Lowe's Holds Ground With Weak Spin On TLC Ad Pull

Lowe's stands by its ad pull even as a North Carolina-based interfaith group collects 200,000 signatures expressing concern over the company's action. Lowe's is based in Mooresville, N.C. According to the Charlotte Observer,

On Tuesday morning, Revs. James Leach and Russ Dean, of the Unitarian Universalist Church and Park Road Baptist congregations in Charlotte, drove to Lowe's Mooresville headquarters. They were accompanied by other representatives from the interfaith Mecklenburg Ministries, bearing more than 200,000 signatures from petitioners. The petitions asked Lowe's to apologize and to reinstate its advertising.

But the petition did not achieve the desired outcome, and Lowe's held firm with a weak backpedal attempt after the meeting. Per Entertainment Weekly's "Inside TV" page,

"The decision was absolutely not, despite what's been reported in the media, influenced by any one group," said Lowe's vice president of marketing, Tom Lamb.

He said that the decision to stop advertising on the show had been made before the Florida Family Association emailed Lowe's CEO, Robert Niblock. ...

Lamb told the Observer he was "surprised" that the Christian group was credited with pressuring Lowe's, which made the "routine" decision to pull the ad.

A spokesman says the first spot aired Dec. 4 as part of a bulk buy. (TLC didn't specify which shows the ad would appear in). Within 24 hours, negative feedback about the TLC show had appeared on the company's social media sites, so the decision to pull the ad was made shortly thereafter. "We're surprised at how much happened and how quickly it happened in the context of an advertising decision," Lamb said.

The Hollywood Reporter adds this:

According to the company, the All-American Muslim promo time was part of a bulk ad buy, though they understood the show following Muslim residents of Dearborn, Mich. could be included. He also says the decision to pull the ads was made on Dec. 5 shortly after their social media team identified negative comments on the show that morning.

The company says Lowe's CEO Robert Niblock received the initial email from the FFA later that same afternoon.

Lowe's spokesperson Chris Ahearn says that the company responded to the FFA with a form letter explaining the ads had already been pulled. She also says that decisions to pull commercial spots from shows that are considered controversial are made perhaps 8-10 times a year. The company declined to name other shows it has pulled its advertising from.

I'm not buying the Lowe's spin (and I'm wishing that Mecklenburg reps hadn't bought it either: "'We respect their business decision,' said Dean," states the Observer).

I'd like to see the kinds of comments and the volume the company alleges on its social media channels on Dec. 4 - 5. It's likely less than the 28,000 Facebook comments it received (and even dividing that evenly pro and con, that leaves 14,000), and it's likely less than the 200,000 signatures gathered by Mecklenburg.

That leaves content as the driving factor from that early feedback, if you want to follow their argument. Anti-Islamic rhetoric (such as we saw left unchecked on FB) would be the likely major tone.

Given the numbers as described above, along with the company's actions throughout this brouhaha, I'm left with two  conclusions:

PR Fail: Pressure Mounts On Lowe's For TLC Ad Pull, updated

Some excerpts on my take Saturday on the Lowe's debacle as written up for Muslim matters.org:

From a professional public relations perspective, Lowe’s public response indicates a lack of a good crisis communications plan. Without detailing the chinks in their armour — as I have no desire to strengthen their strategy at this stage — that lack of planning does indicate a certain corporate vulnerability. Also noteworthy is the fact that the company succumbed easily to pressure from the Florida group, which indicates some corporate attention to consumer buying power and interests — so continued and increasing pressure should yield results.


The key will be in numbers: the objective will be to show Lowes management that those outraged over the company’s decision far exceed the constituency that called for the ad pull.

Some further thoughts:

Their decision aside, what's been astounding is their PR failure throughout in trying to backpedal and spin their decision.

