Whatever happened to the service economy and the Age of Customer Service? It has occurred to me that the Internet and the steady advance of technology have diminished, rather than improved, those core attributes that can truly distinguish a company from its competition. Al Golin, in his book Trust or Consequences, has said the danger of high technology is that it causes us to forget "high touch," or the personalization of service.

I'll use a high-end appliance manufacturer headquartered in the South as an example. We called to report that our refrigerator was overheating because of a faulty light switch. Five months later, this expensive built-in device remained broken and without lights because our appliance maker, incredibly enough, had no replacement switch to remedy the problem - on what it characterized as a "lifetime" appliance. When I called the company's customer service department to complain about the long delay, they couldn't find any prior record of our contact on this problem and said their computer records could not cross-reference or search in ways that are standard today in all companies. The woman who took my call was congenial and most embarrassed. So was I - for this appliance maker.

We are being reduced to numbers - with our genetic coding, blood type, health, financial records, credit history, employment records, personal habits, birth record, Internet viewing habits, purchasing preferences and so much more being collected, catalogued and archived in preparation for a digitial chip or device that some will carry with them in the future. Yet with all this information now readily available and "Googlized," we have failed to advance the art of serving those who matter most - you and I as customers. There is scant follow-up to customer complaints, problems are difficult to resolve, and no one, save the customer, seems concerned if communication is delayed or incomplete.

This "de-personalization" of the great brands we've known will ultimately be the undoing of companies as consumers, whose ranks increasingly are swelling with a new generation of men and women more discriminating in their choice and loyalty, turn from merchants who are indifferent and undifferentiated in their customer service ethic.

What is the answer? The answer comes in the form of a question I heard from a brand manager with a global credit card company: "How do we get our telemarketing people to better live the values of our brand?" In today's world, those companies that create alignment among their front-line managers and employees with their business strategies and customer service ethic, will win greater allegiance among their customers and prospects.

We are entering a new era for what those of us who lead employee communications know as internal branding. In sum, internal branding is the process of aligning and mobilizing employees to deliver on the promise of what a brand represents externally. Internal branding was first popularized five years ago, dimmed in relevance and now has returned as a new generation of leaders and managers realize that "high touch" can only happen through the men and women who truly live the brand.

They always have been, really, but it was too hard and too expensive to find them. Now you can and smart marketers do. A few years ago who would have imagined there would be a TV show about quilting. Just quilting. But there is. So the TV show features an author of a novel about quilting (of course), and a fan of the show goes on line to find the book. And then she talks to her friends about it—and her friends number the thousands in an online community about quilting.

And a bunch of books are sold.

Niche marketing is successful because the niche becomes the marketers. They are fans, and fans fan flames. They talk, exchange, pour over, evangelize. They relate to each other.

So public RELATIONS should own niche marketing.

I’m really delighted that the “human element” advertising and PR campaign for Dow Chemical is off to such a great start. I believe it is resonating with the public, as well as Dow’s internal audience because, in this time of so much technology surrounding all of us we crave the human element as a stabilizer. (Disclosure: Dow Chemical is a GH client)

I’ve often quoted author John Naisbitt, who was way ahead of his time when he wrote his book, “Megatrends” some years ago. He coined the terms “high touch” and “high tech.” This illustrated the need to balance all the technology he saw coming with the humanizing factor. Many organizations are becoming increasingly reliant on impersonal communication. We all know people who are much more willing to use e-mail or voicemail than to set up face-to-face meetings or even talk on the phone. This is part and parcel of the trend towards emotionless interactions that are starting to define business relationships.

Unless an organization makes a commitment to HUMANIZING relationships, the online culture will take over. Sophisticated technology is enticing, and it’s easy to forget what’s being sacrificed when a culture is overly dependent on this form of communication.

My last entry observed that, in an ironic twist, one of the benefits of niche marketing is that the niche becomes the marketers. It's a one-two punch: Marketers have better tools than ever before to reach and motivate very specific groups of consumers. But what's really big is that those consumers, then, actively extend the marketer's message. And they have a whole lot of ways to do it.

A vivid example is the emergence of self-made advertisers, first ignored, then shunned, now embraced by smart marketers.

We've all heard about (and probably seen) the Mentos/Diet Coke "spot" on Revver.com, which Mentos found hard to ignore with 5.5 million viewings. So they jumped on board, buying ads on the site and publicizing the video.

Sony takes the phenomenon a step further by inviting people to create ads for a new line of televisions. Those ads will live on the internet, and maybe outside it. They could be seen by millions.

