The word on the cyber-street about the campaign had been highly negative for weeks, but it seemed like D’Amico either wasn’t listening to the feedback or – more distressingly – didn’t care.

Well, my post seemed to have struck a nerve and I received a lot of feedback on it, from people who agreed with my assessment, those who thought I was an overacting blowhard, and even D’Amico themselves.

D’Amico heard us …

Recently D’Amico made some big changes to their social media strategy that I think are important to note and to applaud.

• They condensed accounts: As noted in the previous post, their initial strategy was to go wide and shallow, which some people interpreted as “spammy.” Going narrow and deep makes them seem more authentic.

• They acknowledged our frustration: One of the main D’Amico accounts now sports a wallpaper message from the Director of Operations, Lynn Ulrich, that basically says, “we tried something new…you didn’t like it…we’re trying something different.” This is a very transparent and classy way to handle the feedback.

• They’ve personalized their messaging: Accounts for D’Amico’s humans sound more, well…human. The gratuitous hash tags have been scaled back and replaced with more conversation content.

So, is it working?

The jury is still out on whether this change in strategy will be effective for D’Amico.

Since social media monitoring and measurement is one of our KaneCo capabilities (D’Amico is not a client) we have access to tools to get a quick snapshot of how their online community is reacting to their changes:

Since July 22, there has been a notable decrease in negative comments (shown in red) about this company, and I think that’s worth noting.

The challenge for them will be to increase the number of positive comments (shown in green) they are receiving from the community – a percentage that has remained unchanged.

(For those of you who are curious, the grey areas on this chart represents “neutral” sentiment – mainly consisting of news and information D’Amico has posted about themselves.)

While the negative comments they receive have been very specific to their social media efforts …

• “@DAmicoandSons who planned your strategy? The name/number thing is really off putting- all d’amico tweets seem impersonal and broadcasted”
• “Anyone else getting annoyed by D’Amico & Sons on Twitter???”
• “I was suddenly followed by a large number of D’Amico accounts. It’s a very creepy feeling. I blocked them all.”

The positive comments they’re receiving are still only in reference to the services the company provides …

• “with my kids + nephew + a yummy d’amico chicken salad croissant + a good book – at the Beach! Gorgeous day!!”
• “Haven’t had this in a while, but I’m craving D’Amico’s sunday brunch breakfast pizza!”
• “Having an amazing lunch at D’amico & Sons! The Hot Italian truely is hot”

Good luck, D’Amico.

Let me be clear, my previous post about D’Amico was not part of some personal vendetta. I wasn’t vying to get hired by D’Amico. No one paid me to write that post. (If anything, it put me in the middle of a D’Amico “drama firestorm” that distracted me from my day-to-day workload.)

My objective with the post was simply to give voice to and summarize the thoughts I was seeing surfacing in continuing waves from my feed and analyze them from my perspective as a social media strategist.

While I’m not seeing feedback on the new campaign in my feeds, I do think this company’s efforts to respond to the concerns of their social community should be recognized.

Too often we are more inclined to place blame rather than to reward the acknowledgement of it.

And that is a shame.

I think the D’Amico campaign offers a good lesson for any company entering the social space, and it is this…

If you decide to employ social media as a communications tool …

• You will not be able to fully control it.
• You will make mistakes.
• You will get called out and criticized for things you say and do (whether they are valid points or not).

That’s not just D’Amico’s reality. That’s the reality of social media, and one we will all have to face eventually.

The most controversial of the seven principles has been #3:

“Advertising Value Equivalents (AVE) do not measure the value of PR and do not inform the future of activity.”

In essence, AVE measures the value of a placement secured by PR activities by calculating the cost of purchasing the equivalent of that amount of space in advertising.

This metric is flawed and has received criticism for several reasons, primarily:

AVE is to PR activity as apples are to oranges.

Trying to measure the effectiveness of a PR campaign by comparing it to the amount of money it would cost to purchase advertising space completely ignores the value of editorial content versus advertising. (i.e. People don’t read, consume, and act upon a paid advertisement in the same way they do editorial content in the form of an interview, product feature, or industry news article.) It doesn’t take into account the tone or sentiment of the placements, or the value of a quote in a feature article versus a product mention buried somewhere in the back of the issue. It doesn’t explain the time and effort that goes into building a relationship with the journalists and editors or the long-tail affect of such work.

The science behind the AVE calculation is flawed.

