This year, however, our beloved volunteers had a new challenge…an iPad-based electronic voter registration list that scans the bar code on your driver’s license to find your name in the registry. No longer will the volunteers have to struggle with the old cumbersome binders full of women (and men) to find the registered voter! It’s all electronic now.

Unless the name on your driver’s license is William and you’re registered to vote as Bill.

Now, I personally wasn’t in any particular hurry, and didn’t suffer any inconvenience (they did find my name reasonably quickly), but I did ask myself while watching the volunteers fumble with the iPad whether this was truly a better solution.

Oddly, this is the second time in two days where technology has been a hindrance rather than a help.

Yesterday, my better half suggested that I get reservations lined up for Mother’s Day, and forwarded an e-mail she’d received from one of her favorite restaurants, offering to make said reservations at the click of a link.

Being the world’s greatest husband, I clicked through, only to find that not only could I not get a table for 15 at 11:30, or for the two-hour window before or after 11:30, but there were no open reservations within 30 days of May 12. WTF?

“This can’t be right,” I thought. And it wasn’t. A five-minute telephone call to the restaurant netted a reservation for 15 at 11:15.

Technology is a wonderful thing. It can speed your day, organize your life, enable you to connect with long-lost friends and family, and access the world’s collective knowledge at the click of a button.

But how are you using technology to make the human experience more convenient, enjoyable, productive, joyful?

Sometimes I wonder who serves whom.

I am a huge fan of Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Gay. In all the world, only my brother Evan can make me laugh louder or harder. But his column today on the gawd-awful new basketball uniforms adidas has created for my beloved Jayhawks and other unfortuate D1 programs has me wondering if there really is “no such thing as bad publicity.” As a PR pro, I’ve long counseled clients to err on the side of caution when seeking attention.

“Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

– Mark Twain

But lately I’m not so sure. As Gay points out in his column, by talking about adidas’ hideous new designs, he is in fact, achieving the publicity goals aiddas had in mind. Even if everyone and his brother (including mine) is ripping the new uniforms, we’re all talking about them.

And maybe that’s where we are as a society in the year 2013. Perhaps Oscar Wilde was right:

“The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”

In an age where Honey Boo Boo, Duck Dynasty, the Kardashians, etc. are rich and famous and I scuffle along, perhaps I’m the outlier.

“Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.”
— John Wooden

It’s time to examine your “brand character.”

Today, your customers have the ability to see the difference between perception and reality.

Historically, marketers and agencies focused their resources on building reputations for their products and services. At first, mass media advertising was sufficient. Then we saw the era of PR take hold. Ries & Ries correctly noted that brands are built using PR and defended using advertising.

Now we’re into the days of social media. Your brand does not belong to you any longer, it belongs to those who feel passionately about your brand one way or another. And the true nature of your character will always come through.

When it comes to marketing success, your character—who you truly are—will ultimately be exposed, so it’s important to be honest when constructing your reputation—your brand—as you want it to be known by others.

As Bob Garfield correctly points out, you cannot spend your way to marketing success.

In the end, Garfield observes, the person-to-person passion for the President outweighed the Romney-SuperPAC advertising machine. And I suppose that’s true, although roughly 49 percent of Americans have already judged the President’s brand character to be out of synch with his brand reputation, and we have yet to see how the Affordable Care Act and other Obama-driven initiatives will affect the country.

In my opinion, the President’s re-election is less about his reputation matching his character than it is about Romney having his reputation (and character) defined for him early in the election cycle. His “47 percent” speech was likely his undoing, serving as Exhibit A for the opposition’s point that Romney’s character and reputation were aligned against the average American.

Character is how you behave when no one is watching. The trouble today is that people are watching even when you think they’re not.

Reputations take time to build and can be quickly lost, especially when you or your company are resistant to owning your own humanity (assuming corporations are people…or at least managed and staffed by people).

There will come a time when you make a mistake. When you do, own it. Apologize. Seek forgiveness. Learn. And move on.

