With election campaigns getting under way I still believe this. If only the political parties did.

It’s not that they’re ignoring social media but at the moment it’s all a bit style over substance.

They appear to be falling into the trap currently occupied by a lot of businesses and organisations who have also “done” social media in recent times but not really got anywhere with it.

The problem is that like others who complain that social media isn’t working, they are focusing more on the channel rather than REALLY thinking about the content.

A common problem with a lot of social media marketing at the moment is that there is too much focus on the channel – the technology and the means of distribution like Facebook, Twitter, iPhone app and so on.

This is probably because the very genre is defined by the channel – the media.

Which is why a lot of organisations think they’ve “done” social media just because they have a Twitter account or an iPhone app.

But the channel is only a conduit. It’s what is sent and distributed via that channel that holds the key to success. Content, purpose, targeting and resource must be well planned to maximise engagement.

For example, last week the Tory party launched its very own Conservative Party iPhone app.

So cool.

Well actually not quite so much. It’s really a mini-brochure with a few little questionable tools built in, like its swing-o-meter showing election results as they come in. Which will be useful for about 12 hours tops on the night.

The detail on its policies is informative but it’s basically their manifesto in condensed, digital format. For more comment, read Mobsessed’s opinion about the Tory app, it’s good stuff.

And this week we saw the launch of the Labour Party’s social media campaign.

This is much more interesting, using opinions expressed through social media and on the doorstep to “inform” their social media activity. I have no idea what “inform” actually means here though. There’s no clue as to what they will do with all this content.

They’ve also given social media training to key campaign staff. The problem again is that it all feels very token-like. Time will tell.

It’s not all negative. There are some great examples of local and national party activists, party members, MP’s and councillors who really do understand it.

But so far no party has an obvious centralised social media strategy bringing together and mobilising all campaigners to truly listen to and engage with the public and key influencers.

What I’m really talking about here is online PR, and as far as I can see it’s here they are missing an opportunity.

Where is their online PR strategy? How are they creating and resourcing active social media engagement on a daily basis with online citizens: individuals, communities, influencers, bloggers, tweeters, publications and so on?

I can’t see any of that happening on a scale akin to Obama in the US for example.

Maybe it’s coming, or already happening. But I can’t see it, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Online PR is a great way of approaching the task in hand because it diverts attention from the channel, Twitter, the iPhone app or whatever to the meat of the matter – the content, community engagement and the direct conversation.

When the main parties get their head around the fact that this is what social media is about then they may see some success from it in terms of influencing opinion and voting intention.

As things stand, the general public are likely to see through token gestures and do what they normally do when it comes to politics – switch off.

Just as it should in other areas of politics, with social media it’s substance, not style, which holds the key to success.

Last week saw the blogosphere speculate that Twitter’s meteoric growth might finally be ending.

According to web monitoring company, Compete, traffic to the micro-blogging website has flat-lined, suggesting its world dominance may not be so assured.

Quantcast’s numbers told the same story. Since its peak at 29.2 million users in July09, Twitter traffic has dropped down to 23.6 million U.S. unique visitors, a loss of nearly 24%!

But before the social media sceptics start celebrating by regurgitating theories on the faddish nature of social networks and the vacuous nature of their inhabitants, it is important to know a couple of things.

Firstly, unlike other social networks, Twitter is not popular with teenagers. It is this age group that is notorious for migrating from one network to another.

Teens don’t tweet.

Possibly because it requires brevity, but more likely because it requires an understanding of what might actually be interesting to other people!

Younger users may have simply got bored with Twitter and its many shortcomings as a chat room or perhaps realised it is full of grumpy old people like me.

But those of us who don’t use it as a chat room have found increasing ways to share content, galvanise public opinion and exact social media revenge on bad customer service.

(Oh – and it’s great for slagging off the X Factor too).

Secondly, we need to remember that there are “lies, damn lies and website statistics”. A fall in traffic to Twitter’s own websites could simply mean that more tweeters have migrated to using phone and desktop applications; a sign that the Twittersphere is evolving, not retracting.