Here’s how it works … for every placement, the monitoring company provides an “ad rate” dollar amount, which is the published amount for purchasing a full-page ad in the publication. Most often, the PR person within the agency who is responsible for compiling these clips will then divide that number as he/she sees fit in accordance with the amount of printed space that was dedicated to mentions of the client. Problems? First, ads are rarely purchased at the published, full page rate to begin with. Second, the infinite division (or multiplication) of that number to accommodate a one-line mention, several pages of text, a photo of a product, etc, is arbitrary and inconsistent.

AVE calculations do not contribute to PR strategy.

“So what and who cares?” is a line I use a lot when talking about measurement. After calculating AVE per individual placement, a report is generated to provide a grand total telling the client the “exact” amount of money the PR campaign netted them had they instead paid for advertising space. What’s next?  Who cares? How does it contribute to strategy? What does that number mean? Truth is, it means nothing. It’s a way for lazy PR people (yes, I said it) to show ROI and prove enough value to the client to get them to continue to renew their contract.

After years of debate over these issues, The Barcelona Principles have the ability to initiate a change in the industry and eradicate this metric once and for all. But, despite these principles, monitoring firms continue to provide AVE, and as long as they do, PR professionals will continue to be misguided and use this false information in an attempt to prove ROI to their clients.

One of the leading experts in PR Measurement, Katie Delahaye Paine (KD Paine), has been a vocal supporter of The Barcelona Principles, calling for a boycott of monitoring firms who continue to deliver AVEs and taking an active stand on this controversial debate.

I fully support Katie Paine’s stand on AVE. Here’s why …

1) The big fish lead the schools.

Industry leaders set examples and provide standards that others look to and follow. While monitoring firms who continue to provide AVEs could argue that they are merely providing a service to the clients who continue to ask for it, the reality is that they are contributing to a vicious cycle.

As long as leading firms continue to offer this metric, it will still hold validity and continue to be used by professionals who may not know any better. Imagine, for a moment, if a big gun like Chris Brogan were to support Twitter spam. Sure, there are many who know better, but all of the social media newbies would take this word as gospel.

A better approach might be for these firms to work with industry experts to create and refine metrics that are an accurate measurement of PR, and then educate their customers and customer’s clients.

2) AVE absolutely does not translate to the social web.

AVE was never a logical way to measure the value of PR, but it becomes even more obsolete as the industry evolves. Because they are so accustomed to relying on the AVE metric, I have seen firms try to equate it to the web by trying to find circulation rates or ad equivalencies for tweets, blog comments, Facebook posts, etc.

It just. Doesn’t. Work.

Even if you can come up with a number, it’s completely arbitrary, and what in the world does that tell you, anyway?

3) It takes a bold move to make a change.

Discussions over the the validity of AVE have been going on for decades. The Barcelona Principles are a huge step by the industry to formalize standards for measurement. But, if the big companies in the industry don’t actively support them, they will lose significance. The PR industry is so resistant to change, and has been criticized for its inability to adapt and evolve with the marketplace. Right now, the industry can further perpetuate that notion, or it can shift that perception and denounce this metric.

I’m with Katie. I commend her for standing up and calling for a bold move. Our firm, Kane Consulting, will support her and all seven of The Barcelona Principles, and in doing so …

• We have never, and will not provide AVE to clients as a measurement of our work.
• We will measure outcomes over results.
• We will view measurement as necessary to all campaigns, and will measure our work based on business goals and strategies.

Are you ready to take a stand and call for a change?

Need some support?

Join the Support Group for AVE Foes on LinkedIn.http://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostPopular=&gid=3219019

And, make sure you read KD Paine’s PR Measurement Blog (http://kdpaine.blogs.com/) as well as The Measurement Standard. (http://kdpaine.blogs.com/themeasurementstandard/)

While this may sound like I’m a highly unpleasant person, I should clarify that there is a difference between judging and making a judgment.

I don’t go around barking out personality edicts like some director in front of an inept chorus line (“You? Awesome!” “You? Grumpy!” You? Desperately in need of therapy!”)

For me, “judging” is more of a process of collecting information about a person as quickly as possible and using it to decide how I should communicate with them in return.

Just like you, this is something I do with both my senses and my gut.

Your four relationship-building senses (well, five … if you’re a zombie).

When you think about it, most of the information we collect when we first meet someone is simply a series of sensory cues …

• SIGHT: Does what this person is saying match their body language? Do they look connected to the conversation or are their eyes wandering? Are their arms crossed, making them seem closed-off and unreceptive?

• SOUND: Does this person’s voice sound tight and constricted by stress or anger? Is their tone conveying openness and interest in what you’re saying? Are they being sarcastic or sardonic, and how does that make you feel?

