Archive for the 'Communications' Category

What if we were to hook up with old friends in real life the way we do on Facebook? What if we related to our friends in the real world as if we were on Facebook?

This video gives us a taste of what may lie ahead for our friendships…

Last week the IABC’s* EuroComm Conference 2008 took place in Barcelona, where I chaired the plenary panel discussion on social media. I was joined by co-panellists Giles Colborne of cxpartners, a web usability expert, and Marc Wright of simply-communicate.com, an internal communications specialist. We had a really good session, which was primarily the result of great comments and challenges from the 80 or so business communicators taking part in the session. I just want to focus here on one issue that emerged from the discussions, which I think reflects the main concern of businesses around social media: control.

When we asked the delegates what was preventing their businesses engaging in the social media, the main reason appeared to be an anxiety about losing control. If you have a blog or social network space, people can come and leave negative comments. If you allow your employees to use social media for internal communications, they could spread seeds of discontent internally. Social media tools also make it easier for staff to leak your internal discussions externally. If you offer spaces for user-generated content, you can lose control of the content and message.

But we also discussed how control is an illusion in the brave new world of social media. There could be people out there already expressing negative views about your business or brand on other social media spaces even if you don’t have a business presence on the blogosphere. Your staff are already able to sign up to Facebook or set up their own blogs at home, even if you block them at work. Leaks occur with email as easily as via any other internet or intranet tool. Someone could be filming you or any of your executives with their mobile phone camera even now, capturing your pratfall or offguard comment to be served up on YouTube for the world to see. Employers are doing internet searches of potential recruits as an add-on to the traditional ways of doing background checks - will they find that photo of you taken by a friend at your cousin’s wedding with someone’s knickers on your head?

For businesses who are worried about controlling the message about their product or services, the least you can do is monitor what the online is saying about you even if you decide never to engage in social media. And if you do engage with a blog or other social media tool, that can actually help enhance your reputation especially if you engage in an authentic way. The community you build around your blog will come to trust, respect and like you and loyalty can count for a great deal in times of crisis.

For individuals, the question is: will we always have to be “on” not just when we engage online but wherever we are because we never know when someone may capture us unawares on digital media? This is a much more challenging issue. It is impossible to be perfectly behaved all the time - that’s just a fact of being human. And perhaps we have to trust that people know that - and that in the long term, people seeing someone’s mistake displayed on YouTube will recognise that it’s just a very human momentary lapse, especially if there are other images of that person online that counter lapse. Perhaps in this early period of the mobile phone video, there’s a lot of press and publicity about this issue because it’s novel but that in the long term, there won’t be such a hoo-ha because there’ll be so many unremarkable human failings available to view online. Or perhaps we will all have to hire public relations consultants to help us with reputation management in the future, whether we are Britney Spears or just an ordinary non-celebrity…

We did not reach any solid conclusions during the discussion, only that this is one debate that is going to contine.

What are your thoughts?

Photo: of car wreck thanks to OpenSkyMedia from flickr.com (CCL)

*International Association of Business Commuicators

by Angie Macdonald

Social media is changing the way we do things and one of the issues involved is that of control. Control is slipping from corporates when it comes to promoting their products and from conference speakers and college lecturers, who are no longer regarded as the expert with the final say on the matter.

One example of this phenomenon is “back channelling”. In the social media context, this refers to people at conferences, or students, blogging and/or Twittering while listening to a speaker. It can also involve instant messaging or chatrooms and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) Channels. This is the “back channel”, where the audience engage in a different conversation, separate from the speaker directly in front of them.

At some conferences, a screen is erected behind the speaker, on which the audience can post comments directly from their computers. The speaker, facing the audience, cannot see the comments appearing on the screen behind him or her. From what I’ve heard anecdotally, the comments which tend to appear are generally negative comments on the speaker’s clothes, or how bored people are, rather than comments that further the debate. It is the equivalent of heckling, only here it is virtual and silent.

I’m sure there are some highly skilled people who are able to multi-task and keep with the programme. But most people are unable to give two things the same amount of attention at the same time. If you are trying to listen, analyse, remember, write and follow the conversation all at the same time, something’s got to give. You just have to think about the dangers of driving while talking on a mobile phone to realise that multi-tasking has its limits.