Frankly, it is the basic functionality of Twitter’s own site that leads many a debutant tweeter to give up before accumulating enough followers to make it rewarding.

We may well see the site transformed in 2010 as it is widely rumoured that this is the year that Twitter intends to monetise its success – perhaps sick of the jokes about it knowing how to spend money but not make it.

In fact, Twitter is reported to be hiring new developers to help transform the site into a commercial entity.

But stories about its negative growth won’t help this course.

However, if there are truly less people using Twitter than before, it must be because it is transforming from a place where narcissists and their voyeurs can meet, to a more credible news and opinion sharing platform.

Perhaps the Tweeters are separating from the Chavs?

It’s easy to see how search engine optimisation (SEO) could affect the ancient art of grabbing readers attention, but will it really lead to the death of the creative headline?

It’s true Google’s indexing robots don’t have a sense of humor and unlike humans, cannot be shocked, or mislead by ambiguity into reading an article.

For instance, it is hard to explain to a robot why “Headless body found in topless club” ( NY Post 1983) is generally regarded as the best headline of all time!

The fact is that to gain readership, the BBC, like other online news providers need their articles to be found in search engines and that mandates them having more ‘accurate’ headlines.

But does accurate necessarily mean boring?

Well for SEO purposes, a headline should contain the keywords that people might use to search for such content, which can lead to longer and descriptive sentences being used than in print.

Sadly, pun headlines such as The Sun’s classic “Gord Help Us Now” just won’t cut the search mustard for identifying an article as being about Gordon Brown online.

The good news, for some, is that misleading headlines such as “WW2 bomber found on moon” (Sunday Sport) will still work as well today as they did in 1982.

But should the BBC worry so much about how they head their articles?

Although article headings are important for SEO, there are other ways to target potential searchers.  Using tags and categories for instance, or creating keyword rich excerpts, separate to the article body, works too.

And let’s not forget SEO isn’t the only way to gain readership.

While creative headline writing, might be on the decline for traditional media websites, it’s never been more essential for gaining audiences in the attention deficit land know as social media.

Creating a tweet, catchy enough to entice people to read a blog, in less than 140 characters, while still leaving room for the blog link, is an identical skill.

(Having said that, Twitter content will soon be indexed by Google and Bing, so even our tweets will need SEO scrutiny soon).

But just in case “it’s all over” here are a few more of my favorite headlines:

1)   Plane Too Close to Ground, Crash Probe Told (unknown)

2)   Ike Beats Turner to Death (NY Post) – on the Death of Ike Turner

3)   Hawk Kestrel Maneuvers in the Park (Daily Mail) – bird flock

4)   Singing Nuns in Drunk Suicide Pact – (Sun)

5)   Freddy Starr Ate my Hamster (Sun)

6)   Man Found Dead in Graveyard  (Evening Standard)

7)   Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge (unknown)

Why not add your favorites below?

1. Launch another attack on Google (Microsoft)

2. Charge for access to content (News Corp)

Two birds with one stone huh.

And from a business perspective it’s almost an obvious move – a match made in heaven (or, if you like, hell).

But this unholy alliance is seriously troubling. Why?

Because it threatens the whole credibility of search, as it has evolved. Google has, to its credit, worked hard to ensure that natural search results are based on merit – not on how much publishers are willing to pay them.

So what’s in it for Microsoft and big publishers like Murdoch? Joseph Tartakoff, in The Guardian yesterday, summed up the spoils for the victors :

“…not only would Microsoft presumably be giving the content of its partners better play, it would also be paying to ensure that their content could not be found directly via the search engine of its arch-rival.”

Should we really be bothered? Douglas McCabe, publishing analyst at Enders Analysis suggests we should perhaps take a chill pill:

“It doesn’t work unless they [Microsoft] get enough people involved”.

But Microsoft is on the case.

TechCrunch has reported that Microsoft have made presentations to major publishers (not just News Corp) setting out their proposition: we will pay you, the content owners, to de-list your content from Google, in exchange for priority listings on Bing.