I said at the outset that the niche markets the message. True, but it also makes its own. The critical truth is that marketers don't control the message anymore. They can only actively lead it. That's a huge shift in mindset and in reality that will define marketing from here forward.

And it's a shift that PR people should navigate easily: We have always recognized and leveraged dialogue with the consumer, and we are used to having less than 100 percent control over how messages are heard, communicated and understood.

Will we take the lead in counseling our clients on how to embrace this marketing shift, or will we wait for their other marketing partners to do it?

I’m often asked if there is a single, simple, universal “litmus test” evaluation and measurement question that captures the most important thing (albeit not everything).

There is no silver bullet for our ADDriven, quick-fix fascination with 30 second management, instant insights, and snap solutions, but one question comes pretty darn close.

If you had to ask one and only one question that can be adapted to fit myriad situations, it would be:

“Would you recommend ____________________to family, friends, neighbors or co-workers, if they ask your candid and honest opinion?”

(e) Definitely Not

A nifty article from Business 2.0, courtesy of Fred (see link below), gives some of whys and wherefores. But the best thing to do is give it a shot yourself.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/09/01/8356514/index.htm

As we keep a close eye on the devices, technologies and channels consumers use to get information and entertainment, today's announcements by Apple, Inc. should help give us a better indication of how audiences might get information in the future.

It's all about convergence.

Today, Steve Jobs -- the pop culture icon credited with ushering in the personal computer revolution and bringing portable media to the masses (via the iPod), announced a handful of new products aimed at making it easier for consumers to make information portable and shared between the devices at their fingertips.

While not entirely unexpected, Apple's big announcement today centered around the iPhone -- a handsome all-in-one device that melds together the ease of use of the iPod, with a high resolution screen, a quad-band mobile phone, and the ability to get email, download and listen to music, movies, television shows, take pictures and surf the Web. All from a slim micro-device that syncs up to your PC or Mac and shares information seamlessly. This isn't the ROKR -- quite clearly, a bungled rushed-to-market iPod/phone MESS developed with Motorola in years past. It's a full-fledged Apple device, running their UNIX-based OS X operating system and completely controlled by a novel new touchscreen system called Multi-touch that lets you navigate everything on the device with your fingers. No keyboard. No stylus. All interaction is dictated by the software and based on how you need to input data. Elegant and easy.

Great-- yet another gadget to buy. But if history is an indicator, this device might mark the beginning of an even bigger shift for the masses. The mobile component of a fully-integrated digital lifestyle.

The second piece of this converged media puzzle discussed today was Apple's new set-top-box device, dubbed Apple TV. The idea is simple: a hard-drive based, wirelessly-networked box that connects to America's big screen televisions and makes all your media available (from up to 5 computers on your home network) in your living room. That's right -- the place where we now watch local news and interest-specific cable shows.

The third piece of the puzzle, Apple's already had in existence: the personal computer. It's the piece that goes with you to the office, adorns your den, and helps manage your personal and professional lives. It now stores your photos, holds your entire digital music library, downloads time-shifted newscasts in the form of audio and video podcasts, and even lets you grab full-length motion pictures.

All these pieces will now work together, fairly seamlessly. As with all new technologies, widespread adoption is largely a function of ease of use. And Apple's hallmark is taking complex technologies and making them user-friendly.

The big shift here is that the control and flow of information is entirely in the consumers' hands. You download a new album from U2 or a video podcast from Disneyland, and it's automatically available to view on your PC, your iPod or iPhone, and now your television with Apple TV. You choose what, when, where and how to consume the information.

The gatekeeper of this information becomes Apple. Make no mistake about it -- they're a media company now, not a computer manufacturer (which explains why they've officially changed their name to Apple, Inc., from Apple Computer). Consumers who purchase these interconnected devices will get their information directly from the source, so Apple's control over what people see will grow exponentially.

These new technologies have a number of implications for those of us who are tasked with telling our clients' stories ... A few considerations:

1.) Traditional media relations isn't dead. In fact, it may see an uptick in importance. How many times have you made it home from work too late to see NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams? Now, just subscribe to NBC News' video podcasts and you can watch it when you want. On the train, in your living room, on your laptop. It doesn't matter. Placements in these trusted, mainstream media channels which increasingly make their content available on demand will gain importance in the future.

2.) We need to build relationships with the content distributors, like Apple. A few years ago, we were calling on their iTunes managers to discuss how to build visibility for clients' podcasts in the iTunes Music Store. As Apple and other information distributors play a bigger role in deciding what you can choose to see on your devices, we communicators need to be able to work closely with these distributors to get our clients' messages out through their digital pipelines.