The inadequate Facebook response --  which comes off as being written by an inexperienced  social media intern with no corporate oversight and  hastily approved by a lawyer not too happy to be bothered on a  weekend -- is an inelegant (notice the typo) way of offering an apology of sorts, while spinning their original cave to pressure.  It rallies those who support their position, but does little to indicate a sincere re-evaluation of the ethics behind their choice  and  shirks any responsibility to pull themselves out of the fray they created:

    It appears that we managed to step into a hotly contested debate with strong views from virtually every angle and perspective – social, political and otherwise – and we’ve managed to make some people very unhappy. We are sincerely sorry. We have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, across our workforce and our customers, and we’re proud of that longstanding commitment.


    Lowe’s has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.


    We strongly support and respect the right of our customers, the community at large, and our employees to have different views. If we have made anyone question that commitment, we apologize.


    Thank you for allowing us to further explain our position.

That they've let their Facebook comments go completely unchecked , allowing some truly repulsive and vulgar comments to appear (even from both camps), flies in the face of their alleged claim of "We have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, across our workforce and our customers."

Most corporations with a  sound understanding of social media  and community management will reign in the most egregious comments but allow a fairly wide berth. That Lowe's is unwilling or unable to do so  -- and in the end, sending a signal that such customers are whom they wish to build their community around -- reveals either Lowe's true colors, its communications ineptitude, or both.

Weird, Ugly Toyota Prius Ad: Channeling Zozobra?

Have to agree with Motorward.com's take on the new Toyota Prius ad. Creepy, surreal, and just plan unattractive -- especially, as they point out, the human-butt-as-monster-nose thing (insert any number of bad brown-nosing jokes here).

While I admire the physical skill to contort and cuddle all those humans, it's an idea that falls squarely into he "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" camp, at least for an ad. I saw the ad run on CNN and had a true WTF moment:

The weird thing if you live in northern New Mexico is how much the figure resembles our very own Zozobra, the iconic autumn Santa Fe paganesque ritual (image linked from the official Zozobra site; all rights theirs. I did not download this image).
 

It was in fact my first reaction when I saw the ad from a few feet away; resemblance is just too uncanny.


I love my Toyota RAV4, but this ad is a bad idea. Fail.

My Throwdown to Muslim Institutions: The Speed Meet Event

If you haven't signed up for the Ummah Relations "Muslim Media Points" PR newsletter, please consider doing so. It's been on hiatus over the summer, but I'll be resuming a monthly schedule for it. Hopefully I can ramp it back up to a weekly rate -- which I did at first, but found it too hectic to sustain.

The newsletter is primarily a short white paper designed to help communications staff at Muslim institutions, community centers, NGOs and local masaajid (who may not even have a full-time communications staff) save valuable time in the ever-shortening news cycle by offering context, analysis and starting points to help frame their individual responses.

The idea is to help communications professionals or directors get “jump started” on the PR implications of current issues (think of it as a cup of strategic chai).

I won't post too often content from the newsletter here -- its content is fairly niche and specific to PR and media professionals -- but for this week's version, I'm making an exception, because I want to cast the net a bit wider:

I've been formulating this concept for a while, and I'd like to offer this up as a challenge and see who'll take me up on it (I'll even throw in a small incentive at the end of the post).

I'm proposing a group or masjid host a Muslim Speed Meet event.

Similar to Speed Networking, the event would pair Muslims with non-Muslims in a timed round-robin series of meetups. Here's some detail from a networking business model:

Speed networking programs generally involve people meeting each other one at a time for a short interval and then moving on to the next person in line. They are fairly structured in the way people queue up to meet. For example, one variation is to have two concentric circles of people. The individuals sit across from one another and after the set time period--generally one or two minutes--the outside circle of people gets up and moves in one direction around the circle until everyone has met.

The one key to making this a success for Muslim groups will be an inviolate ground rule that religion is not to be discussed. The objective here is to get to know one another as people first.

Other pointers to consider:

1) Most Muslim groups will naturally want to keep this gender specific, at least initially. Divide the evening into gender times, or have a separate men's and women's night.

