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.

friend has created a jargon free online PR guide for busy MD’s.

“Thanks to social media, good public relations (PR) has never been more important for your business.

People now listen to each other rather than your advertisements; good corporate social responsibility has moved to the top of the political agenda and thanks to the blogosphere, everyone is now a publisher!”

Read more here The Reluctant MD’s Guide to Online PR

Who are you going to call?

Well, if you can’t get hold of Ghostbusters, there is always Wragge & Co!

The leading Birmingham law firm has setup a Cyber Tracing team to bring those heinous bloggers, who are hiding behind the anonymity of electronic communication, to justice.

Using their special powers, sorry, I mean UK legislation, to force ISPs to handover the real names behind the anonymous blogging accounts.

Well, if that sounds too expensive, you can always take the PR approach to online reputation management.

Most sensible people will always take a ranting blogger with a pinch of salt and if they are posting anonymously their credibility will be especially low.

Of course some bloggers are incredibly influential and cannot be ignored.

We can assess the influence of a blogger in many ways. The number of readers he/she has. Our the number of comments and contributors to their blog and perhaps most importantly the number of people linking to it.

If the latter is high, their blog might start to appear at the top of Google when people are searching for you – then it’s time to act.

Now let’s assume defamation has occurred. If they are telling the truth, better apologise and promise to do better in the future. However, unlike traditional media, inaccuracies can be corrected.

Leave a comment on the blog, pointing out the mistakes or offering a rebuttal wont require a visit to court.  Many bloggers will edit or update their post in the light of new information.

If you regard a blog as the start of a discussion or the beginning of a conversation, rather than a published work, suing under defamation laws seems less appropriate.

However, if a blogger refuses to publish your side of the conversation, perhaps it is time to call the team at Wragges!

Be warned, though, true online anonymity isn’t that hard to achieve, unless Wragges know something the serious crime squad and the anti-terrorism people at MI5 don’t.

And let’s not forget that, despite its many misuses, online anonymity is usually regarded as a good thing – ask anyone who lives in Iran for instance.

There’s so much going on but I’ve been watching (and waiting) in earnest to see who would be bravest in the social media space. After all, we all know that blogs and social networking sites are important spheres of influence. Indeed they are platforms for unprecedented freedom of speech so you’d think politicians would be embracing social media wholeheartedly.

But I’ve been disappointed. For me, the opportunity is obvious. Let’s imagine I’m an MP for a minute (only a minute mind!). Confidence and trust in MPs is at an all-time low and I drastically need to connect with my constituents and the general public. I need to explain myself, communicate my agenda and rebuild my reputation. So how do I win friends and influence people? Digital engagement is vital.

There are some encouraging signs and it’s clear that the Conservative Party is stealing a digital march on their rivals. They plough money into PPC (buying words related to MPs expenses), have dabbled in live blogging and are active on Twitter and Facebook. So far OK, but not groundbreaking. As for Labour and the Lib Dems, it’s pretty sporadic.

Worryingly fringe parties like the BNP and UKIP have been more effective in the online space in recent weeks.

A word of advice to all involved: you can’t just randomly tweet, quickly knock up a Facebook fan page, embarrass yourself on YouTube or write a blog or two and believe that’s what it takes. Social networking and online reputation management demands substance and a commitment to authenticity.

In the same way that many businesses have made the mistake of taking the ‘build it and they will come’ approach to social media, politicians must also understand that when all is said and done you’ve got to believe in your cause and communicate it honestly and transparently. Exhibit your integrity then they will come.

If businesses and brands have cottoned on to the power of social media then politicians and parties in the UK should also fully embrace it. Businesses know that their customers – through the powers of review, comment and recommendation – are calling the shots. Digital friends (and enemies) have the ability to make or break an idea, a product, a reputation, a business – and an MP.

By building their online relationships – friends, fans, followers, connections – through regular, honest, transparent and relevant conversation, MPs can start to rebuild their reputations and then, hopefully, deliver on their promises with more enthusiastic and solid support.