3.) We must remain dedicated to creative storytelling. In addition to content providers selected by distributors, most of these new media technologies allow consumers to get information directly from 3rd party sources. iTunes, for example, let's anyone with an audio or video podcast submit it to their directory for potential consumption by consumers. But only the best, most creative, most valuable content gets regularly downloaded and enjoyed.

As I bang out this blog entry on my Macbook, I'm excited about what the future might hold for converged media. Today's announcements marked another big step.

Now if only I can figure out how to convince my wife to spring for these new devices.

The writing is on the wall (and in this blog). The traditional news media is in decline and even the affable cuteness of Katie Couric can't stop it. So where are the citizens of the future going to get their information? Who is going to be the next Walter Cronkite who will keep them informed of the events impacting their world.

How about Bart Simpson? Or Lara Croft? Or maybe SpongeBob SquarePants?

According to a recent story in the Wall St. Journal, a new online show called "News at Seven" is allowing viewers to choose their news and their newscaster, too. This service utilizes an automated computer program to comb online news outlets and combine them with visuals from Google and YouTube to create personal newscasts for users who choose the topics they are most interested in. They can also select an avatar to deliver the news and the backgrounds they stand in front of.

Although this new news channel is in its infancy, imagine the possibilities. While you are at work all day, your own virtual news crew is assembling segments on topics that are specially chosen just for you. When you come home, you turn on the screen anytime you want and your handpicked avatar delivers these highly relevant stories in a style and tone customized for your eyes and ears. Maybe an animated Laker Girl tells you about the day in sports. Or a virtual Donald Trump relays the day's business news. Or maybe the newscaster looks just like you!

So in 50 years, we may not need Matt Lauer anymore becuase we will all have our own "Today" shows -- personalized just for us. The ratings might be low (an audience of one) but the whole world could be watching.

Just as the PR industry is beginning to figure out how to integrate bloggers into campaigns for their clients, new channels are emerging that may have even more potential than blogs – online TV. Thanks to the growing popularity of YouTube and other video sites, 15.5% of US households are now watching internet video compared to 9.4% who are buying and downloading music files. Across all age groups, watching internet video is significantly more popular than reading blogs. And in the over-25 crowd, it beats social networking as the primary online activity other than email.

A number of companies are taking advantage of this trend by launching online television networks. The March 19th edition of BusinessWeek notes that N3, Next New Networks, launched six channels in March on subjects from “sewing to comics.” Founded by veterans of MTV and AOL, the network hopes to launch 100 “super-niche” web channels.

Further along in its development, Diggnation attracts hundreds of thousands of viewers along with 15 corporate sponsors who pay $10,000 per episode, according to Business 2.0. For 45 minutes, the two 30-something hosts discuss the latest tech gadgets, often plugging their favorite products.

Another ready-to-launch web service called Joost has compiled 2,000 hours of copyright-protected programming to appeal to young males with content including extreme sports and shark videos. Michael Eisner’s latest venture, Veoh also plans to offer a niche series like Fearless Cooking, Triathlete TV and Wine Library TV.

Given the low cost of entry, we can expect to see hundreds of net TV offerings popping up in the next couple of years – all geared to highly-targeted audiences who are passionate about a specific topic. Imagine the opportunity for PR people when there are thousands of new broadcast outlets where they can place a product or a spokesperson. Compared to network TV, the viewership will be small but the potential will be enormous.

This week, news sites were abuzz with record label EMI's announcement that the company will remove digital rights management (DRM) protections from all of its music sold on the iTunes Music Store. These are the goodies that prevent you from playing your (paid-for) iTunes songs on your Microsoft Zune or burning your downloaded movies bought online to DVD to watch on your television instead of your PC.

And while EMI may be the first major label to heed Steve Jobs' call for less restrictive media, it certainly won't be the last. Expect other major labels to follow suit soon. Music is just the beginning.

Smart companies like EMI see what's happening in the world around them. Today's consumers have, in many cases, literally grown up with the Internet and the open exchange of ideas. Web 2.0, social networking sites like MySpace and "open source" software projects like Linux are all byproducts of society embracing idea exchange. By removing pesky DRM software from its digital music, EMI allows its customers to choose how, when and where they enjoy the music they've legally purchased, as well as what they do with it. Wonderfully "Company 2.0".