2) Start small by enlisting the cooperation of one of your stronger interfaith partners to tap their constituents to participate. If the event is successful, then expand the call to the public at large.

3) In any case, neutral ground ( i.e., not at the masjid) may be preferable. It will make non - Muslims feel more comfortable as well as sending the signal that we're willing and eager to be part of the community and step outside of our own enclave.

4) Make sure to invite the press, but document the event yourselves.

So here's the throwdown: For the first group or masjid that lets me know they'll take this on, I'll help with promotion, press, organization, etc and will waive the regular consulting or project fees (less any travel expenses/per diem and event costs) if you want me there in person). If you factor usual consulting rates for media outreach and event planning, that's quite a substantial savings.

OK - so where in the ummah is a group bold enough, open enough and ready to really step up to the plate? Looking for some forward -looking brothers and sisters.

Who's on?

Assessing American Perception of Muslims Since Sept. 11

I've been asked to share perspective on the ten years since Sept. 11, 2001, so I've offered this interview-formatted statement, much of it covering what's been posted here previously.

I'll only add that I hope I can offer a very different answer ten years hence.

I'll be doing a TV interview tomorrow morning for KRQE that will air sometime Sunday.

Also keep an eye out for my interview next week on MuslimMatters.org with Wajahat Ali on the work he did for Center for American Progess's report tracing the funding and key players in America's Islamophobia network. I'll have my own take, too.

Taking A Dictator's Wife Out For A Spin: Asma al-Assad and Vogue

At least three pieces are out on the blogosphere putting heat on Vogue for its profile of Syrian 1st lady Asma al-Assad: ForeignPolicy.com chimes in, and there's a great take by Rahat Kurd on Wajahat Ali's Goatmilk blog. Over at the Atlantic, Max Fisher does a good de-spinning and tries to hold Vogue senior editor Chris Knutsen's feet to the fire.

As an ex-web journo and editor turned PR person, this raises a number of disturbing questions on the professional front, including the level of journalism in the article itself; the ethical decision to run it; and the PR-client relationship.

It's not clear --- but I'm trying to confirm -- whether the Syrian first family retains an external PR firm or just has an excellent in-house staff. I'd also be curious if Vogue dreamed up this idea on their own or they were pitched. I suspect the latter, considering the other Asma-as-fashionista pieces pointed out in Kurd's piece -- notably the dedicated slideshow on Huffington Post and a little glam poll on inrumor.com.

She was also named by French Fashion magazine Elle in 2008 as the most stylish woman of state ("les femmes d'état"), which in turn spawned a number of press pieces. PR people would have certainly capitalized on the Elle pronouncement(and perhaps pitched their client to Elle to be in the running in the first place). The post-Elle article that ran in the U.K.'s Sunday Times, "The London girl with a plan to save Syria," has a very similar tone and feel to the Vogue piece, right down to the cozy Christmas angle that Fisher brings out in his Vogue breakdown. That similarity in articles two years apart points to a consistent, long-term messaging and talking points strategy.

It all smacks of expert high-end PR prep and handling (and an all-too-compliant level of journalism),leaving PR practitioners in the bifurcated state of admiring the craft of a well-executed strategy and condemning the ethics of taking on families responsible for dictatorial regimes as clients.

When journos or editors migrate to the PR field, the switch is often jokingly referred to by both camps as "going over to the dark side." The Assad study is a good case in point.

Of course, Vogue may have to engage in a little damage control of its own, but I guess the Assads can recommend a good firm.

On Security And Journalism: An Interview With Robert Young Pelton

Ever since I was triangulated by three assault rifle (Steyr AUG if I recall correctly)-wielding border guards in the middle of the night on the Austro-Hungarian border, I've had an interest around personal security scenarios, so seeing reports of journalists being attacked in Cairo during the Egyptian uprising raised some questions. The incidents concerning CBS reporter Lara Logan and CNN's Anderson Cooper are two of the more visible "star reporter" stories, but remember there are hundreds of other journalists estimated to have been roughed up and/or detained.