• SMELL: Do they smell like a smoker, hard core coffee drinker or crazy cat lady? How do you feel about those things? Do they wear the same cologne as your high school boyfriend, making you instantly nostalgic and swoony?

• TOUCH: Is their handshake limp or powerful? Does their hand linger a little too long on your back when they are talking to you? Are they a hugger? Do they touch your hand to get your attention when they’re talking?

• TASTE: Um … you probably do not employ this sense in building relationships.

When we meet people, we use all of this sensory information to create our perception of a person and our mind subconsciously helps to fill in any gaps in the picture.

For example, let’s say you’re talking to someone who has their arms crossed, a tight voice and is nervously tapping the table. Your mind might summarize this information and send you a message that says, “This is a tightly-wound person who is either unhappy with me or their environment right now. Tread cautiously.”

The gut reaction we get from our “sensory summaries” informs how we should behave in return. (For instance, you may choose to slow your voice and modulate the tone or lean back to give the person space, etc.)

Even with all of our senses working overtime, this process can still be highly skewed or erroneous.

There have been many times where I’ve meet a person and decided instantly that I adore them. But then, down the road when a more complete portrait of that person is revealed, I’m left wondering, “What in the hell were you thinking?”

Matchmaking in the dark.

In our online relationships however, nearly all of this sensory information is removed from the equation.

All we have are words on a screen next to an unchanging avatar mask (people literally, putting their best face forward).

The gaps between what we see and what may be reality are huge and we have no cues to help us bridge the divide.

Where, in person, we might have had six or seven sensory clues to help us form our perception of a person, online we have one (at best).

And yet, most of us continue to make same definitive judgments about the people we befriend online and act according to them.

Have you ever stopped and really given thought to why you feel the way you do about the people in your online social circles? What are you basing your feelings on?

What do you, in fact, KNOW versus what you only SEE?

For example …

• Is a person with a smiling avatar who uses lots of emoticons and exclamation points, in fact, friendlier, or are you just conditioned by the photo to expect them to be and read all of their posts with that preexisting lens?

• If a person in your digital network talks a lot about themselves, do you interpret that as a sign of self-absorption? Cluelessness? Desperation? What cues have they given in all of that chatter to give you that indication?

• Does an active conversation stream and large follower base really indicate that someone is a “social” person or could they actually be really lonely and desperate for human connection? If you never meet them in person, would you ever know the difference?

The reality is that, when it comes to relationship-building online, we are all like Gollum in his cave, nearly blind and often lost, but still convinced that the people before us are precious.

Where will this take us?

Social media is not just a cultural phenomenon, but a psychological one as well. It presents us with a radically new way of shaping our sense of self and presenting that self to others.

While we tend to spend a lot of time thinking about the effect this can have for our businesses, I’m even more curious to know what affect it will have on our psyches.

• What kind of fallout will result from constructing relationships with such flimsy materials? If this style of connecting with people becomes the norm, what then will this mean for our more intimate connections with our friends and family? Is a relationship that is less “real” necessarily one that is less satisfying?

• If social media is in fact our “second life,” where we have the option to build relationships that reflect an alternate version of our selves, what kind of schism could that create in our overall sense of identity and what will be the long term affects of having that schism?

• Is social media a trigger that can magnify existing psychological issues (narcissism, addiction, depression) and what might that mean for psychologists who are trying to work with clients on those issues, but who do not understand the role that social media may be playing in undermining their efforts?

There is much that we do not know — and even more that we assume to have already mastered. To find the answers, we’ll need our senses, our gut and perhaps, most importantly, our judgments.

For those of you who have missed it (and it’d be real hard to miss it if you live here), D’Amico entered the Twittersphere recently with a boom.

They set-up many, many, many Twitter accounts (often with such cozy names as D’Amico_12) for the brand, each of its restaurants, each of its employees and all of its catering arms.(There is a small handful of them listed here.)

Then, they populated these accounts with syndicated content (hashtagged within an inch of its life) that is neither gregarious nor graceful in tone or form.

There is no human voice to the Twitter presence – the feeds are just automated “menu-a-trons” brand blasts that march across people’s screens with the calculated regularity and precision of a North Korean army.

If you’ve made the mistake of following more than one of these accounts, the affect can be akin to watching that Faberge commercial from the 80’s with Heather Locklear, where she says “and so on and so on and so on…” while her photo replicates like a virus.

In this Twitter campaign, there appears to be little talking and, more importantly, little listening. And the general consensus among Twin Cities tweeters is that the whole endeavor is highly unappealing.