But if Microsoft are trying to attack Google where it really hurts (their wallet) then they might have to think again.

Google earns virtually no revenue at the moment from news content on Google News, so no great loss there. In fact a recent study in Germany on google.de found that removing publishers’ content had a negligible economic effect for Google.

But lest we forget our old mate the Murdochosaurus.

The loser (money aside) could well be Murdoch. The removal of News Corp content from Google, and the consequent loss of exposure for their brands, will only mean more traffic and visibility for their competitors.

Take the UK, where nearly every one of us use Google – is the loss of The Times or The Sun from Google really going to make us use Bing instead?

Most of us won’t even notice it’s gone!

But, as Tartakoff says:

“For the newspapers… the question is whether Microsoft’s dollars can make up for the loss of traffic that Google generates for them.”

All of this, of course, totally removes the end consumer from the equation.

Microsoft might increase Bing’s market share and Murdoch might be satisfied with some cash from Microsoft – but what about us?

My hunch is that if we are wise to the fact that search results in Bing are based on cash rather than credibility, we’ll stick with Google who we already love and trust.

Or maybe there is a benefit, as one comment by GinSter highlighted in The Guardian yesterday:

“I hope this happens. Google – now with free Murdoch blocker…brilliant.”

The reality is that it could work to achieve short term objectives for Microsoft and the big publishers, but over the long term Microsoft’s strategy kind of stinks.

And as for Murdoch, well it seems to me that he put his stake in the ground earlier this year by saying he was going to put a paywall around all his content – paid for by us, the end consumer.

Since then, perhaps he’s realised it’s not quite as easy as all that and is now desperately hunting for a viable alternative.

And Microsoft have seized on this desperation and offered what looks like a very crude solution that we should care about – especially if more publishers do get involved and this is just the start of a wider trend.

Since last August, Mr Murdoch has been threatening to charge for access to The Sun and Times Online by erecting a so-called ‘paywall’ around the online versions of his publications.

Read: Simon Heath‘s blog Murdoch on the defensive (6/08/2009) for background.

So why has he not done so yet?

The question is – given so many free alternatives, the BBC and Google News for instance, will people stump up the cash? Even Mr Murdoch is not sure of the answer.

The likely scenario is that if a paywall goes up, no one will visit the sites and advertisers, the major source of News Corps’s revenue, will go elsewhere.

The crux of the matter is this: old-fashioned newspaper moguls are used to having their cake and eating it.

Back in Jurassic era, they could monetise news and monetise audiences at the same time. They charged their subscribers for content then sold them, or at least their attention, to advertisers.

The industry blames tight consumers for not wanting to pay for “quality” journalism, but perhaps they have just wised up to this double wammy.

I personally think paying £30 a month for Sky Sports to watch England play cricket is a bit steep. But then to be subjected to an advert between every over is taking the mickey.

Murdoch understandably hates the BBC because they don’t have to make this choice between subscribers and advertisers. They don’t need advertisers because UK law makes anyone who owns a television their subscribers.

His gripe against Google is even more understandable, they being the rather large cuckoo that has taking over his media nest. But to prevent people from finding his content via search engines would decimate traffic to his websites and devalue their advertising real-estate.

No, the only way Murdoch can safely put up a paywall and bar Google, is if all his competitors do so at the same time and that is unlikely to happen.

Related links : Anna Blackaby – Problem with great paywall of News International

Update: 19-Nov-2009

Seems Rupert hasn’t taken my advice – further plans for the Murdoch paywall have been revealed according to Brand Republic article.

However, how many people do you know would be prepared to pay £1 a day to access the Times Website ?

Actually what am I saying, the woman deserves no sympathy. This is she who wrote an article in Friday’s Daily Mail, sensitively titled “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death”.

Cutting to the chase, she concluded that Gately died of being gay – a terrible ‘unnatural’ lifestyle, his death being confirmation of this and that all gay marriages end in disaster, and quite possibly – death.