There's terrific upside for organizations that understand this new, open communication environment and embrace it. Instead of bringing suit against YouTube for copyright infringement in consumer submitted videos, smart media groups and their marketing teams see the benefits of consumers interacting with their properties and putting their collective marks on them. By removing restrictions and letting consumers do what they want with media, they expose far bigger audiences to their properties and can actually DRIVE interest, not cannibalize sales.

Remember this kid and the Nu Ma Nu Ma Dance?

Without his homemade video featuring that now infamous song, the band would've never made it to perform live on the Today Show. Or have their tune be hummed by the millions of people who saw that clip. And it's quite safe to assume they'd have sold far fewer albums.

Three cheers for EMI and Apple continuing to trust and embrace consumers.

A recent Rance Crane piece in Ad Age criticizes advertisers for failing to recognize the buying power of the 78 million-strong Baby Boomer set. He puts that spending power at $1.7 trillion and wonders what it will take for marketers to recognize that this audience has and spends money.

I've wondered the same thing. So I asked myself: Is it possible that marketers and media planners know something we don't know? Are there data that show that Baby Boomers, while richer and more numerous than their parents' generation, emulate those parents in terms of buying habits? Do they stay true to brands they've loved in the past? Are they less willing than younger people to try new ones?

If there is such research, I haven't seen it.

Wouldn't it make sense to find out the answers to these questions? Shouldn't marketers strive to understand if the 18-49 "sweet spot" they've been targeting for 40 years isn't quite as sweet as it used to be?

Baby Boomers are understandably perplexed and annoyed at being ignored by media planners and network execs, who seem slow to catch on to what seems obvious to many of us: Those over 50 may not be searching for a new brand of dishwashing soap, but is anyone, really? What they are buying are $1.7 trillion worth of new cars, appliances, shoes, vacation spots, sunglasses, TVs, phones, deck furniture, purses, jewelry and this year's fashions. The same stuff that everyone else is buying, only more of it.

That doesn't mean that the same rules of marketing should apply to Boomers and non-Boomers alike. But it probably does mean that someone is missing an opportunity to make $1.7 million.

Smart marketers won't guess or presume about marketing's impact or lack thereof on Baby Boomers. They'll find out.

Ellen Ryan Mardiks
Chief Client Officer
Worldwide Director, Marketing & Brand Strategy Practice GolinHarris
111 E. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60601
t 312.729.4333
f 312.729.4031

emardiks@golinharris.com

These days, professional communicators are scurrying to become more conversant in the emerging channels audiences use to get news and information. The sheer number of focused news sources -- no matter what the topic in which you have interest -- is enough to make a PR pro's head spin.

In this increasingly atomized media landscape, PR practitioners can't live without an understanding of how, where and why specific groups of people get information. We have to have working knowledge of the channels and sources constituents rely upon to formulate opinions in order to tell our organizations' stories in a relevant way. As in ages past, it all comes down to trust.

Earlier this year, the GolinHarris Dialogue integrated media team launched a new ongoing research initiative called "TMI" -- the Trusted Media Index. The effort is aimed at helping GH teams and our clients keep tabs on the choices narrowly defined audiences make for getting specific information about particular topics. And to understand how those choices change over time.

While this research was originally intended as an internal learning tool -- one of many we use to understand audiences -- we want to share some basic findings from our initial survey. Scroll down for a link to download an introductory whitepaper.

We fielded an initial consumer opinion survey of nearly 1,100 US citizens and asked a flurry of questions about media consumption habits and their viewpoints of specific information sources. We explored sentiment across 10 different modes of communication spanning traditional/mainstream media, digital and social media, direct experience and word of mouth.

GH developed a comparative index (think Consumer Confidence Index) to give us an apples-to-apples comparison of trust for 10 unique information source categories. We defined trust as the sum of reliance, confidence in, present/future use and value of each information source.

Click here to view a small chart with TMI summary data.

For each of these information sources, we also determined what's driving their trust -- literally, why someone selects a particular type of news source for information on a particular topic.

The research is most useful when it's sliced and diced far beyond traditional demographic subsets into smaller groups with specific interests. Understanding the characteristics of Internet forums which attract working moms who seek health and wellness information. Or knowing, for example, why a senior may choose print newspapers for financial news over online sources -- despite having a broadband connection at home.

A few headlines from our study as it relates to all Americans:

There is no substitute for personal experience. Despite the flurry of new mediated information sources (more magazines, more television channels, more online-only news sites, etc.), most Americans still trust most what's in closest proximity: their own experience. Direct experience remains the most trusted source of information for virtually every demographic group, for every major topic of information. In PR, these valued experiences might come in the form of a mobile tour or sampling program.