The larger question though is….

Is it ineffective?

Nope.

(Oh wait…you wanted me to say “yes” here, didn’t you?)

The reality is that broadcast messaging still works, since that’s what most of us are used to.

While the people YOU know might DVR shows to skip commercials, listen to commercial free satellite radio or engage in authentic, relationship-building conversations on social media, a whole lot of other people out there do not.

Now, I’m sure there are a ton of people who follow back these accounts and are befuddled by what they see. But there are probably just as many that think, “oh hey, a coupon for lemonade!” and click through without thinking twice.

I’m sure D’Amico is seeing payoff with these accounts, especially if their campaign metrics are not concerned with brand sentiment, only the number of hits, follows, retweets, etc. – data that, while mesmerizing in its magnitude, often fails to address the larger question of, “Does anyone really LIKE what we’re saying?”

Is it brand damaging?

In their pursuit of short-term gain, personally, I think that, yes, D’Amico is missing the opportunity for long-term growth.

Whenever I complain about them online, I nearly always receive public or private messages in response from people who say, “thank you for saying something about this.”

In short, I have never seen ANYONE publicly stand up in support on behalf of this brand – not even D’Amico itself.

This campaign has given D’Amico a bad reputation, but is it brand damaging? Probably not.

I have many connections in the meetings and events industry, and the vast majority of these people have no idea what D’Amico’s Twitter presence is like (many of them aren’t even on Twitter themselves).

These people will continue to use D’Amico as a vendor and will probably be tickled to be asked to “Follow them on Twitter” with no knowledge that their social media experience could be anything different.

Ironically, not only do I not think their actions will damage their brand, I think it will actually reinforce it.

I’ve had a number of contacts with D’Amico staff where the vibe was, “If you don’t like it — tough. We own all the event facilities in this town, so it doesn’t really matter what you think.”

And they’re right.

So, not being particularly chummy or concerned with people’s opinions on Twitter is actually a pretty “spot on” approach for this company. They are authentic … authentically disinterested in what you think.

Is it spam?

One might say that, if you opt-in to the D’Amico party, then you really can’t call it spam.

True. But I’m inclined to still label it as such simply due to their gratuitous following/unfollowing/refollowing approach.

One reason why many hard-core Twitter users don’t like this campaign is that it is fairly manipulative. It preys off of newbies’ tendency to just automatically follow back people who follow them.

For example, a person sees “New D’Amico follower” in their email and clicks “follow.” Maybe the next day they get another one and think, “I thought I followed them yesterday…oh well [click]. Maybe the next day they get followed from a D’Amico account for one of their restaurants – the name’s a little different, so they think, “okay,” [click].

These and other Twitter tactics are just part of a numbers game. I understand the game, so I just opt not to play.

But many of my clients, friends and followers don’t have that knowledge. What I hear from them is that these practices leave them feeling used, duped and confused.

That sounds pretty “spamy” in my books.

So, what’s next?

I probably am just preaching to the choir here. But, the whole point of a choir is that voices, when combined, amplify.

My own quiet message to D’Amico is this:  Because I do not support your approach to social media …

• I will not follow your accounts.
• I will not retweet your information.
• I will not click on your links.
• I will not dine in your restaurants.
• I will not use you as a caterer for my events.

If you feel strongly about this too, then I invite you to add your voice to the conversation.

While ultimately we may not be listened to, I can promise you that we will be heard.

This post however, isn’t about that event. It’s about Brian’s book, Engage!

Engage is a great book. I read every last stinkin word in it … I underlined stuff (with a straight edge!), made notes in the margins, emailed passages to clients and tweeted my favorite quotes.

Problem is, I am totally not normal.

I am a reader. Hard core. I don’t watch TV. I don’t play video games. I have no hobbies or social life.

(Wow … that sounds really pathetic, doesn’t it?)

All I do is read … books, blogs, magazines, newspapers, backs of cereal boxes, you name it.

What’s more, I also read business books. (I run a business book club – thanks to all who’ve dropped by – and I know that this is an even more rare breed of people.)

So, when I see people tweeting that they’re anxious to tackle Brian’s book before or after the event, I get a little nervous.

You see, Brian’s book is really good, but it’s also really … well, epic. (At our book salon, some people said there were sections that “made their brains want to explode.”)

It’s summer in Minnesota, and I’m worried that even you serious readers out there might not be in the mood to have your brain exploding. Your brain probably wants more to lie in the sunshine with a gin and tonic.

