I’m in San Diego at the Public Relations Society of America national conference and I attended a session today that I was tweeting from a lot, which tells me there were plenty of good tidbits. I’m going to share the tweeted items and some of my own thoughts with you in this post.

First, however, a tip of the hat to Mike McDougal, vice president of corporate communications and public affairs at Bausch & Lomb. He did a great job packing a lot of information into the session despite being let down by the convention’s lackluster audio/visual capabilities.

So, here are the tidbits and thoughts, in no particular order of importance:

• “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” That’s a quote attributed to Winston Churchill. If that’s how he felt about things back in his era, imagine what he would think of the world we live in today! The session Mike was speaking at was advertised as “how to deal with the 24-second news cycle.” It was a fitting description.

• Through video examples of news broadcasts, Mike proved his statement that “we’re living in a world where ‘unconfirmed’ is the new norm.” That should scare journalists and PR professionals alike. But it also should scare the public. We must find a way to get the news media back to where it values facts above opinion and accuracy over expediency.

• As a matter of being prepared for trouble, Mike suggested that companies should consider using a truth squad with the media to defend themselves against stories that weren’t fact-checked, but also to poke holes in your competitor’s statements. I like the idea; I’m just not sure many reporters won’t just give you the brush-off because you are the competitor. Mike claims it worked when he was at Kodak and they took on some claims Hewlett-Packard was making, so I’ll defer to him on this one.

• Mike also offered a bit of commentary during his session and one item in particular caught my attention. He said, “More and more, the media isn’t reporting news, it’s making it.” Maybe that stuck out to me more than other comments because we had just come from the convention’s opening general session where we heard from Arianna Huffington. She noted that in order for a story to be picked up by the media anymore, it has to have “drama.” Are we letting the media focus too much on the dramatic? Why can’t solid information still be considered newsworthy? Why the drama, drama, drama? I was watching the news this morning in my hotel room and caught a piece on CNN where they were conducting interviews about an interview FOX News did recently with Rush Limbaugh. So, essentially, CNN was doing an interview about another network doing an interview. What was the point? From what I could tell, it was to show the world that CNN is more newsworthy than FOX – but if that’s how they are going to try to prove it, then they’ve already failed.

• As I mentioned earlier, part of Mike’s session was talking about the “24-second news cycle.” To deal with that, Mike suggested having some evergreen news ready to push out online as a way to either push your unflattering news out of the way or to push your competition’s good news aside and get your news into the cycle as well. It’s not a bad strategy to consider, but I’m wondering if it’s really getting you in and out of a news cycle or just impacting organic search. Even affecting searches has merit, but I think that’s different from news distribution.

• At Bausch & Lomb, they “deputize employees” to have help monitoring the news and reviewing what it means to the company and its customers. That’s an awesome idea. To keep up with today’s crazy glut of nonstop information, it would be incredibly helpful for communications departments to have the eyes and ears of every employee working with them.

• Finally, a note about something I’ve been saying for some time now and it’s good to hear others say it, too. Mike noted that despite all the technology and all the changes, “the basics still apply.” That’s a great point and I wish more people lusting after social media would remember it. I don’t care what kind of slick new delivery system we have for sharing news – the bottom line is that public relations, media relations, government relations, employee relations, etc. all rely on one main ingredient: relationships. Having great relationships that you can tap into and that others can tap into your expertise through are invaluable when it comes to communicating effectively and efficiently.

If you want to follow along with what I and the thousands of other people at this conference are talking about, get on Twitter and follow the hashtag #prsa09.

Location and updated time announced!

Battle Decks will take place at 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 17 in the auditorium (Room 147) at the Communication Arts & Sciences Building on the campus of Michigan State University. There’s free parking in the parking ramp near the building.

———————-

There’s a national contest called PowerPoint Karaoke (sometimes referred to as Battle Decks) and it’s coming to East Lansing on Tuesday, Nov. 17 at 7 p.m.

The idea behind Battle Decks is that you get up in front of a group to do a PowerPoint presentation that lasts about 5 minutes — with the kicker being that you have no idea what is in the deck you are presenting. Some of the slides may be serious quotes, another could be an Excel spreadsheet graph, some could be silly pictures.