To get some perspective on security concerns for journalists, I tracked down Robert Young Pelton, a documentary filmmaker and enterprise journalist who's built a remarkable career almost exclusively on high-risk reportage from dangerous places. Pelton was kind enough to answer some questions and share his take via email. I won't disclose his exact current location, but he did go on record that he is working for a news web site that focuses on Somalia and piracy, http://somaliareport.com/.

Here's our complete Q and A:

MSD: Cooper getting punched in the streets of Cairo didn't seem like a very safe way to do journalism. Do you know what kind of security resources large news organizations such as CNN etc. provide at the ground level for their staff?

RYP: Security starts with how you enter the country, the hotel you stay in and the type of coverage you provide. The bigger profile you create, the more likely you are going to be targeted. The era of special privilege or exceptions for high profile/remote anchor journalism is long over. I don't think the major nets were predicting the direct targeting of their people but took appropriate action.

It was very clear that Mubarak felt that the unrest was due to instigators using the internet, texts and foreign media. The coordinated, government-directed attacks on Western journalists is something we have seem many times before in Latin American, Russia and even America but not on the American "stars." Unfortunately, American news relies on "celebrity" journalism and in order to get ratings feels they must have a very visible person on camera. Therefore they become the targets.

Is that a smart way to report on a story? No, because their very timid security rules result in reduced coverage or more restrictions for other journalists.

Most major news networks have insurance which requires a provider of personal security. British firms run by former SAS (Special Air Service, a special forces regiment of the British Army) are the most popular: Pilgrims Group, AKE and others provide single men who are supposed to balance the demands of security vs aggressive journalism. For example, when I worked for 60 Minutes in Iraq I was assigned Brian Tilley, a former SBS (Special Boat Service) member who I had met in Sierra Leone. His job was to watch my back, maintain situational awareness while I was working and make decisions during violent encounters. Tilley was later killed in Iraq.

Large news organizations also provide drivers, cars (some armored) and communications systems, but only in direct proportion to the salaries and visibility of their contract personnel.

MSD: What kind of services should news organizations deploy, and how would one go about obtaining them?

RYP: Although we see the well known faces on the screen, the best journalism is done using local sources run by local producers who are paid much less, deliver much better information and can be coordinated to check the validity of information. These days, technology allows normal people to become better reporters than many of their better paid anchors.

The recent protest coverage provides visually interesting footage -- the appearance of "bang bang" and human dynamics. The dangers are much different. Some of these sources have some protection, but very rarely. If a stringer produces a piece, he or she must live there and deal with the consequences long after the celebrity crew departs. As companies like CNN brag about their "IReporters," they neglect to provide any protection, security or guarantees and in many cases not even any payment for usage.

Even the people being interviewed on the street as content for the news organizations in the recent protests risk arrest, jail and brutality. With shrinking budgets and reduced international coverage, we are seeing the end of the celebrity journalist as the "news gatherer."

MSD: What would be your ideal security detail for a news street team such as in the Cooper scenario? How many, function of each, tactical suggestions for moving about?

RYP: I wouldn't put a celebrity journo on the streets with a crew. I would have dozens of locals coordinating with me and then when a critical event occurred, I would use a small camera, wireless transmission and generic appearance. Security would be from local security who understand the dynamics and subtlety of the situation.

MSD: For independent local bloggers who are participating in events, what are some tips to protect themselves on the street from getting picked up -- and, if they are detained, what are some safe tactics to engage with your detainors?

RYP: Bloggers need to understand how security forces can track them down via the internet, IPs and monitored communications. Although it's nice to be "known," a few weeks later they usually find themselves the direct target of local security. Skype is the best tool where available and having someone operate the blog in a safe country under an alias is important.

MSD: Getting in and getting there: reports from Bahrain were that journalists were being denied entry when they got to the airport. Any strategies around this?