Word of Mouth is strong. WOM allows individuals to "borrow" the direct experience of others and ranks as the second most trusted information category in our study. Recommendations from friends and family have always been influential, but the Internet's ability to let individuals self publish, share, and search for opinions with unprecedented ease has made WOM even more powerful and trusted than ever before.

Companies which embrace consumer dialogue and provide easy tools to spread the word will continue to see benefits from positive word of mouth. If you're selling consumer electronics products online, for example, think about sending your loyal customers a link to a review site to encourage positive feedback.

Online media has come of age. One of the more surprising findings of our initial research is the relative strength of dedicated online media such as CNET, WebMD and iVillage. It's now more trusted by most Americans more than every major mainstream media category, outpacing radio, television, newspapers and magazines (including their related online Web sites).

Much of online media's trust comes from familiarity -- people now have enough experience using the Internet that it's become a reliable, valuable channel. The tipping point for online media has been reached and it's now regarded as a "mainstream" information source.

Communications programs without a dedicated online media strategy miss a major opportunity to reach audiences in a highly trusted channel.

Radio is the most trusted "mainstream" media channel. While trust in all traditional media channels appears to be in decline overall, radio (including podcasts, streaming audio and satellite radio) shows relative strength compared to other mainstream news sources.

We believe this is due in part to radio's quick shift to portable and on demand formats. Some of the most popular podcasts, for example, are simply time-shifted radio news programs which allow consumers to listen on their own time, on their own terms.

Social and collaborative media channels show promise for the future. When asked about future trust, social media showed the biggest gains among US respondents. Internet forums, social networks and blogs were all touted as more highly trusted channels for the future. Today, trust in these channels is relatively low overall, though markedly higher for influencer groups (more on this in a moment).

Trust in a media source is determined by many factors, but familiarity is one of the most fundamental. As individuals become more comfortable and experienced in collaborative online news environments, their trust will surely grow. Communicators who gain experience communicating ethically through these channels now are making investments in their future ability to reach taste-makers.

Influencers are news junkies. One of the small subsets we examined was a group we call "ProActives" -- that is, individuals who have demonstrated through action their propensity to get involved and share their opinions with wide audiences. Compared to the general population, these influencers relied more heavily on a myriad of channels, aggressively seeking out new perspectives on topics of interest. They're well-versed in social media, too, allowing them to share their ideas with others more readily.

Companies who want to reach these folks need to do it consistently across virtually all channels -- and not take a myopic approach focusing on just a few information sources. Because Proactives compare, contrast and evaluate differing opinions, it's critical to ensure your organization's message is communicated universally.

If you'd like a deeper dive into the Trusted Media Index, download a primer by clicking here.

To learn more about our research, or to better understand media trust for a specific audience, contact Jeff Beringer at:

Jeff Beringer
GolinHarris
p 972.341.2508
e jberinger@golinharris.com

In the future, we'll be publishing insights about more narrowly-defined groups and their most trusted sources of information. GH will be fielding fresh TMI surveys, too, allowing us to report on changes in media trust over time.

Last week, we shared a few top line findings from GolinHarris' initial Trusted Media Index survey.

Today, I read another new study from McKinsey & Company focusing on related themes. It's worth a look. (Available HERE as a free download for registered users.)

In their article titled, "What Consumers Want from Online News," McKinsey's authors compare and contrast how different audience groups consume news from multiple media sources, and in multiple formats.

While McKinsey spends a fair bit of time focusing on digital media, the takeaway isn't myopic: different audiences consume information in very different ways -- not just online or offline.

The implication? Thinking big in communication today is more about thinking small and understanding the subtly nuanced ways micro-groups within your target audience get information. One-size-fits-all consumer targeting and mass marketing is becoming less and less effective.

What McKinsey found -- also echoed in our own Trusted Media Index research -- is that today's audiences gobble up information from scores of different sources. They call it "media promiscuity" -- the idea that there is little loyalty to a particular media outlet, and that audiences increasingly compare and contrast news from a variety of sources. We found exactly the same thing with our research, particularly when we examined media trust of influencer groups. Tastemakers who share frequently with peers are news junkies and rely on a multitude of sources to formulate their opinions.

In McKinsey's study, the majority of survey respondents reported dividing time between 12-16 different news sources each week. These are largely "mediated" sources and don't take into account first-person information sources such as direct experience and word of mouth. Add those into the mix and the number of places most Americans look for counsel and news grows to a remarkably high number.