All said though, things may be at least moving in the right direction. Last week the Tories launched a campaign that is, as far as I can see, the most innovative use of social media in British politics. Ahead of the council and European elections the Tories created a Facebook application calling on supporters to “donate” their statuses allowing Party officers to automatically update supporters’ status with campaign messages.

Then on polling day itself the update became a direct rallying call from David Cameron. Good stuff.

This weekend Tom Watson, MP for West Bromwich East and fittingly Labour’s minister for digital engagement, resigned via Twitter having promised his followers they would always receive his news from him first.  Maybe he’ll start a trend!

And finally, in an opposite move this Saturday, Sadiq Khan, Labour MP for Tooting, announced his promotion to Transport Minister on Twitter. It’s believed to be the first time a British politician has used social networking to announce a high profile appointment.

So which Party is the bravest? Well none of them really though the Tories are clearly leading the charge to date.

With such a long way to go in the digital arena, it’s still a mystery to me why it’s taken so long for UK politicians to realise the full potential of social media after it played such a key role in Obama’s victory in the US.

But maybe – just maybe – the recent political turmoil will create a new culture with a new zeal for engagement through social media and digital channels.

And thanks to the internet, it’s not just those with big media budgets or the ability to convince journalists they’re telling the truth that can reach a mass audience.

Anyone can blog and tweet with impunity, leaving an interesting challenge for brands – how to manage their reputation online.

Because online chatter doesn’t upset shareholders while eating their cornflakes there is a temptation for businesses to just ignore bad PR online.

However, as Ryanair found out earlier this year, when it called all bloggers “lunatics”, it can easily spill into the national press.

But worse still, for an online business (remember – you can only buy Ryanair tickets online) their search results became tarnished with negative opinions of the airline, pushing their own online properties down the rankings.

Sure there are the laws of deformation and slander to protect the wrongly accused, but we’ve seen how effective the wig and quill brigade have been in the digital age.

You can sue a newspaper, but you can’t sue the entire blogopshere.

It is great that the internet has made good CSR mandatory and empowered the consumer to make and break brands, but what if online criticism is unfair?

The first challenge of Online Reputation Management (or ORM for those who like a good acronym) is to find out what is being said about your business.

It’s not just Google search results that matter. Social media is full of opinion formers, so monitoring the twittersphere and other networking sites is equally important.

Once identified, the goal is to turn critics into advocates with a little personal attention. A free flight and an apology might have been Ryanair’s best initial approach. Given the viral nature of social media, nipping any bad online PR in the bud is essential.

Evaluating the influence of critical bloggers is the next step. It’s often very obvious to the rest of the community when someone is grinding a personal axe – out and out rants by non-influential contributors may well need little or no official response.

Key influencers, on the other hand, might need a full rebuttal, as long as you’re sure you hold the moral high ground.  If you don’t then publicly recant and promise to try harder, as consumers like a company that listens and acts on what it hears.

It is common knowledge that when people have a good customer experience they only tell one person, but when they have a bad one, they tell at least ten.

But according to our old friend, ‘a recent survey’, this doesn’t seem to be true online.

By way of example, I must tell you never to stay at the Corus Hotel in Hyde Park.

I did last week and neither the heating nor shower worked.  But having now shared this negative experience with slightly more than ten people, I still haven’t logged in to tripadviser.com to leave a damning review.

It seems I’m not alone in not wanting to leave negative reviews on websites.

“,”

It is common knowledge that when people have a good customer experience they only tell one person, but when they have a bad one, they tell at least ten.

But according to our old friend, ‘a recent survey’, this doesn’t seem to be true online.

By way of example, I must tell you never to stay at the Corus Hotel in Hyde Park.

I did last week and neither the heating nor shower worked.  But having now shared this negative experience with slightly more than ten people offline, I still haven’t logged in to tripadviser.com to leave a damning review.

It seems I’m not alone in not wanting to leave negative reviews on websites.