In an article published in the New York Times, David E. Meyer, a cognitive scientist and director of the Brain, Cognition and Action Laboratory at the University of Michigan is quoted as saying, “Multitasking is going to slow you down, increasing the chances of mistakes.” In the same article, René Marois, a neuroscientist and director of the Human Information Processing Laboratory at Vanderbilt University, when describing the ‘cognitive powerhouse’ that is the human brain, says “…a core limitation is an inability to concentrate on two things at once.”

What usually happens, is that by the time the blogger or Twitterer has finished writing or texting a particular thought, the speaker has moved on, the information that has been imparted in the interim is hazy, and the thread of the argument has been lost. This creates a knowledge gap which can result in misunderstanding, which in turn can lead to miscommunication.

Now, it’s fine if one individual has misunderstood. But what happens when that individual has published their misunderstood information online and millions of people around the world read it and get the wrong end of the stick? What are the repercussions? Where is the value in that communication?

Don’t get me wrong, I can see that there are advantages to back-channelling. It can be an inclusive behaviour too and means that those unable to attend a conference in person can follow what’s happening by reading updated blogs or receiving Tweets on their mobile phones.

It can also be a way to open up and encourage discussion and debate around a topic. So rather than information being delivered from one so-called expert in a top-down fashion, everybody who knows something or who has an opinion can join in and conference goers have an opportunity to learn from their peers. In that way, learning can become a more democratic process - a knowledge exchange offering instant feedback and reflection.

The danger is that in the process you may have to listen to people who think they are right, when they may be wrong, or people who love the sight of their words in print and subject everyone to their opinions whenever they can. As in the real world, sometimes conversations are inane, occasionally they are a waste of time.

We live in an age where children are being medicated for Attention Deficit Disorder and adults put their lack of success in life down to the fact that they were never diagnosed with ADD in school, and yet, here we are as adults, actively engaging in attention deficit behaviour. Not only that, but rather than being in the moment and giving it all our attention, we are taking a step back to observe and comment on what is occurring, analysing it as it is happening, rather than experiencing it.

There is no doubt that technology is changing social behaviour, communication and relationships. In spite of the advantages, I still think that in today’s attention-seeking world, perhaps the highest form of regard we can offer anyone, is to give them our full-blown attention.

Photo: thanks to jean djinni on flickr.com (CCL)

This post also appears on the EuroComm Blog today, where I am one of the blogging team.

The speed of communications is ever increasing, especially now that online messages can be zipping round the world virally via digital word of mouth in the time it takes you to type an email message or blog post.

Now that anyone can be pundit or citizen journalist who has a mobile phone, camera, laptop or just an opinion and access to the internet, anyone out there can share their views or stories about you in moments. Equally, anyone can express an opinion or a view or tell a story without deliberating over it or checking the factual basis for it - and indeed, online social media encourages that rapid action and reaction because of the ease of uploading content easily, cheaply and quickly.

For those whose every move makes news - like high profile politicans, world leaders, celebrities and the like - this trend is becoming a huge challenge. How do you control misinformation or misinterpretation of your actions and words in this rapid response world?

Taking legal action or sending out cease and desist letters can make you the “heavy” in the drama, causing more damage than good. Legal processes can also take time - and through that very process could keep the issue in the news more than you would like.

Hilllary Clinton’s campaign has come up with a clever way to deal with misinformation about her and her campaign for the US presidency, reports The New York Times. She has “introduced a Web site dedicated exclusively to the instantaneous rebuttal of charges or news reports it deems offensive or wrong”, called Fact Hub.

On the Fact Hub, Clinton’s team painstakingly sets the record straight wherever she has been misinterpreted or where others have got their facts wrong about her statements and actions. For example, it corrects Barack Obama with an statement headed Obama Misrepresents Hillary’s Views On Social Security and there is a rebuttal of a claim that Clinton and her team did not leave a tip at a diner where they had a meal (which is the subject of the New York Times article I just mentioned).

It looks like the website uses a blogging platform and includes an RSS feed so you can subscribe to it to receive the latest updates - another example of innovative ways to use blogging technology and blogging without calling it a blog.

For those of us of less grand profiles, it is still useful to keep an eye on what is being said about you online and to consider carefully how you would respond to any erroneous claims being made about you or your business. I am curious to know what processes you are using to monitor what is being said about you on the online grapevine at the moment and what plans you have in place to deal with any erroneous claims about you or your business. Please add a comment or email me using the Contact form above.

Photo: thanks to sskennel from flickr.com (CCL)

This post also appears on the EuroComm Blog today, where I am one of the blogging team

The article I was researching and writing earlier this year about blogging in Malaysia has now been published in Communication World, the journal of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). It is featured in a special Asia-Pacific supplement under the title “Blogging Thrives in Malaysia.” The article examines the tension between political bloggers and the authorities as well as highlighting the success of non-political personal and business blogs in the country.