RYP: Go as a tourist or better yet hire a local. Best advice is to get in BEFORE the event occurs.

MSD: Anything else you want to add? Your take or experiences of similar situations?

RYP: Safety and good enterprise journalism are diametrically opposed. :)

***

In a follow-up e-mail, Pelton felt that both Logan and Cooper would have had a security person. I have made an inquiry to CNN to confirm, and will be making a similar inquiry to CBS soon.

Social Media, Revolutions, Ties (And Nine Cross-Disciplines To Think About)

Although I'm both a social media geek and a Muslim concerned with developments in the Middle East, I've actively resisted writing about the role of social media in the Arab push for democracy because there's plenty o' punditry on that front to go around.

However, some articles that seek to dismiss social media's role in events -- most notably Malcom Gladwell's two pieces (first in October and then a sniffy defense in early February) and Devin Caldeway's piece on TechCrunch -- display an incredible lack of understanding of the user behavior behind how social media is used.

I am a moderate on this debate. While I agree that social media in and of itself will not automagically win a revolution, it's crucial to understand its real role -- and hence its immense value and importance -- here as well.

MG's arguments are well refuted by many. Among those responses are Jessica Lipnack and her follow-up ; David Weinberger in two detailed deconstructions of MG's flawed argument, here and here; and Matthew Ingram's contextual rejoinder.

Greg Satell provides the best theoretical basis for why the detractors arguments fail, exposing via social network theory the real function of network behavior. Satell's other posts are equally important: he's one of the few social media thinkers out there who understand the crucial difference between social media and social networks. Gladwell and Caldeway could learn a thing or two from Satell's work and stop pretending to know about social media.

I've written before on what journalists need to be doing to prepare for 2.0, but it applies to anyone who wants to wrap their head around social media: to truly understand it, you need to be familiar with 1) sociology, 2) epistemology, 3) diktyology (network theory), and particularly its subset of 4] social network theory) and 5) semiotics. Four years later, I'll add 6) psychology, 7) heuristics, 8) behavioral studies and 9) problem-solving theory to that list.

As Satell correctly points out in his article, Gladwell's thesis -- that "high -risk" social activism requires deep roots and strong ties, and that social media is a "weak-tie" phenomenon -- is based from the outset on an erroneous misunderstanding of the "tie" concept. Further flaws in the thesis are: 1) there's no definition as to what constitutes a deep root or a strong tie (using "family" as an example doesn't tell me what you think the required elements are that make up a strong tie of any type or form); 2) a failure to prove that social media ties inherently can't be strong ones (assuming you accept the premise); and 3) a failure to consider the degree of human motivation to achieve an end.

Each in their own way, detractors and many unabashed worshippers of social media alike tend to conflate content, platform, tool and method. The result is they ascribe functionality to social media that it doesn't actually possess while at the same time not grasping the importance of its real role.

Social media, like other communications structures, is no more (but also no less) than an information distribution method used in the process of meeting needs. Whether its porn or a movie schedule or looking up a recipe or researching new tires, people seek out the information contained in media to solve a problem or meet a need.That in turn means you have to examine the entire arena of user behavior, motivation, problem-solving, etc. (see the cross disciplinary list above). What people do -- and how and with what they'll do it -- to meet a need is important in understanding social media.

But what makes social media -- in conjunction with some of the tools used to disperse it such as smartphones -- so unique and immensely valuable is its ability to be 1) real-time, 2) multi-directional (many-to-many, many-to-one, and one-to-many) and 3) geographically independent and mobile. There has never before been a communicative structure that has all three qualities simultaneously.

Even with its unique and game-changing functionality, at the end of the day, social media remains at its core strictly an information carrier. Social media by itself cannot increase either participation or motivation, a point both Gladwell in his first piece and those he derides seem to miss. It can only -- but it will -- make those actions faster, easier, more efficient. There are also numerous levels of participation and action, depending on any given individual's circumstance and reaction to that content - a subtlety missed in Gladwell's post.