Contestants will be judged by a panel with the winner earning a very cool prize provided by Imation. We also will be filming the presentations and uploading them to YouTube for the national competition, which includes thousands of dollars in prizes and cash for winners.

If you’re in mid-Michigan or are willing to travel here, let me know so I can secure a spot for you.

Actually, if you’re anywhere nearby, I challenge you to participate. Do you have what it takes to be quick on your feet? This event is co-hosted by the Public Relations Student Society of America chapter at MSU and I want us to show these students how it’s done!

For more info, you can contact me via email at ari.adler(at)yahoo.com or on Twitter.

“To err is human.” I’m not sure where that saying came from; it’s just one of those that’s been around forever. People make mistakes and when they do, those mistakes need to be corrected. Unfortunately, there seems to be a sentiment out there that pointing out a mistake to bloggers is somehow taboo.

Whether it’s a simple typo in a word or a factual error, why aren’t we, as consumers of the blogs, pointing mistakes out more frequently? If I see an error on someone’s post, I will try to send them a quick, private note to tell them about it. I admit, if it’s simply a misspelled word and I catch it while reading it on my phone, I might not reach out to them if I don’t already have their email address. That’s because navigating blogs on my phone is more cumbersome and I may not have the time to track down contact info on their page. If it’s a factual error, however, I will take the time to get their info and if I see a typo while on the computer then I also will make contact. Having thought about this more now, I can see where even posting a quick comment on the page will help them see their error. I’d have no problem with them fixing the error and then deleting my comment.

I started wondering about this issue yesterday when there were two errors in my blog post about Planet Google that I wrote for Digital Pivot. The post was just a fun romp through all things Google so it’s not like I was writing a treatise on Middle Eastern peace talks. But, as is often the case, I was writing the post early in the morning, pre-coffee, and in a bit of a hurry before work.

In my quest to finish the post, I was quickly changing my lead to make it more concise and, in doing so, changed the way I was referencing the planet Earth. Instead of something about it being the third of nine planets, I ended up simply referring to it as “the third planet.” At least that’s what I thought. In reality, I ended up typing “the ninth planet.” I also misspelled “course” by typing “of coure,” a typo I fixed later in the day while reading a comment someone had posted and the missing s caught my eye. But the ninth planet reference remained until quite late in the day, when my wife sent me a note via Google chat asking, “Since when is Earth the ninth planet?”

I was horrified and immediately went to the post and corrected my error. I then checked and found out the post had more than 80 views — which means several dozen people had read the post and not told me that the Earth isn’t the ninth planet.

I posted a question on Twitter afterward, asking, “If you catch an error on someone’s blog post, do you try to reach them to point it out? If not, why not?”

Here are some responses:

“If I catch it, and it’s a heinous one I do. If it’s a minor typo, it would depend. I don’t want them to look silly, so I contact.” ~ @jlknott

“Depends on the kind of error (glaring factual error vs. minor grammatical error) and/or how well I know the blogger.” ~ @LindsayMAllen

“I would, they’re putting themselves out there and a mistake makes them look bad. Let them know so they know.” ~ @akg1124

Should it matter how well we know a blogger? Should it matter if it’s a major factual error or just a simple typo? I would hope bloggers would be receptive to people pointing out corrections for them so, as @jlknott said, they won’t “look silly.” But it’s also a matter of pride. I would hope bloggers want to have credibility. I know I do. I know that, as @akg1124 said, I don’t want to “look bad.” And I know that if you see an error in one of my blogs — no matter how small — I want you to tell me.

After all, to err is human, shouldn’t correcting be, too?

I’ve always dreaded the day I would turn into the guy that said, “Back in my day…” But, alas, it’s finally happened. I can’t take it anymore. The sullying of the news industry is moving at a breakneck pace and something has to change.

So, as I was saying, back in my day when I was a newspaper reporter, it was vitally important that no one knew my personal opinion on anything. I never discussed religion or politics with anyone unless it was to get their comment for a story. I didn’t profess an opinion on much of anything and while most people probably didn’t realize I was consciously doing this, I bet that if you had asked them where I stood on an issue, they would have been hard-pressed to figure it out.