It has come together with the help of various journalists and bloggers who generously shared their views and experiences - thanks, guys! Much of the information they have given with me will also be useful for the book that I am working on about New Trends in International Public Relations.

Please feel free download the pdf of the article Blogging Thrives in Malaysia. By all means forward it to anyone who may be interested, with a link back to this post.

You can also download the article plus other articles I’ve written about social media from the box below.

This post appeared on my writing blog Fusion View yesterday

by Guest Blogger Alan Lane

Ten years ago Britain mourned the death of Princess Diana, with an unprecedented emotional outburst. The events of the week that followed led many to ask: are those holding the reins of power really in touch with the public taste? Alan Lane looks at how her untimely death in Paris on 31 August 1997 left a legacy of debate for those advising on communication.

The news filtered through in the early hours of a quiet Sunday morning. Diana, Queen of Hearts, the People’s Princess, was dead.

The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in a brutal Paris car crash, left a mixture of emotions. More than that, it left a debate in many circles on the complexities of modern life.

To some, the passing of the mother of the heir to the British throne opened deep cracks in the relationship between those in power and the people. To others, it was a death too soon at the age of 36; a caring, emotionally mixed-up shooting star who lived life on the edge, had been finally hounded to her grave by a posse of media monsters and a perceived indifferent Establishment.

Arguably the most famous, most photographed woman in the world represented a parable of our modern times. Her death opened up a whole new chapter on the term ‘relations with the public.’

An extraordinary week began to unfold. Close to two million people attended her funeral, which was watched on television by millions around the world.

Diana’s passing had for some a Shakespearean tragic element. The friend of kings, queens, millionaire playboys, of victims of landmines and AIDS had been snuffed out – ‘like a candle in the wind,’ as pop star Elton John had sung to an obviously moved funeral congregation.

Diana’s ability to touch public feeling across the world could not be denied. As one wry columnist and TV presenter said in a tribute: ‘she wasn’t just beautiful, it was like the sun coming up.’

Perhaps that was the real issue; her ability to be in touch with modern public taste.

Extraordinary response

Ten years on, it is worth asking what really was behind this extraordinary response to the death of a princess.

For sure, it signalled irreversible change in public opinion on what would be tolerated.

Thousands of mourners gathered around the Queen’s London residence Buckingham Palace cast the first stone of public dissent. They became restive, wanting a more public showing of mourning from the House of Windsor. The media responded, generating live street interviews and headlines reflecting this public discontent.

This whipped up pressure on the Royal Family, withdrawn from the public eye in mourning with Diana’s sons, William and Harry, at their Balmoral estate in Scotland. Being hundreds of miles from where Diana’s body lay in London, they were seen, perhaps unfairly, to be ‘out of touch’ with events.

One media columnist spoke of a ‘geological pressure exerted on the Royal Family by the media in the name of the people.’

What became clear was that a major shift had taken place in the public’s view on the role and authority of the monarch. An opinion poll showed only one Briton in eight wanted the monarch to carry on as at present. Eight out of ten thought the Royal Family had lost touch with the people. It was easy to suggest revolution could be in the air.

Many believed that without doubt, those advising the Royal Family had clearly failed.

Damage limitation

We can assess in hindsight how the Royal Family moved quickly towards damage limitation, advised in part by newly-elected Prime Minister Tony Blair – himself a natural communicator.

Prince Charles talked of greater accessibility to the monarchy and wide-ranging reforms to regain public support lost. Opinion research bravely commissioned by the House of Windsor after the funeral was used to test public feelings. Its findings were perhaps not surprising, reporting that the royals were seen as ‘remote, out of touch, wasteful, not genuine, lacking in understanding, poor value for money and badly advised.’

The Queen and Royal Family came south to London early, went on walkabout amid the flowers, and extended the funeral route so more people could take part. In a hastily arranged live broadcast, the Queen addressed the nation.

What had become clear is that a tragic death in a Paris underpass had in many ways, forced the hand of those in power.

Lessons in communication practice

Looking back, some would say public response to Diana’s death was a fleeting reaction which has not stood the test of time; that her grip on the national consciousness is a fading memory.

Yet her death has left many lessons for those advising on communication practice – including a Royal Family which no longer appears to look decades behind the times.