The true driver of motivation, participation or action is the value and importance of the content itself that's being disseminated, the degree to which it solves my need or problem. The content can be anything: an inspirational essay or post; a video that graphically hits home; a time and place for a meetup. If the information embedded in the content resonates enough with me to meet a need, then I'm in.

This is why I don't buy into the "tie" analogy. Unless you assign the degree to which content meets a need as a component of what constitutes a strong tie -- a point I havent seen made -- then it doesn't matter how you classify those ties. "High Risk" activism hinges on content, not ties. Egypt showed that it doesn't matter how distant or diffuse your ties are; high-value content carried across those connections is the real determinant, not its geographic or social proximity. You didn't have to be related or personally know Wael Ghonim to be inspired go to Tahrir Square.

Also often overlooked is the critical link between social media functionality and the content it carries: that content can be easily added to, expanded and improved upon -- increasing its resonant value -- and then reinjected into the social media stream where it can be further amended. That's a valid level of contribution and "participation" and shouldn't be discounted in the overall mix. When you add increasing quality content into a real-time, multi-directional, geo-independent distribution structure, you're on to something very powerful indeed.

In other words, Twitter and Facebook didn't make Egyptians go into the streets; the importance of what they read and learned via those platforms did. But social media allowed them to further disseminate and/or add to that content to many others in real time, no matter the location of recipient or sender, and to act on that information imparted in the exchange.

It does take both, but the combination of content and its modern carrier will continue to impact and change the way history plays out.

On Egypt, Foreign Policy and Islamophobia

I have been fairly entrenched in the Twittersphere the past two weeks regarding events in Egypt, which culminated Friday with Mubarak's resignation.

Tears of joy didn't stop that day when the news came down.

When one sees so much hatred and self destruction around the world, moments like this restore my faith, love and hope for humanity as a whole - but more than that, God truly loves and supports His creation on that day.

"Verily, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves."(13:11)

And this was done with such grace and restraint on the part of the protestors, without invasions or outside intervention.

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." 5:2.

Three days later, I am still unspeakably humbled to be alive and part of creation. Humanity proved itself worthy of God's gifts, fulfilled the duties of being God's representative.

Lessons Learned For U.S. Foreign Policy

While I have immense respect and admiration for President Obama, one can only describe the U.S. foreign policy steps and the State Department as incoherent at best. From Biden saying Mubarak wasn't a dictator, to secretary of State Clinton claiming Egypt was "stable", to appointing Egypt regime lobbyist Wisner as special envoy, it was a foreign policy amateur hour. Clearly, the U.S. needs to get its in-house communications in order, and some better foreign policy analysis and intelligence wouldn't hurt either: many bipartisan groups and think tanks saw this coming.

Of course, this isn't all on Obama: the current White house administration has certainly inherited a long-standing U.S. foreign policy tradition
of selling out its democratic values in exchange for perceived foreign interests. I love America, but this perpetual habit saddens me. It ultimately shows, at least publicly, a lack of integrity, a betrayal of the very ideals that thousands of Egyptians in Tahrir Square fought for. As the U.S. waffled and hedged on propping up Mubarak for its own strategic safeguarding, truer champions of democracy were risking their lives in Cairo. In those moments, they upheld the American ideal for democracy and pluralism far better than the American government did. And that should be OK -- America does not hold a patent or copyright or monopoly on democracy, though it wants to -- but I do find it slightly ironic.

I get that there are numerous factors, interests and players in the region to balance, but a stronger, earlier position in favor of the democracy movement would have a) been the morally correct thing to do and b) would have been a small but significant step in improving how the U.S. is often seen at the grassroots level in the Arab world. I think that's a much better tradeoff.

As ifikra tweeted on Feb 3rd: "Dear US government: We don't hate you because we hate your freedom; we hate you because you hate our freedom." I don't believe that's a singularly held view, so demonstrable actions the U.S. can take to change that perception can only benefit the U.S. vis-a-vis long-term security and the remainder of its international standing.