I won’t get into personal opinion any further you’ll be pleased to hear (however, read Charlie Brooker’s view for a particular angle!).

This story vividly highlights the effectiveness of social networking for galvanising public opinion towards particular issues, in this case homophobia and bad journalism!

More specifically, it demonstrates the power of Twitter not only as a platform for creating campaign content, but also as a channel and mechanism for distributing it.

Within hours on Friday “Jan Moir” and #janmoir were both rocketed to the top of the trending topics on Twitter, and stayed there almost all weekend.

How did this happen?

I can explain it as social media and online PR in action: the result of the interactions of a combination of content creators and retweeters – individuals (you and I) and relevant influencers (bloggers, organisation reps and mainstream online media predominantly).

These individuals and influencers were sharing their retorts while retweeting others’ content at a ferocious pace. More and more people joined what, in effect, had become a focused and successful campaign against Moir.

Influencers like Stephen Fry and Giles Coren added explosive fuel to the campaign.

At one point, Fry retweeted a humourous comment by a blogger which immediately sent thousands of visitors to his website resulting in the said blogger asking Fry not to do it again as it crashed his server!!

The effect of even one influencer can be immense in social media, driving vast amounts of website traffic (as long as your IT can handle it!).

Mainstream online media lent a hand too, in particular The Guardian who were supremely fast to react, putting editorial about it online right as it was happening – creating yet more content to be commented on and retweeted.

Another feature of this campaign is how it evolved and diversified. It often went beyond the initial Moir article, turning heat on The Daily Mail itself for publishing it in the first place (and its record of homophobia, racism, xenophobia and so on).

At some point around midday on Friday a separate campaign evolved on Twitter and now on Facebook, targeting Daily Mail advertisers like BT and Marks & Spencer.

It was pointed out to these brands that they had display ads on the same webpage as Moir’s piece and so were aligning themselves with right-wing bigotry and they should do something about it. And guess what – they did.

And this is the crux of the matter.

This example could easily be interpreted (as social media has so often been in the past) as a flash in the pan. But this argument against social media is wearing thin these days, and this case study proves why.

It was actually Jan Moir herself who summed it up correctly on Friday (wait for it!).

Not in her original article (phew!) but in her virtually unrepentant response to the furore, she blamed the whole thing on a “heavily orchestrated internet campaign”. Well done Jan, it was indeed such a campaign and the results speak for themselves.

Today it has been revealed that The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has received 21,000 complaints about the article – that’s more complaints in ONE weekend than the PCC has received in the last five years! They are now investigating the matter.

Display advertising from some of the biggest brands in the UK was removed from the webpage. Even when the Mail desperately tried to claw something back by changing the headline of the online article, the advertisers stuck to their guns. (Great brand effect by the way, well done guys!)

The key features of this example are speed, content, opinion, engagement, interaction and of course influence – highlighting again that influence really does now live and breathe online.

friend has been appointed HDC’s social media and online PR agency for the life of this project, to maximise project coverage, generate ‘buzz’ and deliver a specific video content seeding campaign.

Research and strategy

The climate change audience is vast, ranging from the man on the street to campaigners to businesses to architects and on and on.

So first, friend carried out a research and strategy project to understand and define key audiences, influencers and channels, as well as the ‘rules of engagement’: conversation topics/themes and sentiments.

Social media and online PR campaigns

friend will develop social media and online PR activity to target key influencers and audiences to maximise coverage, conversation and buzz for the project.

Online Reputation Management

friend will be working with HDC to monitor the online space for conversations, mentions and interactions – spotting opportunities for HDC input or any negative voices we can rebut.

Measurement and reporting

On a monthly basis friend will be closely analysing and measuring all activity and results to ensure the activity is in line with the strategy.

Video seeding

friend are also working alongside HDC’s video production agency to deliver video content seeding activity.

I can see most employers embracing it as a fantastic new concept, despite get-mugs-to-work-for-free being a well-established business model!