The world has changed. Public dissatisfaction with the Royal Family predates Diana’s death, but it was magnified by her passing in a way totally unforeseen. People of all colours, creeds and walks of life showed their ‘personal agenda’ can become the ‘public agenda’ if the support is there. Diana stood for a world challenging a power system seen as antiquated and outdated, a system run, as she put it, ‘by men in grey suits.’ Honesty and openness is now confronting evasion and secrecy; people want more control over their lives and what affects them.

Misreading the public mood. The outpouring of emotion following Diana’s death mirrored a world of people unafraid to show how they feel. The British usually avoid public displays of emotion. This time, they threw the rule book away. Some 70 per cent of the public who signed the books of remembrance set out by the Royal Family were women. A subtle feminising of public response suggests old standards of behaviour are no longer acceptable or at least have to change. As one public affairs commentator pointed out: ‘They (the Royal Family) have to understand that the duty, protocol and heritage thing is dead. The stiff upper lip went out of the window years ago.’

People want a figurehead. In a confusing, constantly-changing world, people look for role-models or assurances that their concerns are understood. Diana was a potent communicator who had enormous effect – whether attacking the Royal Family on television, or helping the poor and the sick. She was in touch with the changing public mood. Dazzling but flawed and vulnerable, she appeared to understand and more important, represent the problems of ordinary people. Said one columnist: ‘Princess Diana was so unbelievably popular because she had a perfect understanding of these things.’ Another said: ‘People want leaders to look up to and respect at a time of crisis and they don’t have at the moment.’

Figureheads need to go public. Those in positions of power can no longer retreat into their world and withdraw from accountability. People want to see them reacting and responding to public concern. One columnist suggested that the Royal Family ‘have to view themselves as any other sort of brand which interfaces with the public.’ Another said: ‘The palace initially misinterpreted the public mood. They didn’t see that protocol must be overruled by common sense and have been forced to perform a very public U-turn.’

A revolution in attitudes to authority. The public view of governments, corporations and even the monarchy has changed in many cultures. Long established respect and deference is being questioned. It now has to be earned by clearly demonstrated behaviour and effective communication. Exxon found that out when the Valdez tanker went aground in Alaska causing a major oil spill, while public unrest over Pan American’s handling of the Lockerbie air disaster was partly responsible for the airline’s demise.

What you say (or don’t say) is all important. By assessing the public mood and planning its communication much earlier, The House of Windsor could have offset much of the criticism it faced.

Don’t ignore the messages. The media is not always a true barometer of the public mood. Sometimes it mischievously and irresponsibly tries to create it. But its power to reflect what is being thought or said should never be underestimated.

We live in a visual age. Television has become the global messenger. People want to see their fantasy or reality. Diana provided the best of both – her life became public property; a TV soap with all the drama that was watched around the world. Television is a world of intrusion, where no human emotion or situation is so private or precious that it should not go on public display for the rest of us. It therefore needs to be handled with care.

Turning point

The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, was a turning point as well as being, according to media tracking sources, the biggest news story in terms of coverage for more than 100 years.

It reflected people wanting change and demanding a response from those with influence. It ushered in wide-ranging reforms on the practices of the media, driven by public opinion. Perhaps more important, it held up the mirror up to reflect changes in public expectations and how society had moved on.

Time will tell whether this change has any lasting effect; whether public opinion has made a seismic shift or whether it was just part of a blip in a nation’s emotional consciousness; whether those in power will continue to heed any lessons learned.

Yet at the time, in communication terms and in so many words, people were saying to the House of Windsor: ‘welcome to the 21st century.’

Alan Lane is founder and chief executive of VASGAMA providing reputation management consulting to international corporations and government. Alan is a member of IABC.

© Copyright
Alan Lane
VASGAMA

This post appeared earlier this week on the EuroComm Blog, and is reproduced here with Alan’s permission

Photo: thanks to Floyd Nello from flickr.com (CCL)

I’ve been taking longer than I planned researching a section on Conversation and Democracy for my bookproject, New Trends in International Public Relations. What I’ve been finding fascinating is the different attitudes that the East and the West have to social media in the world of politics.