But whatever side the U.S. chose to take on Egypt, it ultimately didn't matter: The Egyptian uprising took place and had its outcome without large-scale U.S. intervention. That's a good thing, though it may make some State Department staffers scratch their heads and/or wax nostalgic to see that America's days of influence are over. But they are, and that in turn necessitates some fundamental paradigm-shifting in U.S. foreign policy approach.

What should the U.S do now? Support democratic movements from a distance, without intervention. Learn to let go. Retire, at least somewhat, from the world's stage. Allow others their destiny and let nations become allies -- no more or less -- rather than embroiled, co-dependent clients.

Inherent in the idea of democracy is the right to self-determination, something the US doesn't ever grasp. A democratic foreign government doesn't mean it must be pro U.S. or a U.S. puppet, which is a concept rather hard for the U.S. to live with -- but given the emerging force of will for democracy by others around the world, it will have to.

Islamophobes, Take Heed

While the Egypt revolution was never about Islam, Islamophobes were hoping it was, and are still looking for ways to inject an Islamo-terrorist boogeyman scenario into the mix. But events, accounts and images from Egypt should help to dispel the stereotyped image of the violent, intolerant, democracy-hating "Muslim world." That said, some of the extreme Islamophobes who have built a profitable career from fear-mongering (*COUGH* long-term strategy also used by Mubarak) may have too many dollars riding on their Brand O' Fear to be dissuaded by 80 million Egyptians of different faiths working together, so no doubt their arguments will become more inane, alarmist, and logic/fact-free desperate.

But we'll be watching the chatter, just as the world watched truth and principle win out in Egypt Friday; and I love E.J. Dionne on NPR last Friday citing his colleague Stephen Grand that we view 2/11 as a bookend to 9/11:

After 9/11, we were so inclined to see the Arab and Muslim world in light of a terrible terrorist event or a set of terrorist events. From now on, we can see the Arab/Muslim world through the eyes of brave democrats who fought for liberty.

The wave of democratic impulse seems to be spreading to other countries. May they also emerge peacefully as self-empowered true nations.

Mubarak's Muddled Media Plan

A lot of good analysis on the Egyptian crisis is out. My favorite reads are some great recent articles by Haroon Moghul at Religion Dispatches, and by Shadi Hamid; Brian Katulis also offers up a strong analysis.

Disappointed in U.S. response from the beginning of the crisis. The long-standing U.S. practice of selling out democratic values in exchange for foreign policy (read: economic) interests clearly is now catching up with the US, putting them in an untenable public squeeze. Personally, it's disheartening to witness this country's lack of integrity regarding democratic ideals.

Given the mood and resolve on the street, my fear is the longer Mubarak stays, the longer, the more tense and unstable any transition process will become, as various factions seek to exploit the post-demonstration economic fallout and sociopolitical vacuum on top of the existing conditions that gave rise to the unrest. Mubarak needs to go, and as soon as possible.

Media coverage has generally been good, with CNN ground reporters and (particularly their tweets) providing excellent and compelling street detail. I've been less impressed with CNN anchors, who still raise the "radical Islam" boogieman/ratings driver even after all their guest experts and analysts have continuously and consistently across the board put that scenario in its proper perspective. Al Jazeera English becomes my principal MSM outlet of choice, offering live streaming video, and online stalwarts Enduring America offers their usual excellent live blog and aggregation.

CNN was also quite behind the curve (or else just reluctant) in collating and surfacing the numerous eyewitness accounts and reports of the plainclothes police involvement in the pro-Mubarak "supporters" today.

The sudden appearance of thugs-as-demonstrators after a previous invisibility seemed suspicious at the outset, showing more organization (well supplied and deployed, some groups arriving in buses). I wonder -- not positing, just curious -- if the US had prior wind of such a development, when the US urged all non-essential personnel to leave and Marines moved to secure the U.S. Embassy.

