Metrics are the life blood of PR. Metrics tell us how many people we are reaching and for how long we are reaching them. We then take that metric and divide it by how long it took us to get those views and you have a really basic ROI scale used by most PR firms.

Sure I am simplifying this but I am doing it to help you illustrate the way PR people think. I have said it before but this is why many people in PR don’t like social media. The definable metric of social media is typically low. The amount of people you reach versus the amount of time you have to put into social media makes it an unattractive endeavor.

Sure, every now and you strike oil and something you have worked on goes ‘viral’ and tens of thousands of people see it. On average you exposure in social media is low. That is the TYPICAL view but if you look at social media from another angle social media can be cost effective.

Living in DC everyone wants to get into the Washington Post. The Post has an amazing reach and finds its way into the homes of people all around the country. Is that good? Sure every client I have ever had wanted to get in the Post but it wasn’t always in their best interest.

So what if the Post reaches half a million people a day, are they the right people? This is where social media can really shine even with a smaller metric. I often use the fictional magazine called “Oil Changers Weekly” as an example of what it means to reach the right people versus reaching the most people.

If you owned a company that invented a tool that makes changing oil 10 times faster, getting into the Post wouldn’t really help your business that much. Sure a ton of people would know about your tool, but would any of them request it at their next oil change?

Now imagine you got into “Oil Changers Weekly”, sure it might have 1 percent of the readership that the Post has but it is the RIGHT 1 percent. You are reaching people who have a direct impact on your business and your message. This is the value in social media.

Sure according to the metrics vs. time social media seems like a waste of time; but is it really? I have found the connections and messaging I am able to gain with social media has a much greater return for clients and the public. That is the value social media can offer a potential client, reaching the right people vs. reaching the most people.

I have spent a great deal of time trying to sell social media to people who might not be interested in using it as PR tool. I have found the “Oil Changers Weekly” to be a good argument and really hits home with most business. Do you have any tools you use to sway your clients into adopting social media tools? I would love to hear them if you want to share them with the public.

What other tools have you found effective for really evaluating the value of social media? What have you found is the best way to show your clients you are doing good work for them?

The short answer is yes, and no. It seems politicians are suckers for the times. We all have read how Nixon lost to Kennedy because of TV and I remember reading somewhere about fireside chats (Wikipedia it if you must) as a tool to reach the masses. All of this has led me to believe politicians should and should not use social media.

Let me explain; I picked those two examples of politicians using new media as a tool to reach their public very carefully. These two examples, Kennedy and Roosevelt, represent two very different sides of the same coin. The coin is media outreach and the sides are political ends.

Take the first example: televised political events during an election. Kennedy knew he was more ‘dashing’ than Nixon and the masses were sick of the same old same old politicians so it was advantageous for Kennedy to show himself on T.V. as a dashing younger man.

If you watched the debate, Nixon debates with skill and with candor but he looks terrible. Kennedy, doing his best guy next store, is seen as dashing. The substance of the debate was overshadowed by the flash of new technology.

This is how many politicians today are approaching social media. They are not using social media tools to provide the public with more insight or better connection to government. Instead they are using these tools as a way to flash a smile and show the public how ‘new age’ their campaigns are.

Now think of Roosevelt’s use of the fireside chat. Roosevelt was already President, a fairly popular one due to his public works projects, yet he took the advice of his speech writer and adopted a new technology to reach his public.

If you have ever listened to any of chats (read them here) you will hear that they are not political tools but instead a vehicle of the President to reach people who otherwise would have not heard the President. The chats are masterfully crafted and explain to the public how the President would lead them out of the worst depression in the nation’s history.

That is the purpose I would like to see modern politicians use social media for. Don’t use it as a tool to panderer to the public for votes; use it as a tool to educate the public. Social media can allow a politician to have total disclosure (scary) with their public.

So to answer my own question: politicians should only use social media to educate, not to sway votes. Like no time before politicians on every level have a chance to connect with the people they represent. I think they should take this opportunity to really reach the public, not just tell them how to vote.

Do you know of any politicians who have really used social media to connect with the people? I have followed most of the major campaigns and I can say that most of them have missed the point. I don’t know of any smaller campaigns that have connected using social media, but I would love to hear about them.