I don’t want to call myself Nostradamus, but the events of the past few weeks, along with this commentary from L. Gordon Crovitz in today’s Wall Street Journal reminded me of an item I posted just over two years ago.

My theory at the time was that Facebook someday would have to sell out its users’ (more than 900 million worldwide) personal data in order to become profitable. While this anticipated move is both logical and predictable, the user backlash will be strong, ugly and likely elicit government action that will slow

Crovitz’s opening joke says it all:

Q: Why did Facebook go public?

A: They couldn’t figure out the privacy settings either.

CNN recently aired/posted a story on “why people are leaving Facebook,” which cited five reasons why a growing number of people are deactivating their accounts:

1. Maintaining a professional image
2. Focusing on “real” communication
3. Shedding an emotional burden
4. Avoiding a time-waster
5. Maintaining personal privacy

Little wonder a recent Associated Press-CNBC poll indicates Facebook may be a passing fad.

My own prediction is that Facebook will become similar to a television network, attracting a smaller number of heavy users (probably women ages 24-45), and that many other demographic groups will abandon the network in favor of the next big thing.

In “[Nine] Popular Crisis Responses that Don’t Always Work,” Amme correctly points out 1) just because you are aware of the crisis doesn’t mean the rest of the world is aware (or necessarily cares), and 2) it’s more important to think than to speak.

As Hall of Fame Coach John Wooden would say, “be quick, but don’t hurry.”

Marketers and business owners take their brand reputations very seriously. This is a good thing, but it often impairs one’s thinking when bad things happen.

As human beings, we are acutely aware of any threat to our safety and/or brand integrity, and the urge to respond quickly and forcefully to threats is embedded deeply in our DNA.

Amme urges us not to allow our flight-or-fight instincts to rule our actions.

Over the years, crisis counselors have urged clients to “tell the truth, tell it all, tell it quickly,” which often results in an overblown response that only draws more attention to the situation than it would have received otherwise.

Before you release the hounds, consider the size and scope of the problem, and respond accordingly. Amme correctly points out that doing nothing is sometimes the best course of action.

My favorite piece of advice from Amme is an area that I especially enjoy when handling a crisis (if it’s possible to “enjoy” a crisis):

“Have great talking points.” You should first develop answers to the worst-case questions people will likely ask, if time permits. Yes, talking points give important focus to comments, but your credibility rests on your ability to answer tough, legitimate questions.

He couldn’t be more right. Spokespersons are so wrapped up in what they’re going to say that they forget that there will come a time for Q&A, and it’s likely someone will throw out a question from left field.

What you say is important, but what the public (via the news media or directly through social channels) wants—and feels they have a right—to know.

Your crisis plan is important and everyone should have one, but it’s even more important to have sound thinkers working the plan when you’re in a jam.

Smart thinking beats quick action every time.

And while the stress of KU’s escape from Purdue, the schadenfreude of seeing certain other schools lose, and the ramblings of Sir Charles Barkley have taken their toll on my heart and brain, it’s the commercials that are the cause of my own personal March Madness.

Without further ado, here is my own semi-professional critique of Madison Avenue’s contribution to my mental illness:

Seeing Peter Frampton stand in with the neighborhood bar band didn’t make me want a Buick, but did lead me to seek out Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band on Netflix, a film I remember liking when I was a kid. Bad idea. I could only handle about 30 minutes of the young Frampton with the Bee Gee’s. The highlight of the film for me was George Burns’ cover of “Fixing a Hole.”

As my long-suffering wife will tell you, I’m not the only over-the-hill teenager who enjoys belting out, “I bought a ticket to the Wor-or-orld! But now I’ve come back again!” every time “True” comes on the stereo. But how depressing to think I’m now the target audience for a Chevy hybrid sedan. There’s a middle age gut-punch if I’ve ever taken one.

I’m thinking a night on the town with Allstate’s Mayhem guy would likely end up in either the drunk tank or at the Free Clinic. I don’t know whether I should buy insurance or just turn off my cell phone, cancel my Facebook account and hide in the basement.

Mayhem is light years better than Allstate’s other campaign, although I do think it would be really cool to walk around with Dennis Haysbert’s voice for a day. (Especially if it was the voice of Pedro Cerrano.)