Western politicians and social media

The main presidential candidates in the US are all embracing blogs, YouTube and Twitter and many observers say that this is the first presidential race where social media is playing a major role. The televised debate between the Democratic candidates, for example, included questions posted on YouTube by members of the public - these videos were played on a giant screen in the hall where the debate took place and the candidates took it in turn to answer the questions. Critics of this have said that this does not truly show political leaders “embracing” social media in its truest form ie as a free-for-all, open dialogues between equals and peers. The questions were carefully vetted and chosen beforehand instead of being an open, forum where anyone can take part (in the way that people can add their comments more freely on a blog, say). I think it’s very naive to think that politicians will ever hand over that level of control - they might be willing and comfortable having a “town hall” meeting where they roll up their sleeves and have an impromptu chat with the audience (who are no doubt carefully selected by invitation in the first place) of several hundred but it’s a different matter of scale where anyone in a population of several hundred thousand could send in a video. There will always be a hierarchical structure of some kind even in the most modern of democracies and those hierarchies will always seek to manage the flow of information. To me, what is significant is that they are using this medium at all and making an attempt to engage with their constituents in as open a way as they are able, given those hierarchical constraints.

Asia’s discomfort with social media

This attitude of acceptance - that social media is a force to be reckoned with and a new medium to reach out to voters - is all the more striking when I look at the attitude towards social media in Asian nations. Awhile back I researched an article on Blogging in Malaysia, with the input of Kevin Anderson, the Blogs Editor at The Guardian, UK and Asohan Aryaduray, the New Media Editor at The Star, Malaysia on the issue of political blogs there. Many outspoken political critics who blog their views find themselves arrested. There is a general anxiety and unease about this new medium that allows ordinary people to voice their opinions freely. For examples of more repressive and authoritarian Asian nations’s attitudes to bloggers, we only have to look at China, which routinely censors blogs and most recently, Burma, which restricted internet access during this summer’s protests.

West v. East

The cultural and political roots go much deeper than a mere suspicion of social media on the part of Asian authorities. There has been a much longer history of citizen protest and action being tolerated in the West and every year, there are marches and demonstrations in London and major American and European cities for all manner of causes. I remember as a student taking part in a march through the streets of Oxford in solidarity with my co-students. Although I did not feel very strongly about the cause they were protesting about, I wanted to see what it was like to be part of a protest march. It felt dangerous and rebellious and anarchic for me, coming from Malaysia where such protests were banned. In reality, it was rather tame and boring as we strolled down the High Street and various student leaders ranted through their megaphones.

So in the last few weeks as I’ve been researching this topic, I found myself getting side-tracked thinking about the cultural roots of Western political discourse and engagement versus the cultural roots of Asian nations who generally seem more comfortable with authoritarian government, and also authoritarian versions of democracy. That’s a whole separate book in itself, I expect, but I’d be interested to know your thoughts about these two differing political heritages.

To see my research in detail, check out my book wiki where I have posted my research online in the Conversation and Democracy section.

Do you know any Asian politicians who blog?

I am not aware of any politician in the ruling party in Malaysia who blogs - if you know of anyone, can you please correct me and let me know the URL of their blog? I’d also like to know if any politician in a ruling party in any other Asian country blogs or engages in social media eg via videocasts or podcasts. I want to ask them why they blog and what benefits they see coming from engaging in social media. And what might be some of the disadvantages.

From those Asian politicians who don’t blog, I’m curious to know why they don’t and what they think about their citizens using social media for political commentary.

If you are a professional communicator in Asia, what are the issues around politics and social media if you are advising politicians or business leaders about their communications strategy.

You can add a comment or email me using the Contact form above. If you prefer to remain anonymous, I can understand and respect that and I will not publish your name or email address* on my blog or in the book (or book wiki).

*The email address is a required field but it is not visible to visitors to this blog. As a matter of policy, I do not disclose email addresses from comments or emails to me in any event.

Photo: thanks to pietroizzo from flickr.com (CCL)

I set up my International Public Relations bookproject wiki a few weeks back but I’ve been hesitating about announcing it on my blogs. I finally blogged about it a few days ago and invited comments and input - and I hope very much that you will help me with my research by getting involved in this project. But the reason I hesitated is that having set up the wiki online, I found that I have a strong streak of “command and control” in my character.

I wrote my two novels all by myself and did not show them to anyone until I had finished typing “The End” on the last page. I did invite input from experts on some of the background information that I needed to create a real world for my characters to inhabit and I did occasionally discuss motivation and plot points with my writer friends. But I kept the bulk of the story and text to myself during the 18 months or so that each book took to write. And I felt very much in control as the author and creator.