This past weekend, while most people were away enjoying the beginning of summer, uber-geeks sat around and discussed the ongoing troubles facing Twitter and how FriendFeed would deal the final death blow. If FriendFeed was consuming most of my discussions nowadays I might agree but unfortunately it has yet to win me over. While FriendFeed is beginning to drive traffic to my sites, Twitter still reigns king and Facebook still beats FriendFeed.

Unfortunately for the early adopters who believe that FriendFeed will become the online leader, there is still the majority that needs to be convinced and currently those people are spending their time on MySpace, Facebook and YouTube. I completely understand the benefits of using FriendFeed but isn’t it really just a feature that other social networks sites can easily embed?

In the battle for attention, FriendFeed comes nowhere close to Twitter. Just take a look at the chart below and you’ll notice that the early adopters such as Robert Scoble, Steve Gillmore have an argument which is not based on reality. Conversely, while writing this tirade, I’ve received 5 comments on one of my FriendFeed items. I still just don’t see FriendFeed going mainstream though.

Do you use FriendFeed actively? Do you see FriendFeed successfully competing with Twitter? Are they even competitors?

The real test of a smart business plan is: what is the value proposition for the user. When it comes to blogging, what is the value being offered? You can try to provide breaking news, try to provide insight or try to provide actual research findings which you then resell to companies (Forrester’s model of business). Each model requires a different strategy and each model has its own way of generating revenue.

The most recent discussion taking place among a number of blogs is what does the user ultimately want? As a publisher, I know that I would like all users to visit my site and post comments for each of my articles. Unfortunately, people post comments on my wall in Facebook, they send me messages on email and Facebook, send me replies on Twitter and once in a while post a comment on FriendFeed. Once in a while they post a comment on my blog but most of those comments come from people that found me via some news aggregator.

Duncan Riley has effectively summed up the challenge:

If blogging 1.0 was about enabling the conversation on each blog, blogging 2.0 is about enabling the conversation across many blogs and supporting sites and services.

If we have suddenly all simply become part of the conversation then perhaps blogging is simply about producing more focused content throughout various channels than other people currently provide. For instance, if this site is focused on social technology, perhaps I should notify people on Twitter of all sites that I bookmark on del.icio.us related to social technology. Also, go post comments on anybody’s FriendFeed that has content surrounding my subject.

The reality is simply that blogging isn’t dead but the conversation is going to take place elsewhere and not just on your site. While we would like most of the conversation to take place in an environment branded by us, it just simply won’t happen. I think that I need to most definitely update my own strategy to adapt to the changing environment.

Rather than just posting content in the confines of my blog (which is what I’d really prefer to do), it’s time to take it to take the dialog elsewhere. Do you think blogging in itself provides enough value or have the times truly changed?

Fred Wilson has announced that Disqus and Seesmic are teaming up to provide video comments. I’ve already added Seesmic commenting to this site and aside from the one post where I announced that I’d support Seesmic comments, nobody has used it. There appears to be a debate now over whether or not video comments make much sense.

My thoughts are that video commenting provides a great alternative for those that prefer to use video instead of text. If that wasn’t the most obvious response, I don’t know what is. Loren Feldman is a good example of somebody that benefits from video comments. YouTube is already the center of video commenting and now it is extending to blogs. We will continue to see more written comments than video comments on blogs though.

Some people communicate more effectively through video and some people communicate more effectively for writing. That’s the difference between bloggers and vloggers. I unfortunately have not taken advantage of Disqus because for some reason I like owning the comments on my blog. Call me crazy but it’s a personal preference. Disqus is a great way to get comments up and running on your site though and I have a feeling that it may spread the same way MyBlogLog did, I’m just not one of the users for the time being.

Do you think video comments are mainstream? Have you been using them at all? Have you or would you install Disqus on your own site?

On Monday I wrote about what the future of television looks like. The post was inspired by an extremely trashy show called No Good TV that I couldn’t seem to stop myself from watching. Based on the number of views on the company’s other videos, it looks like other people had the same problem. While I’m not typically a fan on filth, for some reason this filth has inspired me.