McKinsey's paper wisely posits that a well-built news aggregation product -- which pulls together information from a variety of sources news seekers choose -- will be highly valued in the future. We're already seeing the underpinnings of this, with great news aggregation services like Google News and Adobe Labs' "MyFeedz" social newspaper already available.

As consumer control over what we watch, listen and read increases, so too must our understanding of how, where, and why audiences ferret out news from different sources. Communicators must become conversant in each of these channels to remain relevant and influential.

Pick up a newspaper these days (or visit the online equivalent) and you can't miss the interest of marketers in social networks. Connected communities represent another venue for driving discussion on topics of interest among like-minded individuals. And tapping into self-identified passion points.

But there's a downside, too, to the new layer of accessibility online social networks provide. When social connections are treated like "mass marketing" channels and the individual is ignored, communicators can actually do damage to the reputations of those they represent and the issues they wish to advance.

Today, for the first time, I "defriended" someone on Facebook. This is a story I've shared with my own team at GolinHarris as an example of what we must avoid within social networks.

Here's what happened:

A month or so ago, a marketing consultant (to remain unnamed) "befriended me" on Facebook. I had spoken to him electronically on a few occasions, we're members of some common industry groups, though we'd never met in person or shook hands.

Over the past few weeks, I (and I suspect many more of his 800+ "friends") received emails urging us to join a Facebook Group surrounding an issue a client he represents seeks to advance. It is a fairly generic notice encouraging people to join the online group and apply pressure to elected officials. It's one of many campaigns he's been promoting online for his clients.

The cause he's supporting isn't the sticking point-- in fact, it's a positive effort relating to the environment -- rather, it's the way he tries to mobilize people around the topic that's all wrong.

Social networks can unearth many deep insights about individuals. One look at your profile can reveal the company you keep (via networked "friends"), your personal interests, hobbies and passion points. When actually considered, these insights can help facilitate incredibly tailored communication with individuals who are likely (by their own self descriptions) to actually care about a topic.

But when these clues aren't considered, communication can quickly become unwelcome and ineffective, particularly in more "personal" touch points such as Facebook. This individual goofed by ignoring specific clues on my profile to let him know how to tailor his communication and help make a determination if such a message was even relevant to me. Facebook, for example, lets users share descriptors of their political affiliations....and I wondered: did he even bother to see what my views may be before blast e-mailing? Did he see if I was already involved with related groups?

There was no evidence of it from his note. Instead of focusing on reaching the *right* eyeballs he was focused on reaching *many* eyeballs.

His time (and his client's money) would be better spent identifying people who have a clear passion for the environment and this specific topic, evidenced through their own self-penned profiles and their involvement in related groups. These folks are more likely to welcome his message and could take action to spread the word about this topic.

Marketers who wish to build support for causes or their own brands within social networks should always consider basic tenants of "influencer" relations:

* Pay attention to the individual
* Try to understand his or her personal interests
* Examine group affiliations and participation
* Read and watch what he or she has said about this topic in the past
* Only communicate if your content is reasonably relevant, timely, and potentially valuable

It's the same advice PR pros hear from other influencers like "mainstream" media and a growing chorus of citizen journalists. The best communicators build relationships by doing their homework, reading or watching the individual's work, and exercising good judgment when pitching a story or sending a message asking for support.

Within social media in particular, personalization isn't optional -- it's a prerequisite. The upside is that most networks make it easy to understand each individual's motivations, if you do the homework.

For now, I'll have to find a way to live with the gaping hole on my buddy list. But I sure won't miss all that junk mail.

Steve Jobs knows how to throw a party.

No, not that Steve Jobs. This one.

We often talk about the value of word of mouth in public relations and the ways marketers can engage their most loyal customers to create excitement. And over the past decade, few brands have tapped the enthusiasm of its customers like Apple. But what's the company's secret sauce?

With typical pomp and circumstance, this past weekend Apple released the latest version of its OS X operating system -- Leopard. Reports indicate the company sold more than 2 million copies in three days, making OS 10.5 the most successful software launch in the brand's history. And at $129 per single user copy, that translates into better than a quarter of a billion dollars of cash.

So what's Apple doing right?

Last Friday, I got a glimpse of Apple's marketing magic firsthand. I ventured out early that evening to my local mall in hopes of grabbing my own copy of Leopard on the way home from the office. What I didn't know is what I'd encounter when I got there.