Never fear though, I figured out a way that you can get your “Engage” fix and that gin and tonic too …

The “Engage” Cliff Notes.

Let me start by saying this:  I really think you should read Brain’s book in its entirety.

You should try to drink eight glasses of water a day, floss and “live your best life,” too.

The reality is that many of you won’t.

However, I’m willing to bet that you’ll read parts of this book, and some is better than none. If your time and attention is limited, hopefully these Cliff Notes can help you determine which parts those should be.

So, (with many, many, apologies to Brian) pick your profile and let’s get started …

1. “I’m clueless about social media, but I want to find out how to get started.”

• I’d suggest you start at the beginning of the book with Part I: The New Reality of Marketing and Customer Service.

• In Part II: Forever Students of New Media, read the Social Media 101 section and all the 201’s (201, 202, 203).

• You may be in over your head with some of the 301 information and totally floundering in the 401’s and the “MBA” sections, so I’d suggest you instead skip ahead and read Part III: Brand Representative Versus the Brand You and Part IV: We are the Champions.

• You might just want to stop after Chapter 19 and revisit the book later after you’ve had some time to go use what you’ve learned in the social space and get more comfortable with the tools/technology/tactics.

2. “I use social media, and kinda know what I’m doing, but I still have a lot to learn.”

• Start at the beginning of the book with Part I: The New Reality of Marketing and Customer Service.

• In Part II: Forever Students of New Media, read the Social Media 101 section, as well as all the Social Media 201’s (201, 202, 203) and Social Media 301’s (301, 302, 303.) If that information isn’t freaking you out, go ahead and tackle the Social Media 401’s (401, 402, 403). Your brain will likely be hurting after you’re done, so if you decide not to read the MBA information right now, that’s totally okay. I’m sure Brian will still love you.

• Read all of Part III: Brand Representative Versus the Brand You and Part IV: We are the Champions.

• If you’re up to it, tackle Part V: The Social Architect: Developing a Blueprint for New Marketing and maybe stop after Chapter 22 and revisit the book later after you’ve had a chance to process and apply what you’ve learned.

3. “Social media is part of my job at my company/agency/consultancy and people are looking to me to show them how it’s done. I need to make sure I know my stuff.”

• You should really read this whole book, you know that right?

• Obviously, read Part I: The New Reality of Marketing and Customer Service.

• Then, since you’re working with these tools on a daily basis, you may want to skip ahead to Part III: Brand Representative Versus the Brand You, Part IV: We are the Champions and Part V: The Social Architect: Developing a Blueprint for New Marketing. There is good information in these sections and you don’t want to be fried from reading all the New Media University stuff when you tackle it.

• You should read Part VI: A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action: Rising Above the Noise, but I’ll admit that the Social CRM/VRM info can be a little overwhelming. You may want to just skim Chapters 23 and 24 for now. Chapter 25 though (Measuring Investment Returns) is an essential read, though. Do not skip this.

• After you’ve had a chance to digest what you’ve learned, don’t forget to revisit the book later and read the New Media University section. I guarantee you there will be some tools and tactics in there that you haven’t used or thought of yet.

4. “As a business person, I get that we need to get on board with social media, but I just want to know what I’ll be hiring people to do and to how to fit this into our operations.”

• Start with Part I: The New Reality of Marketing and Customer Service.

• If you’re not going to be doing any of this, just managing it, you might want to just jump to all the business stuff in the back of the book and revisit all of the details about what social media is and why it works at a later time. This, (for obvious reasons) is not the best way to read the book, but it might be the most realistic way to tackle it for your situation.

• If you are particularly strapped for time and just want to get down to business, you should definitely read Chapter 17 on establishing policies, Chapter 22 on building teams, and all of Part VI: A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action: Rising Above the Noise.

• For a more informed approach though, instead of reading chapters out of context, start at Part III: Brand Representative Versus the Brand You and read from there until the end of the book.

• It would be good for you to know that stuff in Part II: Forever Students of New Media, so don’t forget to revisit the book down the road and review when you’ve had some time to process or before you start sending our RFP’s for people to help you with your social media plans.

5. “I got this under control, already. I’m a social media rock star/guru.”

One of my favorite quotes from Brian Solis is that he considers himself to be “forever a student of social media.”

… and he is one smart dude.

Point here is we all have stuff to learn.

If you consider yourself to be a guru, then I guess my recommendations for you are …

• Read the book.
• Then, go write one of your own.

Who knows? Maybe if you play your cards right, someday you’ll get your very own Cliff Notes too.