It has also driven me to wonder if the same model is used for traditional television. First, let me explain my understanding of how you succeed on YouTube. Also, keep in mind that my measure of success is the number of views you get for your video. If you want a quick way of figuring it out, simply look at the image below which displays the top videos on YouTube for the week.

My conclusion is that the easiest way to get views on YouTube is to:

1. Create a title that includes the word “Sex” or a curse word
2. Have a video clip or image directly in the middle of your video that includes boobs

That’s it! You have now successfully followed the two step F’in boob model of success. Playtex successfully used this model to attract over 1.3 million views of their most recent video and over 4.5 million views to one of their other videos for the “Playtex Who Knows You Like We Do” campaign.

This isn’t the only model for success but it definitely works. It also makes me wonder about the quality of content on YouTube but then again, I typically don’t spend much time viewing the site. Sites like Blip.tv try to use an alternative model called “Creating Good Content”. I like to call that the CGC model. If you want to get millions of views though your quickest way to success is the F’in boob model. Do you know any other models of success on YouTube or web video?

The other day I was at a networking event that concerned itself with why more PR firms aren’t using social media as a tool to connect with the public. There were many arguments talking about why social media is great tool for getting third party credibility for a business.

The arguments for social media as a practical PR tool were sound but they failed to realize one key fact regarding social media, it is expensive. The average social media user sees social media as a series of free services that help people connect, this is true, but social media is something quite different to a PR professional.

To understand why PR firms see social media as expensive you have to realize how a PR firm works. Most PR firms are set up on billable hours, similar to a law firm. Different levels of PR people, in a firm, bill or track the hours spent working on a client as billable hours.

Depending on the level of the PR professional depends on how much they bill. When you view social media in this mindset, with the idea that the time I spend working on a client is billable, you can see how social media can be viewed as an expensive service.

To effectively use social media your connections have to be genuine. Creating connections with people that are passionate about a subject takes time. Basic PR tools like press releases and media alerts do not work. The PR professional has to have a genuine connection with the person they are trying to connect with; something that takes time (money) in the PR world.

Granted, the returns on social media can be amazing if it works. But convincing a client that I am going to charge you anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars talking to bloggers and making social connections is a tough sell.

From the client’s viewpoint their money can be much better spent perusing traditional media. It is not that a client doesn’t want the next social media /viral marketing hit it is instead a matter of simple economics. Where best to spend my limited budget.

On the flip side of this argument many startups find the ROI on social media a much sounder investment. At a startup you have many people willing to dedicate time (usually for less money) that will allow them to generate real social media connections.

I am not saying social media is a bad investment, on the contrary I think social media is a great tool for any company. I am simply trying to explain why some companies have an apprehension on investing money in social media.

Have you found any difficulties selling social media in your line of work? Do you have any tips for our readers out there who are trying to explain why social media works? Let me know.

Yesterday, news surfaced about the new Twitter Blacklist which lists out all of the spammers on the social networking site. That site is not related to Twitter and only has 329 spammers. Considering that there are millions of users on Twitter, I have a feeling that there are way more than 329 spammers.

Jesse Stay did some digging of his own and found out that Twitter will be completely removing spam accounts. They have their own internal list spammers and according to Twitter will completely block those accounts accordingly. Whether or not the company will be successful at banning spam accounts is a whole other question.

For those who thing Twitter spam is a big problem or run into issues with spammers on the site, Twitter has a highly active forum on Get Satisfaction. In there you can report any spammers and Twitter will quickly suspend those accounts. Have you run into a substantial amount of Twitter spam? Do you think this is a big issue for the site and is being followed by spammers really that big of a deal?

You’re sitting in front of your computer, the light from your monitor burning a hole in your retnas and all you want to do is get up another post. You finally find something to write about but while writing you open up another tab in your browser and check out your top 5 or 10 new sources to make sure that there isn’t something more urgent that needs to be posted about. This isn’t how it starts. This is the beginning of the end.

It starts with the rush you get from a surge in traffic to your site whether it is coming from Digg, StumbleUpon, Techmeme or any other news aggregator. The rush isn’t a warning sign, it’s simply one of the first steps toward blog addiction. The rush that you feel from the jump in traffic doesn’t last long. As you look over your Google Analytics, MyBlogLog traffic counter, incoming traffic from Hittail, feed stats on Feedburner and a number of other sources, you realize that you need more.