I’m thrilled for the Domino’s manager in Findlay, Ohio who came up with the idea to serve up leftover shards of dough covered with cheese, but I’d hardly place Parmesan Bread Bites on par with a cure for cancer. You can put feathers on a dog and call it a duck, but I’m still not going to order one of your pizzas. I guess folks have a lot of spare time in Findlay these days.

I think Wego the rescue dog would have been better off at the pound (or maybe even “living on a big farm in the countryside where he can run around with all the other dogs”). I mean, is it right to take an abused animal and force him to be your own personal enabler?

There are still two weekends to go. Which ads do you love to hate?

“I’ve long understood that I have been engaged in a digital disrobing that reveals my digital self click by click, and byte by byte. I dropped almost all my veils, eagerly, in full view of the computer mind of a multinational corporation. It’s just that living in a Google world is so easy.”

Canon’s point is delivered tongue-in-cheek, but raises a broader and more serious concern, expressed on Sunday by  Chicago-Kent School of Law Professor Lori Andrews in her New York Times essay, “Facebook is Using You.”

“Material mined online has been used against people battling for child custody or defending themselves in criminal cases. LexisNexis has a product called Accurint for Law Enforcement, which gives government agents information about what people do on social networks. The Internal Revenue Service searches Facebook and MySpace for evidence of tax evaders’ income and whereabouts, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has been known to scrutinize photos and posts to confirm family relationships or weed out sham marriages. Employers sometimes decide whether to hire people based on their online profiles, with one study indicating that 70 percent of recruiters and human resource professionals in the United States have rejected candidates based on data found online. A company called Spokeo gathers online data for employers, the public and anyone else who wants it. The company even posts ads urging ‘HR Recruiters — Click Here Now!’ and asking women to submit their boyfriends’ e-mail addresses for an analysis of their online photos and activities to learn ‘Is He Cheating on You?’”

It’s not all bad, of course. As Jeffrey S. Trachtman points out in this response to Ms. Andrews’ piece, oftentimes, a site’s ability to deliver advertising offers that directly benefit both the site and the user, represents a win-win and is a positive outcome of data aggregation.

But the issue becomes more sinister when data are used to discriminate. More from Andrews:

“Now the map used in redlining is not a geographic map, but the map of your travels across the Web. The term Weblining describes the practice of denying people opportunities based on their digital selves. You might be refused health insurance based on a Google search you did about a medical condition. You might be shown a credit card with a lower credit limit, not because of your credit history, but because of your race, sex or ZIP code or the types of Web sites you visit.”

The key for me is the term “Weblining,” which could become a convenient excuse for greater government regulation of online sales and marketing practices. How many disgruntled consumers will it take before someone makes it his personal mission to ensure that no one is discriminated against due to his or her Web-surfing habits?

Where does efficient direct marketing end and Weblining begin? And is Weblining inherently a bad thing?

Stay tuned, sports fans. This is only the beginning.

You would have finished a current work project a long time ago, but you just couldn’t ween yourself away from your Twitter feed long enough to concentrate.

You’re kind of depressed that you don’t feel as happy as all my your Facebook friends seem to be.

If the answer is “yes,” perhaps it’s time to admit powerlessness and get yourself to a meeting of Social Media Addicts Anonymous (SMAA), a new group for folks addicted to all things social and unable to manage their lives, careers and relationships.

If this sounds ridiculous, check out this post from Erik Sass at The Social Graf, or this December 2011 article from Danial Gulati in the Harvard Business Review.

In the former, Sass cites a recent study following 250 social media users (ages 18 to 85) in Wurzburg, Germany. As reported in the journal Psychological Science, when asked to give up all social media, subjects reported:

“…social media was harder to resist than a gamut of other behaviors: ‘In contrast, people were relatively successful at resisting sports inclinations, sexual urges, and spending impulses, which seems surprising given the salience in modern culture of disastrous failures to control sexual impulses and urges to spend money.’ Likewise, the subjects’ reports for alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine marked their desires for these substances at relatively low levels compared to social media.”