Nearly two hours later, I walked out with my copy and a better appreciation of what makes the Apple machine tick.

The atmosphere was a little bit like standing in queue for World Series tickets. Self-professed MacAddicts were lining up adorned in apparel from previous product launches. There were the iPhone t-shirts. The OS X Tiger (the last operating system) launch party gear. And I swear I spied one brandmark tattoo.

A young man standing in front of me -- an early adolescent no older than 13 -- sat indian-style on the ground with a Powerbook in his lap, continuously refreshing Apple.com's countdown ticker to Leopard's availability, while clutching a well-worn iPhone in his left hand. He was texting scores of friends and planning his own ad hoc launch party for later that evening when he planned to install the new software at home.

As the Apple Store staff worked the lines chatting up customers and handing out bottled water, they singled him out by name and expressed their gratitude that he was there.

It was clear this was the "connection" marketers dream about building with their customers.

Lots of things contribute to Apple's ongoing success, but here are three which helped Leopard get off to a running start this week:

*Keeping it simple. The new operating system is said to include more than 300+ new features and enhancements, but just 10 are touted heavily in publicity efforts, advertising and even product packaging. While innovation runs deep, Apple doesn't complicate things by promoting every single improvement.

As passers-by stopped to inquire about the growing line outside the Apple Store last Friday night, customers there found it easy to explain the excitement, and relate a few innovative features that made Leopard worth their wait.

A quick look at Apple's Web site illustrates the focused nature of the company's communication. Laundry lists of improvements are hard to find, while simple explanations of a few key technologies (complete with narrated demos) show practical benefits in consumer-speak.

Even the product itself is sold in a more streamlined way than its competition. While Microsoft offers its Vista OS in four different versions -- each with different features and price points-- Apple released a single consumer version of Leopard for all. This "streamlining" makes it much easier to absorb information and spread the word. (To see the contrast yourself, check out the Vista information page, turn away from the screen, and try to recount even a few basic features.)

*Recognizing and rewarding the most loyal. The first few dozen customers in line received commemorative Leopard T-shirts. And the full Apple Store staff welcomed them in, complete with pats on the back and words of thanks. Simple freebies like water bottles while you're waiting in line and interaction with store staff go a long way and show customers they're valued.

There's evidence Apple is now rewarding loyalists by embracing the "consumer generated" media of its fan base, snatching up "fanvertising" created on YouTube to become formal ads for its products.

*Creating personal connections. The Apple Store is a huge component in creating "personal" relationships with the brand. Its Genius Bars allow anybody with a question to come in and chat with an expert and get one-on-one attention. And in my experience, the folks staffing these desks aren't just technically-sound employees, they're brand fanatics, too. Their enthusiasm is contagious, and their customer service is, by most accounts, great.

The young man in line ahead of me was aglow when one of the Apple Store employees singled him out and took a few seconds to chat. That personal touch cannot be replaced by any other kind of communication or marketing. And it's something that will bring him back for the next launch of whatever-Steve-has-up-his-sleeve.

While this was quite a detour from my planned Friday activities, it was a great opportunity as a marketer to see brand building up close. And learn a few ways that Apple stays "connected" to its consumers.

By now many people have heard of Randy Pausch, the professor who recently gave his "Last Lecture" at Carnegie Mellon University. Apparently, last lectures are quite common in Academia but what made this one so unique is that Professor Pausch was dying of Pancreatic cancer and only had a few months to live.

He confesses at the end of his optimistic and uplifting presentation that the main reason he agreed to do it was so his young children would someday in the future be able to know more about their dad. To that end, he made sure the school taped it and gave him a copy of the disc.

That wasn't really necessary. As of today, more than 2 million people have viewed his 75 minute lecture, complete with Power Point slides, on You Tube. That number rises to over 6 million when you include the abridged version. In fact, he became so famous on the internet that Hyperion Books published an expanded version of his story, which is already a national bestseller.

I don't know how long his video will appear on You Tube but I can say for certain that his children are going to have a very famous father. And no one is probably more surprised about what has happened than Randy Pausch. I doubt he ever envisioned that his final visit to the classroom would become a cultural phenomenon. And a few years ago it wouldn't have. Today the internet is an archive not only for the immediate family but for the whole human family. I suspect that a generation from now, Randy Pausch's grandchildren will be able to log on from their cellphones and listen to a few inspiring words from their Grandfather. This Last Lecture will last for a very long time.

My wife often tells me I talk too much.