So while the “social media”, open and transparent part of me is all for having a go with writing a book via a wiki online, the old-fashioned author in me has been feeling somewhat uncomfortable about this new way of doing things. Will people nick my ideas/ thesis? Will people give me unsupportive criticism? Will I feel pushed and pulled by others’ input? Will I no longer feel like the author of the work?

My worries took me by surprise as I had always considered myself an open and trusting sort of person. (Though perhaps my years of training as a lawyer has overlayed that with an armoury of suspicion…?) Friends and colleagues gave me differing views. Some advised, no way should I put it up online as people might steal my work. Others were more of the attitude: well, try it and see. The advantage is that I can invite the help of others who may have more expertise of a particular issue than I have and I always liked the saying, “two (or more) heads are better than one”. And since I may be approaching experts with whom I have no personal connection, I can refer them to the work online for them to get a sense of what the book is about and whether they feel comfortable contributing to it. Also, as I would like to include a strong cross-cultural focus, having an online presence accessible from all over the world can only be a good thing.

A number of much more well-known authors than me have shared their books online while they’ve been work in progress. Chris Anderson blogged his book The Long Tail and developed it with readers’ input. Marc Wright over at simply-communicate.com is also using a wiki for his book Handbook for Internal Communication, due for publication in March 2008. So I reckon, if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.

So far, I’ve put out a few feelers to a number of experts and I hope to speak to an Italian writer next week and also a Korean social media / tech CEO based in Japan.

Do go and check out the bookproject wiki - and let me know if you have any thoughts on any of the issues I’m researching. Drop me an email via the Contact form above or add a comment.

Photo: thanks to smackfu from flickr.com (CCL)

My associate Silvia Cambie has asked me to pass on an invitation to an event that she is speaking at. Because of the wonders of modern global communications, you can attend this conference no matter where you are in the world.

She will be speaking at “A Brand You World”, the Global Telesummit that will be held later this week on Thursday November 8th from 3pm local time in the form of a free Teleconference that is expected to draw more than 100,000 professionals from throughout the world.

Silvia writes:

“I will share the lessons I learned from my years in post-communist Eastern Europe where I had to tune into a complex society. Working as a reporter in a place where speaking openly to foreigners had been tabu for 50 years, I had to learn to listen very carefully instead of asking questions.

I still use the ‘tricks’ I learned then every time I have to operate in a culture I am not so familiar with.

In my session I will cover how to:

* Develop the kind of sensibility needed to operate in a cross-cultural context
* Identify and nurture the skills required to build an international career
* Relate to the needs of employers/clients/investors/etc. in the global village
* Use international networks, both on-line and off-line, to promote your personal brand, jump-start your career or grow your business

I am delighted to be able to contribute to an event that is encouraging participants to make a donation to Kiva, an organisation that provides microfinance loans to enterpreneurs in developing countries.

Join me at the Global Telesummit!”

I’ll certainly be phoning in so maybe I’ll see/ hear you there.

As I’ve blogged about before, I am co-authoring the social media sections of a book on New Trends in International PR to be published internationally by UK publishers Kogan Page in early 2009. I am trying a social media experiment as part of the book - I am posting my research online on a wiki and inviting readers to add comments and share their knowledge with me. I hope that you or your contacts may be able to help with this project.

Many books on social media as well as books on public relations have tended to focus on the West, and in particular the US and UK markets. But globalisation and social media, as you know, are rapidly changing the landscape of communications. Influence is shifting from organisations to individuals and the voices of Asia, Africa and non-Western cultures are becoming increasingly significant on the world stage.

Our book aims to explore the landscape of new communications from a cross-cultural perspective with special focus on Asia as well as other non-Anglo-Saxon cultures.

Would you - or someone you know - be able to give me an cross cultural perspective around how social media is used in Asia, Africa or South America? For example:

# What businesses in those regions/ cultures blog or podcast? What about not-for-profit organisations, politicians, campaigners, activists, solo professionals - do they use social media to help their enterprise?

# What is the impact of social media and networks like Facebook on business, culture, politics, relationships etc in those cultures/ regions?

I would like to share a strong cross-cultural perspective in the book, so I hope very much that you can help.

You can find out more about the book and follow my research at http://new-trends-in-international-pr.pbwiki.com/.

For others who have already contributed to the project, please see http://new-trends-in-international-pr.pbwiki.com/Acknowledgements+to+Contributors

If you’re able to share our views with me, you can contact me via the book wiki at http://new-trends-in-international-pr.pbwiki.com/contact.php or via the Contact link at the top of this page.

bkprj

Photo: from sxu.hu (free)