The biggest problem with a blog is the emotional attachment that you had from the onset. You don’t want to give it up and you only want more, more of that rush of seeing your name plastered atop some random news aggregator that says you are king of the hill, if only for a few minutes. Few people congratulate you but somewhere in the back of your mind you are thinking that you can take on anybody.

It is at this exact moment that suddenly you are becoming a full blown blogger and potential addict. Us bloggers love to talk about ourselves because we are the experts. 95 percent of people are experts in themselves but a smaller 5 percent decide to write about something else outside of our personal lives. For that smaller segment, our writing is all the more important because we want to be honored for the written translation of our momentary thoughts of genius.

All day long you will begin to search for those thoughts of genius and if you’ve become a blogging addict, thoughts of genius eventually begin to merge with mediocrity. At this point your mind is buzzing from content exhaustion but all you can do is continue to write, continue to push out that next sentence. For the typical blog addict, sentences rapidly lose their value and words suddenly become filler.

Am I apologetic for the written filth that I frequently produce? Not at all. I am a blog addict and I know that somewhere in there is a hidden gem and my readers will be so fortunate as to find that gem and hold it close to their hearts. I also know that I’m only kidding myself because in reality my readers only glance over my content which has now become a source of their own content exhaustion.

Really, all you need is that one hit. That hit where suddenly you are catapulted to the top or at least standing with the leaders. That one hit leads to multiple hits on your website and suddenly the hudreds of visitors that you have viewing your name for half a second suddenly mean something to you. A few of them might even stop to say hello. Hi!

While I will never know most of you, I will know some and that’s all that matters. Among us blog addicts we all know what that rush feels like and for some reason we have begun chasing after it. We click publish even though we know a post looks like shit just because we think that post could make us king of the hill again.

We fight to get a press release 1 minute earlier than the others because in our world somehow this 1 minute has suddenly made a difference in our lives. At this point they might as well just connect me to the computer and feed me content because at some point it became all I wanted: more content. David Carr highlighted the vicious cycle over a year ago:

Now I have become a day trader, jacked in to my computer and trading by the second in my most precious commodity: me. How do they like me now? What about … now? Hmmmm … Now?

The cycle can destroy you and I have met many people who it has. I meet them on a regular basis at conferences and various events. I now look in the mirror and see it in myself and suddenly I’ve begun wondering when did life suddenly become about the momentary celebrity? I somehow suddenly crave this attention which is ultimately nowhere near as valuable as that which a family member can provide.

The reality is that expression is part of human nature and we all crave the connection we get when others empathize with that which we express. The blog empowers this connection but just as economics teaches us, it has diminishing returns. That is what a blog addict has to look forward to. While I cannot advise others what decisions to make, I can tell you that I will surely be making new decisions based on my findings while living the life of a blog addict.

Want to become a rockstar? Perhaps you want to pose nude in Playboy. Whatever your dreams and aspirations are, social media can help you get there. In the past few days, I’ve received multiple press releases surrounding individuals becoming the next star. Recently, Jason Calacanis held the Mahalo Daily VLOG Idol competition.

Last week Alicia Keys decided to outsource the search for her backup singer to MySpace. You can go check out her MySpace page for details. Playboy also announced last week that they have outsourced the search for their 55th playmate via YouTube. I took a look at the responses so far and they are pretty entertaining.

Outsourcing the search for talent to social media can be a big gamble. Jason Calacanis for instance received a number of submissions via YouTube but none of them were selected. Instead they decided to do in house auditions. After 1 month and over 62,000 views of the Playboy Playmate search, there have been only 4 responses. My guess is that Playboy will have to look for a new source for their search.

While I think social media can be a good source for finding talent, the best talent search still requires in person auditions. Just listen to the top performers on MySpace karaoke and you’ll quickly notice that it is still difficult to judge the quality of their singing due to effects and the quality of the microphone the singers choose. There are very few examples of people that have made the jump from social media from prime time successfully. Do you know of any successful examples?