Social media more addictive than alcohol, caffeine, tobacco and sex???

Wow.

HBR’s Gulati, author of the book Passion & Purpose, observes three major trends emerging among heavy Facebook users:

1. A tendency to compare their own personal situation unfavorably to those of their “friends.” In other words, people read the happy posts and see the smiling photos of their online friends and begin to feel that their own happiness and worth are wanting when compared to others’. (I wrote about this Facebook-depression link in a previous post.)
2. Time fragmentation. We’re so busy checking our Facebook pages or Twitter feeds that we’re not able to fully concentrate on our work or everyday tasks. “Multitasking” has taken on a life of its own, to the point where people are switching back and forth between “real life” and social media on a minute-by-minute basis.
3. A decline in close personal relationships. Why get together with your girlfriend for lunch when you can get caught up with her via Facebook? Connecting via social media is just like having a real relationship without all the mess. You can share what you want and you can quit listening at any time.

Just as the addict seeks to fill the void in his life with drink or drug, a person addicted to social media crave the “connection” these technologies provide as a way to fill the holes in his life.

As marketers, we talk about using social media as a way to “connect” with consumers and how companies can use Facebook, Twitter, etc., to “humanize” themselves and “become more authentic.”

But are we really accomplishing these goals, or merely contributing to a global addiction that ultimately will leave us all distracted, disconnected and depressed?

At this point, no one knows.

As someone who sits at a desk the majority of the day, I know it’s hard for me to get out and actually have a real conversation with a live human being (which means listening as well as talking) as often as I’d like.

However, I have found through my professional experience that it’s that face-to-face interaction that enables the type of trust and personal connection that makes business work.

If you want your company to behave more humanely, consider the interactions between the humans who work for you and the humans who buy from you. Is technology helping or hurting?

Are you doing all you can to foster true connection? Or are you merely trying to seduce and sedate your audience into an unhealthy relationship?

See you at the coffee shop.

And do recent economic and demographic trends have an impact on communications crises?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, but a recent article got me to thinking about how expectations, recessions, social media and spare time can impact business today.

Rebecca Lindland has a thoughtful piece in Forbes this week about the youth of America, and how generational differences are cropping up in the form of American Idol contestants. Lindland cites research from DYG Research and IHS Consumer Markets on Gen Y (born between 1978 and 1987) and those born in 1988 and after, as two distinct groups:

“Generation Y isn’t what conventional wisdom and demographers alike first thought: it isn’t one big giant mass of 80 million kids. Instead, it is two very different, very unique cohorts—Generation Y and what I call Generation Green—both about the same size but growing up in very different environs.

Currently 24-35 years old, [Generation Y contestants] were brash and self-possessed in their youth, and American Idol provided the ultimate stage, inviting these kids to display their talent in the public eye. Social media was still relatively young, and YouTube wasn’t around yet. It appealed to the sharpest expressions of this young cohort – self-absorbed, obsessed with fun, and chock full of self-confidence (DYG). This was their own personal platform – and they could bring their equally fascinating, blindly (deafly?) supportive helicopter parents along for the ride to riches.

Generation Green, born after 1988 and currently 24 or younger, is the first generation to grow up with hybrid AND electric cars from mainstream brands (Toyota Prius, Chevy Volt, and Nissan Leaf) as part of their buying options, and they recycle religiously…Long before the Occupy movement, DYG research predicted these kids would take ‘part in a demonstration, rally or protest to promote a social or political cause’.”

Combined, the two generations comprise 80 million Americans, roughly a quarter of the population, are the biggest users of social media, and are hardest hit by the recession.

On the one hand, there are 40 million Americans who were raised in a boom economy, whose self-esteem was valued to the point of absurdity (“everybody gets a ribbon!”), who experienced impressive personal and financial success in their early 20s, and whose expectations are perhaps a bit unrealistic.

On the other, 40 million Americans who’ve seen the darker realities of our economy yet retain a Utopian vision for the world.