That was all a part of my attempt to remain as objective as possible when reporting on a story. But, more importantly, it was a way for me to eliminate any perceived conflicts with sources. I didn’t ever want someone thinking they wouldn’t get fair treatment in one of my stories because I was biased in some way against them or their issue.

It’s too bad the current cable television news channels don’t practice this division between fact and opinion. Ask people why they watch CNN, Fox or MSNBC, and it will probably be because they think the networks they don’t watch are too biased to the left or right.

It’s also no wonder that this happens though, when you consider that the line between news and commentary is blurred regularly on all of the networks. Too often, the morning “news” shows are full of opinionated comments from the hosts about the news they are covering. Throughout the evening, the “news” networks are filled with shows based on personalities known more for their vitriolic tirades than their commitment to sharing fact-based news with their viewers.

I’m not suggesting there isn’t a place for opinion-based commentary on TV. After all, newspaper columnists and radio talk show hosts have been informing and entertaining people for many years. But newspaper publishers, radio station owners and even local TV news outlets have traditionally done a better job with drawing a distinctive line between what is news and what is opinion. On the cable TV networks, however, this line is blurred.

That’s why it’s time to get the opinionated commentators on their own network. Call it CNN-Commentary or Fox Opinion — but get it off the news stations. If we don’t get the opinion out of the news broadcasts on TV, we are going to continue to see the erosion of the journalism industry as a whole.

Get the opinions out of the news and you’ll soon see credibility working its way back in. It’s not too late — is it?

(Image courtesy of Knight Science Journalism Tracker)

I’ve always prescribed to the notion that if you screw up, just confess and repent because that’s how you get people to trust you again, or at least not distrust you as much. Let’s face it, our society suffers from attention deficit disorder and a short memory — a combination that makes it pretty easy to go from bad guy to forgotten guy in relatively short order.

But now I’m questioning that philosophy given two recent incidents  of organizations trying to play defense with an aggressive offense and failing. Can you be too proactive when defending yourself?

Case # 1 involves Pepsi and its iPhone app, Amp Up Before You Score, sponsored by its Amp energy drink. The concept is that guys could look through a directory of female stereotypes to learn the best pickup lines and then use the app to share their conquests with others.

AdAge did a nice overview of the issue here. The problem related to my question is, did PepsiCo go overboard in backpedaling on this? Not only did they claim it was a mistake and apologize, they had other brands jump into the apology fray, including Pepsi and Mt. Dew. They even created their own hashtag for Twitter, #pepsifail. The thing is that now people who didn’t even know about the app and the controversy are talking about it and, in some cases, joining the anti-Pepsi side of the debate. The target market for Amp and the Amp app are the same, but that’s not the target audience of Pepsi or Mt. Dew or even the folks who follow Pepsi on Twitter.

Another case of hanging your laundry up in the yard before washing it occurred recently at a school district in mid-Michigan. With an amazing dose of stupidity, a group of teachers decided to party together to celebrate the end of the school year. During this party, alcohol and marijuana were consumed, apparently in great enough quantities that one of the teachers passed out. While she was unconscious, the other teachers scrawled on her body with markers to “drunk shame” her, a rite of passage for many college students who learn the hard way that your drinking buddies aren’t necessarily your friends.

Well, two years later, the “victim” has decided the police and the school district haven’t done enough for her and she went public with her complaints via the Michigan Messenger, an online news outlet. Seeing an opportunity to go on the offensive and, I guess, nip the story in the bud, the school superintendent sent a memo to all the parents in the district. The memo gave only vague references to the incident and then spoke of how the district’s hands were tied in terms of discipline but how it was considered a deplorable situation.

At this point, everyone who hadn’t heard of the incident was now frantically searching news outlets on line to figure what the heck he was talking about. And, sure enough, because the district issued a formal statement on the incident, the local mainstream media had to report on it as well. The Lansing State Journal had an overview story and a public-reaction story yesterday. There is another story today about how one of the teachers has now resigned as the girls’ varsity basketball coach.  That’s three stories in the main local paper in two days about an incident that is more than two years old — an incident that many parents probably hadn’t heard of until now.

A major corporation and a local school district went on the offensive trying to counteract negative publicity and their tactics had the exact opposite effect.