The survey, commissioned by BazaarVoice, a company that specialises in facilitating online ratings, found that over 80% of all reviews written by UK customers online are positive. Now this surprises me!

Can the country that gave birth to Victor Meldrew really be so content?

I know as a nation we often accuse ourselves of not complaining enough, but that’s because we don’t like to create a fuss. Online we have the optional protection of anonymity and no onlookers to pass judgement.

According to one Antipodean nation, we are supposed to be pretty good at whingeing, so why do so few Poms do it online?

Perhaps it is because we are mostly happy with our online shopping experiences. Compared to retailing in the flesh, with all that trudging around busy stores and dealing with brain dead shop assistants, it’s a delight to transact online.

Maybe because online retailers know their services and products have to be top draw or customers will easily find other websites to buy from, that online shops attract mostly compliments?

Or is it that when it comes to product reviews, people are less inclined to admit they bought a lemon? Admitting they made a poor choice is hard, knowing they should have listened to the other punters and bought the top rated product instead.

According to BazaarVoice, whether they intend to buy online or off, online shoppers in the UK find other peoples’ ratings and reviews to be the most useful feature on retailers’ sites.

It seems we’re far more likely to trust complete strangers than the brand themselves.

This is why letting your consumers contribute to your own website is so important. User generated content (UGC) is critical to online success in the recommendation generation.

It is true that bad reviews can easily be deleted by site owners. Indeed companies like BazaarVoice offer moderating services to filter out abusive and other unconstructive contributions. But shrewd retailers will allow the ‘harsh but fair’ comments through as they give credibility to the positive ones.

Having consumer reviews and product rating is now almost a hygiene factor for online retailers.

The pinup boy of new media has recently become the laughing stock, of old media at least, for saying something stupid.

Last month, while launching Facebook’s new advertising platform ‘Beacon’, he declared that “”once every hundred years, media changes”" to a rather sceptical audience.

Now referred to as ‘Zuckerberg’s Law’, his formula has come back to haunt him.

He was referring to the birth of ‘Social Advertising’ and suggesting the dominant media of the future, well for the next 100 years at any rate, would be social networking sites – like his own.

But is Zuckerberg a visionary and does his law stand up to history?

Nick Carr at www.roughtype.com thinks Zuckerberg may be right.

He points out that every century, like clockwork, there has been a big change in media. Cave painting lasted a hundred years, and then there was smoke signalling, which also lasted a hundred years. And of course there was the hundred years of yodelling, and then came the printing press, which was invented almost precisely 100 years ago. And so forth and so on up to the present day, the day that Facebook picked up the 100-year torch and ran with it.

But perhaps he is taking Zuckerberg too literally.

We are indeed on the cusp a big change media consumption, as the ‘born digital’ generation, who don’t read newspapers, don’t watch TV and don’t listen to the radio, become the largest consumer group.

Zuckerberg’s sentiment may well be proven right, if not his timings.

Ever since the launch of Beacon, Zuckerberg has been under fire from all directions, including his valued Facebook users. Many petitioned that the Beacon system was invading their privacy and threatened to vote with their virtual feet.

When users shop online, Beacon tells friends and businesses what they looked at or bought. The problem is, sometimes you really don’t want your friends to know what you’ve been buying – a nasal hair remover for instance.

Beacon is particularly attractive to advertisers as adverts are presented as personal recommendations from people on your friends list. They effectively endorse products by purchasing items.

Last week Zuckerberg bowed to pressure from his users and changed Facebook so they can switch off Beacon if they choose. He apologised and said: “”We’ve made a lot of mistakes building this feature, but we’ve made even more with how we’ve handled them.”"

Zuckerberg may be losing friends in the West, but he clearly is making new ones in the East.  Billionaire Li Ka-shing has reportedly parted with $60m for a 0.4% personal share of Facebook.

There has been much speculation that Facebook would buy a Chinese home grown Social Network site to give them access to the largest internet market outside the US.

But it seems Zuckerberg’s time would be best spent repairing friendships at home.