upstart from Illinois came on the national scene? Be honest. None of you (excepting the IT professionals, of course) had ever even heard of Twitter. And many of you aren't even there yet. If you joined Twitter in 2008, the Twitter you knew then is already very different than the Twitter we experience today. How many of you were on Facebook? Not nearly as many. Not me. And if you were on Facebook, what was the average age of your colleagues there and how many of your friends, family members, co-workers and former classmates of yours were there in 2007? I can tell you that Facebook and Twitter have both grown considerably in this time. Demographics of the two have evolved differently. The applications and opportunities and methods of reaching people in either universe is dramatically different. And you can't ignore LinkedIn and other professional and social networking sites (and media sharing sites). They each play unique roles. They each have unique, somewhat overlapping audiences. Different messaging and methods are necessary to utilize the most useful aspects of each, combined with many, many other media tools and the the obvious websites, blogs and YouTube will be ignored at one's own peril.

We're seeing the dynamic evolve now. It's the insurgents and underfunded upstarts leading the way. While Dean and Obama used the old network (amazing that it was only four years ago and 1-2 years ago and that network is already dramatically different) on big national campaigns, this is the first time we'll be fighting on this new landscape with thousands of state legislative races, statewide office races and Congressional races.

There are over 100 social networking websites and services. We have seen only the tip of the iceberg in regard to the best way to utilize all those different tools together in an integrated way. And, to be honest, as much as it frustrates big government, big corporations, big advertising agencies and big, establishment political campaigns, there is no "best way." Each of the sites is evolving (or devolving) at breakneck speed. The way they relate to one another is changing quickly. And political campaigns and issue advocacy campaigns have increasingly gone from a mass-marketing campaign to myriad of micro-targeting and niche marketing efforts all under the banner of a larger air war.

Things are changing and changing fast. Pete Cashmore, founder and CEO of Mashable and perhaps the world's foremost expert (if there can be one) on social media wrote the following for CNN exclusively on November 19, 2009: "As 2009 draws to a close with Twitter undoubtedly this year's media darling and Facebook continuing on its path to global dominations, you may wonder which social-media service will become tech's poster boy in 2010. Among the Web's early adopter set, the answer is nearly unanimous: Foursquare."

Let's get ready to roll.