Add to this mix a boatload of social media savvy and the popularly held belief that their plight is due to the greed and misbehavior of the fortunate few, and you have a recipe for trouble.

Last week’s #McFail may be an example. For those who missed it, as part of its strategy to promote relationships with family farmers and other “good guy” suppliers, McDonald’s launched a Twitter campaign using the hashtag #McDStories. Perhaps predictably, the hashtag elicited all manner of deliciously evil anecdotes, and the Golden Arches quickly killed the campaign.

Domino’s Pizza employees posting YouTube videos of themselves doing yucky things with people’s food could be another. (The two employees charged with crimes were aged 31 and 32, respectively, making them members of Gen Y.)

One could even make a case for the Occupy movement (although these groups count members from all walks of life and age groups) being a natural consequence of these forces. (One could make the same case for the Tea Party movement by viewing the opposite side of this same coin.)

Even if your company’s social justice policies are otherwise beyond reproach, if your corporate commissary dispenses coffee that was picked by child laborers and sold at below-fair-market prices, be prepared to hear about it. The first attack will come via social media, then the MSM, and then social media again as the “news” gets picked up and amplified.

For the record, I’m a member of Generation X, the group that brought you manky flannel, grunge music and Monica Lewinsky…so my peers and I are not without blame. And who knows what we would have done during the 1990-93 recession had we had access to social media.

Crises come from all angles, are perpetrated by all manner of people and recent events could simply be a reflection of the times.

Or, this could be the new normal.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback would have been well-served to follow such advice, and as Christopher Budd points out, his office did an excellent job of making a minor blip into a major media circus. To make matters worse, much of what appeared in the original news story never actually happened.

Long story short: Emma Sullivan, an 18-year-old high school student, in Topeka for a Youth in Government session with the Governor, posts the following off-color Tweet:

The Governor’s office sends a nasty-gram to Youth in Government, (rightly, in my opinion), expressing displeasure at the student’s lack of respect for the Office. Her school principal calls her on the carpet and demands she write a letter of apology. The story lands on the front page of the Kansas City Star, becomes a free speech issue, and the Governor ends up apologizing to the student.

And the student’s roster of Twitter followers grew from 65 to 15,851 and counting.

Is this a great country or what?

Unfortunately, the meeting in the principal’s office, which became the eye of the media storm, didn’t happen the way it was reported.

The Star’s Nov. 23 story stated that Sullivan’s principal was, “forcing her to write an apology to the governor’s office, with the principal even giving her talking points to hit. [Shawnee Mission] East principal Karl R. Krawitz declined to comment on the matter Wednesday, calling it a disciplinary action: ‘It is a school issue, a private issue, not a public matter’.”

Turns out, Krawitz’s reluctance to initially discuss the matter became a “Three’s Company” moment. Only there’s no Regal Beagle in Kansas.

According to a blog post by Star columnist Yael Abouhalkah:

“It turns out one of teen tweeter Emma Sullivan’s original claims—that her principal was forcing her to apologize for an offensive tweet last month about Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback—wasn’t true.

Shawnee Mission East Principal Karl Krawitz says in a blunt email to Brownback’s staff that ‘The governor should know we did not force any letter of apology.’ (The email is in a report by NBC Action News.)

And Sullivan belatedly this week acknowledged the same thing: No apology was ordered.”

Turns out the story was fed to the media by Sullivan’s older sister, a poli sci major at Wichita State, and many facts of the case were lost in translation.

But why should the facts ever stand in the way of a good story?

Personally, I agree with with the Governor’s communications director, Sherriene Jones-Sontag (as quoted by the Star):

“[The tweet] wasn’t respectful…In order to really have a constructive dialogue, there has to be mutual respect…It was important for [Youth in Government] to be aware of the comments their students were making…It’s also important for students to recognize the power of social media, how lasting it is. It is on the Internet.”

Listen up, corporate big-wigs, government leaders and persons in power: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO WIN AGAINST THE LITTLE GUY IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. Not ever.

But feel free to pig-wrestle. Just do so at your own risk. And think twice before going after someone smaller than yourself.