So is the philosophy of confess and repent flawed? I’d still like to believe it has its appropriate uses. If you know the story is going mainstream, then you should consider getting out in front of it. But trying to get out in front of a story that isn’t a story until you make it one is a mistake.

What do you think?

(Photo courtesy of AdAge)

This is a piece I wrote for Ragan Communications:

Published: 10/12/2009 Bloggers, relax—FTC rules aren’t revolutionary By Ari B. Adler They’re simple disclosures and easy protocols you should have been following in the first place “The FTC is coming! The FTC is coming!” Like some kind of modern-day Paul Revere, bloggers have been preparing their lanterns. They are ready to hang one if by e-mail and two if by snail-mail if they are hit with the highly touted $11,000 fine for failing to disclose compensation for a post about a product. Enough already—this is nothing worthy of a revolution. The Federal Trade Commission ruling doesn’t appear to be all about levying massive fines, trying to make mommy bloggers choose between some cool free products for the home or their kids’ college education. The basics behind the new guidelines are as follows: Endorsers and advertisers can now be held liable for false claims; Endorsers and advertisers must disclose material connections with their sponsor; Bloggers are now considered endorsers if they receive compensation, including free products; Firms that engage bloggers with any form of payment in order to receive endorsement of a product must disclose that relationship. Celebrity endorsers must now disclose advertising relationships; The “results not typical” or “results may vary” caveat is no longer a defense for advertisers when their product doesn’t work the way they said it would; and Sponsorship for research cited in advertisements or endorsements must be disclosed. As a former journalist and one who still believes in the journalistic code of ethics, I’ve been frustrated for some time now how bloggers are posting their opinions with a smattering of facts and expecting the world to take it as gospel. When I write blog posts, I think it’s clear they are my opinion. They are based on facts but also are influenced by my personal opinion, and I don’t hold back when commenting on the facts I’ve uncovered. It’s been liberating, actually, to be able to write about things and offer some analysis and a few snarky comments. It’s something I was unable to do as a journalist, because back then it really was just about the facts. I learned the hard way that no matter how well intentioned you are as a writer, if you are given special treatment, provided a product or compensated in any way, it will influence how your story is written. When I was a young editor at a weekly newspaper, a trip to Mackinac Island, Mich., to check out a refurbished hotel came across my desk. I figured it couldn’t hurt to take a trip north as I hadn’t been there in a while, and I was determined to give a fair and accurate review of the facility. I took the free trip, spent a couple of days gathering notes and came home to write what I thought was a great travel piece. It was factual. It was fair. It was positive about some things and critical of others. I was very pleased with myself for having pulled off a junket and still managing to write an ethically acceptable news story. Then the story was printed, and I got a visit from our publisher. His first words were, “I hope we got something for that Mackinac Island story.” I explained that we weren’t a pay-to-play publication so, of course, there was no advertising connected to it, but that I did get a couple of days on the island for my efforts. “Ah, OK, he said—well as long as someone got compensated in some way for that promotional piece.” See, it’s not that the FTC or the buying public don’t want journalists or bloggers to get free stuff. It’s not that people don’t trust your ethics. It’s that they understand that no matter how objective you think you can be, there is no doubt you are going to be influenced by compensation in any form when you sit down to write about your experience. In the textbook “Mixed Media,” by Thomas Bivins, it’s noted: “The subjective view of reality is relative to the observer. …We must remember that, as human beings, we still tend to view the objective world through a subjective lens. The trick to being objective is to recognize this inclination and understand that there will be different accounts of reality that must then be judged as either adequate or inadequate based on facts and reason, not on personal perspective.” How are we, as readers, expected to be able to judge adequately what your perception of reality is if we don’t know all the facts about how you may have been influenced in your writing? If you receive a free product in order to review it—take advantage of the opportunity. But be forthright enough to admit that it may influence your opinion. After all, your hard-earned money isn’t on the line if the product works like a charm or not quite like you expected. If your readers are going to spend their money based on your review, you owe it to them to be as transparent as possible on how you arrived at your opinion. In the end, the FTC rules boil down to being upfront about what you are doing, why you are doing it and whom you are doing it for—whether you’re a journalist, an advertiser, a public relations professional or a blogger. In a memo to members of the Public Relations Society of America, PRSA Chairman & CEO Michael Cherenson wrote: “From an ethics perspective, the new guidelines parallel key transparency principles in the PRSA Code of Ethics, as well as Professional Standards Advisory PS-9 condemning ‘pay for play’ practices. However, for practitioners, the guidelines go beyond ethics to recommended practice to avoid legal liability. While the ethics are clear, the triggers and nature of adequate disclosure are not fixed. As I recommended in a recent PRSAY post, thorough understanding and self-regulation can help public relations professionals avoid legal repercussions.” In short: Do the right thing and do it where everyone can see it, and you’ll avoid any trouble. Now there’s a revolutionary concept.