She jokes about my constant phone calls, texting, emailing, instant messaging, video chatting, etc., to communicate with friends, family and colleagues. Even during "down time" in the evenings long after our son has gone to bed, I'm catching up with others from coast to coast.

"Shut down, already, honey!" she frequently asks.

I've always been the kind of guy who loves good conversation, and technology has only made it easier. The only problem is, I now find myself wasting precious time "syncing up" my digital life across multiple properties to share similar information with different groups of people.

If I upload a terrific photo of my son to Facebook, a good portion of my family won't see it because they aren't signed up. And if I email that photo just to family members, close friends might miss it.

As digital communications tools and properties have evolved, they've done so largely "disconnected" from one another. The information you share online usually doesn't move across all your personal online touch points, as you create it. Basic syndication goodies like RSS have helped, but it's only been a rudimentary first step.

This week ends with some encouraging news. MySpace and Facebook have each announced new initiatives to help make the information you post on their properties more portable, and more easily shared across the many tools and channels which represent you online.

Yesterday, Myspace shared news of its wide embrace of data portability and special deals with Yahoo!, eBay, and Twitter to help make digital omnipresence a bit more possible.

And today, Facebook followed suit, announcing "Facebook Connect", a set of tools, enhancements and standards which will allow consumers to share their identity, content, friends and privacy preferences with other 3rd party Web properties.

This is a big deal for professional communicators for a couple reasons:

1.) It's removing another barrier from posting content, sharing ideas and exchanging information online. I have plenty of friends who have shied away from social communications tools because they think of them as too rigid with limited reach. That's beginning to change. Expect advances like these to stimulate even more digital dialogue by the masses, not just the "geek" crowd.

2.) The voices of individuals gain even more potential to build brands or tear them down. If you've had a bad experience at a restaurant and share it on your social networking page, data portability might also allow your quip to appear as a restaurant review on Yahoo! Local (if you permit it). The same goes for raves. Word of mouth can travel farther, and even faster than it does today!

I'm excited by the convenience and time savings these advances may bring. Who knows? With all this extra free time, maybe I'll be able to heed my wife's call to disconnect some night soon.

2008 has clearly been the year for China to be featured daily in the global media. The intensive coverage began on a positive note months back as the Olympic fever began, but then turned fairly negative as protestors targeted the Olympic torch relay as it crossed the globe to air concerns on various China domestic matters, most notably Tibet. It's been interesting to read the global media coverage compared to the domestic Chinese media coverage on both of these key events. To hear both sides of the story has been fascinating. This is the kind of stuff which doctoral students live for, and I'm sure someone is already writing that thesis right now.

Sadly, though, China is now dominating the global news once again but this time following this week's devastating earthquake in Western China. As I write, the death toll is reaching nearly 15,000 but we all are braced for the reality that this toll will dramatically increase in the hours and days to come.

Unlike SARS, there does not seem to be debate on how open the Chinese media have been during this tragedy. In fact, it's in many ways been a demonstration of how far China has really progressed. Within an hour of the disaster, President Hu Jintao had called for all-out rescue efforts. By early evening, Premier Wen Jiabo had already arrived in Sichuan province. Premier Wen Jiabo then visited those areas not simply for photo opportunities but to ensure the rescue work was progressing and he was personally comforting victims, in particular children. In respect of the tragedy, the Olympic Torch relay was scaled back and donations collected along the route. Further, China readily welcomed offers of international aid, not as a sign of weakness to accept help but in the spirit that any and all help is appreciated.

For global critics of Chinese journalism, it would be interesting to hear how they now regard China's openness. Since the tragedy struck, China has been delivering comprehensive coverage of the tragedy and essentially giving international media free reign to cover the aftermath. While the world's sympathy is with China today, one would expect questions soon to follow regarding building safety standards, food and water supplies and other matters. But China isn't focused on potential criticism today, it's focused on saving lives right now. One would expect China to receive high marks with freedom of the press for this disaster. In fact, some readers of international media have already complained about the graphic images of the dead. A number of readers in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post described the front page images of dead children's bodies as highly inappropriate – one reader said “I was saddened and horrified to be confronted with the graphic and frankly gratuitous image of dead children's bodies on the front page…”

Though these are difficult stories to read and images to see, it's critical that the world see the devastation in detail… and in the process, a different side of the Chinese people's hearts and souls. It's also important to look at the actions of the central government and local authorities who have acted with great care and speed during the nation's hour of need. Without question, the media have been able to document every step.

For once, global community, let's applaud China's press… no one could have been more open or accommodating than they have been since their worst earthquake in over a generation.