Events unfolding throughout the night and into the day -- police ID cards discovered among those faction members, accounts on Twitter that people were in fact paid and/or "requested" by their employers to join pro-government groups, selective coverage/spin on state TV, the targeting of foreign journalists, and the apparent restoration of Internet service -- all point to a poorly coordinated media attempt by the Mubarak regime.

Its hard to say who the target audience was for this effort. The selective coverage and spin on State TV-- pointing the finger at the Muslim Brotherhood for the Molotov cocktails, the denial of government involvement in the pro-Mubarak groups -- clearly was designed to impart the message to Egyptians that only Mubarak could provide stability. The targeting of foreign journalists could also be viewed as part of that staging and/or an actual attempt to impede world coverage. As incredulous and naive as that may seem, Mubarak's two recent speeches since the crisis reveal a surreal stubborn disconnect from the realities and wishes of the anti-government demonstrators. Regardless of the intent, it's no coincidence that the roughing up of journalists and escalating violence directly coincides with the release of the pro-Mubarak "supporters."

It's also no coincidence (and no less clear) that the internet was restored today as well. If the regime hoped to extend its spin to the outside world, it clearly didn't understand the scope and predominant sentiment of SM activity on the ground (and would be counter to the journalist rough-ups). There is also, to my knowledge and Twitter monitoring, no pro-Mubarak Twitter chats (save for one attempt at organizing a meeting). It appears the regime opened the internet without its own plan to capitalize on it.

As the situation deteriorates at this hour, the military needs to commit to their conscience. Are they with the people, or not?

I continue to pray, watch, and support as best I can.

Fine-Tuning Your Global Social Media Implementation

As I wrote earlier on using social media for your business, effective use of social media involves analyzing 1) what consumer needs are trying to be met through social media and 2) what platforms are they using in that process. This approach focuses on the consumer first, allowing you to keep in mind that social media is not a strategy in and of itself: it's one of the many tools of your overall marketing mix.

Businesses of course reach out to traditional media outlets at a local level for advertising and exposure, but often don't view social media use with the same kind of detail. If you're reaching out to global markets, then it's important to identify the most applicable platforms and social networks for your target market and implement your campaign accordingly.

Taking India as an example, here are some important trends to keep in mind:

According to a report by Analysys Mason and detailed by this Tech Eye article, most people in India will have their first social networking experience on their mobile phone. The report projects that the number of mobile social network users in India is expected to reach around 72 million by 2014. This in turn offers potential for such social networks as Foursquare, also gaining traction in India, according to Forbes.. As Foursquare itself reconfigures to be more global firendly, powerful marketing opportunities are possible.

Depending upon your service or business, you may need to go deeper: the race to be the dominant mobile operating system in India is highly competitive. That said, and with no implied endorsement, Android is gaining ascendancy, but more interestingly, Google seems very keen in establishing a long-term presence at the ground level in India, according to this Wall Street Journal article. That might be worth noting if your business involves long term presence and/or specific mobile apps.

Knowing that India is going mobile isn't quite enough, however -- we still don't know who's going there or what they like to do. There are some studies and resources that shed some light, such as this report by Nielsen . According to their research, Indian males ages 15-24 are twice as likely as their female counterparts to use text messaging and four times more likely to use picture messaging.

You also have to look at what are the most prevalent platforms in your projected market. As this beyondbrics article notes, Facebook is beating out Orkut in India (it also notes the rise of LinkedIn and DesiMartini), though Orkut still has 14.6 of the social media segment in India, so you may not want to ignore it completely.

Another analysis of social network use across the globe can be found on Vincenzo Cosenza's blog , and the Global Web Index offers some free preliminary global social network data for user behavior (more stats can be purchased, according to the site).

Your business's social media component is no less deserving of the same kind of attention and detail you would apply to the rest of your marketing research. It's worth the time to take a granular, detailed approach to your social media efforts!

This post also appears on Benefit Point, a new business blog synergising business and brand for sustainable businesses.