Are you a brand? Yes you are, whether you like it or not.

As a professional adviser for the Michigan State University Chapter of the Public Relations Student Society of America, I was approached recently to help secure a speaker for a professional development session on personal branding. I put the word out on Twitter to mid-Michigan folks, asking them who came to mind when thinking about who has built and maintains a solid personal brand.

A number of people replied with the same answers, so that was a good sign that those folks nominated as having a “solid personal brand” truly do. I was honored and humbled to be among those listed. I think it’s rewarding to know that the work I’ve done to put myself out there in a way that is open and sincere in all facets of my online and real-life encounters is paying off.

I also was somewhat surprised, however, when one person asked why everyone is so worried about their personal brand and if this was a symptom of the “me, me, me” philosophy complained about so often lately.

It got me thinking about different perspectives on this issue. I believe everything you do in your personal and professional life is building or dismantling your personal brand. It doesn’t matter who you work for — you as an individual are responsible for your brand. It starts as a young college student building that first resume and continues throughout your career as you add on job experience, professional  references and personal online identities.

Obviously, my opinion isn’t the only one — so let’s hear yours. Are you a brand? If so, what are you doing to build and maintain it? If not, why not — I want to hear the other side of this argument as well.

For reference, I’m pleased to share the other nominees for those in mid-Michigan cited by at least a few people as having a solid personal brand:

• Bob Fish — founder of Biggby Coffee, whom you can follow at @biggbybob on Twitter

• Betsy Weber — chief evangelist for TechSmith – @betsyweber

• Julielyn Gibbons — founder of i3 Strategies – @i3strategies

• Bil Moore — solutions consultant for Strategic Products & Services – @bilmoore

(Photo courtesy of Lucinda Surber)

It was troubling to listen to the news coverage of the Olympic Committee’s selection of Rio de Janeiro as the host of the 2016 Summer Olympic Games.

The attitude being displayed by the “news”casters on CNN was ridiculous, and it was hard not to feel some embarrassment for the United States being a poor loser if the world took CNN’s views as representative of the country as a whole. Were they upset because they are a left-leaning news organization and were extra frustrated because President Obama couldn’t deliver the games to Chicago?

Perhaps, because on the other side of the political spectrum was the Fox News channel, with their version of a biased blowhard — Glenn Beck — who was elated that Chicago lost.

The reality is that both sides need to get a grip. The Left needs to see that Obama can’t make everything happen, but the Right needs to realize that everything that goes wrong is not Obama’s fault. Listening to the partisan newscasts and watching the Facebook and Twitter feeds from the Democratic and Republican party faithful was frustrating for me.

No matter what the outcome of the Chicago bid for the Olympics, folks on the far Right would have found a reason to hate it. We lost, so they’re saying it’s Obama’s fault and even celebrating the loss. If we had won, they would have argued it was just Obama greasing the skids for his Chicago cronies.

Because Obama went to Copenhagen, the Right is arguing he wasted tax dollars. But if he hadn’t gone, he probably would have been accused of letting the country down and been labeled as not caring.

What does spitting this much venom at people do for the good of the country? The Left did it against Bush and the Right seems to think it’s payback time.

The politics of hatred from both sides is unbelievable. I’m sick of the schoolyard mentality of our political and party  leaders. I’m interested in promoting and protecting common sense, which is one of the first casualties when people start drinking the Kool-Aid from the cups adorned with either an elephant or a donkey.

Both sides of the political spectrum are proving lately that they are so blinded by hate for each other that those of us in the middle mean nothing, nor does the future of this country. I doubt I’m alone in believing that we have the greatest country in the world not because of the Republican or Democratic parties, but in spite of them.