But you wouldn’t expect the Guardian, with its socialist ideals, to engage in social exploitation, yet they seem to be giving crowdsourcing a go.

Instead of paying for professional photographers to cover last week’s 2009 Climate Camp, the Guardian setup a Flickr group to encourage people to upload their photos to document the event – I’d never heard of the event either!

We’ll assume it’s a bunch of hippies in tents, who need some Taser-wielding police action and possibly a death to raise their profile, but that’s enough free PR advice from me.

So is the Guardian’s journalistic crowdsourcing a breakthrough in democracy or simply a wage cutting exercise?

Given they are already at loggerheads with the National Union of Journalists for stopping the image reuse fees they paid photographers, I’m suspicious.

I personally never understood why when you bought a photograph, you couldn’t use it at liberty. Would you buy a chair if you had to pay a fee every time someone sat in it?  No, but I digress.

Citizen journalism, be it photographic or written in the form of a blog is an increasingly important part of the changing news landscape.  Although breaking news will often be distributed by Twitter and analysis delivered by the blogopshere, it is usually through traditional journalism that the initial story is unearthed.

In my mind, there is no question that society needs professional journalism, just how it will be funded in the digital age seems to be in doubt.

Paying for news online is an anathema that is unlikely to change.  However, charging for investigation, insight and expert opinion on that news is more likely to survive the social media revolution.

We also have to understand the difference between reporting news and investigative journalism. One documents news and the other makes it.

It may be possible to crowdsource the former using social networks, but almost certainly not the latter.

But hold on just a minute. In the words of another great drama queen, calm down dear.

In fact what Facebook are doing is changing their business model to include public content sharing, profile ‘fans’ and real-time search (these are the headline grabbers).

Is this a good thing?

It does sound a lot like Twitter doesn’t it – and this is exactly what’s caused the latest drama for social networking. Essentially it boils down to the “public versus private” content sharing debate and whether Facebook and Twitter can co-exist with similar features.

Privacy concerns are all abound but there are now arguments more specifically about who ‘owns’ private and public content sharing. Should Facebook be purist and stick to its roots in private content and leave Twitter alone to share content publicly? I think it’s time this debate moved on.

Facebook have been quick to address privacy concerns: these new features are optional and managed from the Privacy settings area – although it looks like new users will have to switch manually from public to private.

As with anything Facebook does these changes have been met with tremors of outrage and suspicion. What are they up to? Surely this proves once and for all they’re on a mission to destroy our human rights.

This time, however, it’s not just about privacy. It’s Facebook clearly trying to become more like Twitter that’s getting us hot under the collar. Is it a good or a bad thing?

There’s a good article by Mashable today balancing the argument for and against these changes but the results of their featured poll (at the time of writing) is less balanced: 21% say “Yes – this makes Facebook a better platform”; but 58% believe “No – Facebook should not be emulating Twitter”.

But why not? I can understand on some level. Clearly these changes – and particularly the introduction of a public content sharing model – are a significant shift for the Facebook we know and love.

The adoption of Facebook on such a massive scale has been because it has enabled people to connect with ‘friends’ not random strangers (like Myspace for example).

But since then the phenomenal rise of Twitter suggests that there is a huge demand for public content sharing. Why can’t the two co-exist in one social network like Facebook?

I personally see far more opportunity than threat with these changes. Facebook is simply evolving and responding to what our online behaviour suggests we actually want. There is a clear demand for private AND public content sharing and Facebook is stepping up.

Facebook is not going to kill off Twitter or vice versa. They can both thrive even with the crossover of features. They have distinct offerings, users and means of interaction.

For example, there are significant demographic variations between them currently. These changes to Facebook could help increase the use of public communication among a wider, younger audience, for example. This could further evolve the social media society I wrote about recently.

So I see this simply as Facebook responding to changes in the marketplace and developing its business model accordingly. No more drama.

And let’s not ignore the fact that there could be significant opportunities for businesses and brands if this works, especially bearing in mind that they already have a revenue model at Facebook.