Where is the independent or third-party candidate we can believe in? When will voters wake up, get informed, and stop giving in to the idea that only an R or a D behind your name will get you to the White House, or Congress, or a state Capitol building?

Am I just too cynical and bitter toward the status quo? Am I alone feeling this way? Should I sit back with a Kool-Aid of my choice and just let things happen as they may?

Let’s have an honest and open discussion about what’s going on in this country once and for all. I’m open-minded and am willing to be shown where I’m wrong and why I should believe in one major party or the other. But the challenge is yours to convince me, because I’m quite fed up with both sides right now.

I’m a member of the Chrysler Community Advisory Board — a group of consumers that I thought had a sort of backstage pass to what the folks at the car company are thinking about in terms of design, quality, production and other components of the corporation. It’s been interesting to see what folks in the boardroom have in mind, to chat with designers and to hear what other consumers of the Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep brand think about the vehicles and company proposals. Until now, it’s been a fun exercise that doesn’t take much of my time even if I never thought it would make much of a difference.

It turns out that, supposedly, what we say on the feedback polls matters, but it also turns out that the company isn’t really as dedicated to the CAB as some of us may have thought.

Case in point: Chrysler owner’s manuals. Back in February, we were asked to vote on an idea that involved moving the bulk of the owner’s manuals to DVD while providing a much smaller printed version that contained only highlights. As I recall, the majority voted for the new concept. According to a press release issued on Sept. 21 this future idea is now reality.

Here’s the kicker: the Customer Advisory Board was notified of this change with an announcement that “Your Opinion Counts!” on Sept. 28. So, our opinion counts, I suppose, because we had a hand in helping the company make a decision. But the CAB doesn’t seem to matter that much because we found out by being sent a week-old press release.

Am I over-reacting? It just strikes me as odd that an invitation-only group that was formed to create a connection via social media between a company and its consumers is left out of the loop on a big decision. I’m not even asking for any kind of pre-announcement, because realistically you can’t expect all of us to keep something quiet. But would it have been that hard to tell us the same day the announcement was made?

I’m going to post a comment and see what others think and will let you know if I hear anything back from Chrysler. Any discussions we start are moderated by the the company, so I’m not sure if my fellow members will ever see it or I’ll just get a note back from Chrysler.

In the meantime, what do you think — either about the announcement of the owner’s manuals moving to DVD or how Chrysler handled the announcement to its Customer Advisory Board?

Pepsi has announced a new online community targeting African-American moms as a way to help that demographic inspire each other with their stories. It’s interesting to me that a company that makes a product called ONE is now trying to continue the troubling history in this country of separating people by race.

I had high hopes that social media, finally, would be one vehicle that would help us smash through the barriers erected by differences in the color of our skin and help us realize that we are all part of one race: the human race.

But now, marketers at Pepsi have decided that African-American moms are underrepresented and need a place to have their voices heard. Too bad their voices won’t be heard by anyone other than people exactly like them.

I’m a white dad, so obviously I can’t speak for black moms everywhere. I just wish marketing people at companies like Pepsi would realize they can’t either. First of all, who  asked them to? Who says black women can’t get on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and all the other outlets to have their voices heard? Who says they need a special place just to call their own — and that they can’t create one via Ning? Who says that black women aren’t smart enough to see right through this marketing trap? Who says we need to turn the Internet into a microcosm of real life, with its inherent racism and the segregation that results from it?

Just last month, we saw the passing of the 46th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. I can’t help but wonder how inspirational and amazing he would find the technology of today and how it has transformed our abilities to see past race and look only at a person for what they are contributing to the conversation.

His infamous exclamations certainly ring true when you look at a social media outlet like Twitter, which helps meld us into a community that is not based on race, religion or nationality.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’”

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

“Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring—when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics—will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

I recently had a colleague who is just getting into social media make the following comment, and it punctuates what I’m trying to say in this post:

I find it fascinating that social media is generating social activity that did not exist before and bringing together people that otherwise would not have connected. Way fun.

It’s too bad major American brands like Pepsi can’t see the potential for social media to bring us together instead of another avenue to keep us apart.