Rick Murray circulated a great blog post from Seth Godwin

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/03/the-difference-betw…

The post outlines how Storytelling is the art that elevated our role from publicists to great public relations practitioners. The jist of the comment is that essentially through a story we can create a mythology and perception that has lasting resonance as opposed to a release of information that generates a headline or newsletter article or comment.

Luke’s post on the ability for video to tell stories got me thinking about what elements of storytelling shape a mental picture that endures. My thoughts were that the story should cover some of the points below (your thoughts on any additional points welcome) :

1. Narrative – beginning, middle and end
2. Resolves a mystery, paradox, moral dilemma
3. Characters/organization who go through a journey
4. Illuminates a specific setting, back drop or world view

Back in the day brand owners and advertisers in particular became very good at telling stories think of the Milk Tray Man or the packet of Pilas Phogg Snacks (remember them?) but there are many classic adds that exploited this storytelling ability. Ironically PR agencies were less effective at story telling and often defaulting to tactical release driven media relations and publicity, however, the new environment of social media presents a great opportunity for PR people to set this right.

As we know we are now in an age of conversation where the driving force of communication are comments, thoughts and ideas that are exchanged rapidly and even tweeted in only 180 characters. But this creates a challenge for communicators. How do we tell a story in this environment? The answer is not easy because listening and contributing to a conversation makes a narrative very hard. Traditional messaging does n’t work because a conversation means listening and responding real time.

The answer has to be strategic, based on analysis and insight. If we have a way of analyzing the whole conversation at a moment in time then we can build a framework for our story to engage the conversation. However, we also need a way of rapidly refining what we have to say and this is where monitoring comes in and using 2.0 tools to listen and adapt our point but within the umbrella of a story. Two things are important here: firstly influencers and this is because it more effective to listen to the influential and then a more powerful endorsement and amplifier when the influential comment on our story. Secondly the issues are key because if the story is built around a known issue that people are talking about then it will automatically start to become a part of a much bigger issues-driven narrative. The nirvana for this kind of story telling is when you become an idea starter or partner with an idea starter whether it is Dita Von Teese to tell a story about a new kind of lingerie or David Rothschild to campaign on re-using plastics if your idea starts or ignites the story then it spreads and grows exponentially.

However, the challenge does n’t end with conversation because there is also chaos. A great report from Forrester estimated that 80 percent of comment on a brand is beyond the control of the brand owner. Again in this scenario the company has to work with the influential to be understood. However, the nature of this conversation can be chaotic take for instance the spoof video circulating recently of news coverage around Sony product launch that revolved around the company being honest and to put it mildly cursing the usefulness of it’s products.

Attachment(s) available for download until 2009-04-10

Attachment: THE TRUTH ABOUT ELECTRONIC GOODIES.wmv, 5.07 MBytes

This is the live rail of social media and how we tell stories in this world of chaos is a thorny issue. A part of the answer must be in authentic ideas, conversations and humility in story telling as the video shows anything too slick or messaged is resented and parodied. But it takes a lot of strength to remain gracious in the face of this kind of onslaught. Unless of course this was itself an attempt at authenticity.

However, the essential ‘news worthiness of this initiative worries me: why should an official tweet  be so unusual that it makes the news?  The Internet as a force for empowering citizens and conversations with politicians and policy makers has been broadly understood since the 2004 Presidential election.  In this time, a pioneering society should have been able to deploy a myriad of tools and channels to build this dialogue between institutions and citizens.  Yet apart from isolated acts the No10 petition being a notable example the UK has done little to build a true digi-democracy. 

It is easy to see this as either a social failing, a part of Britain’s growing apathy with politics, a reflection on the innate conservatism of Britain’s institutions and dearth of innovation culture.   However, even in the US the tradition behind land of free has led to much greater dialogue but the establishment  of a true digi-democracy seems stunted or a preserve of special interest groups.

For me it noticeable that for the shift to a digi-democracy to gather pace greater integration with existing platforms and better awareness amongst citizens themselves of the potential for real dialogue, is required.  There is clearly a perception gap between what empowered citizens think they can do and the technical ability to deliver a joined up political conversation.

I am still rather stung by the vitriol coming from ‘fruit of’s’  comment on my cold jabberwocky.   In particularly as it appears so much at odds with the mood of the moment.    I came across a fascinating technology business the other day imaginatik who have an interesting product called Ideas  Central that allows its users to democratically source ideas and feedback from the online world.  It seems that in this world of mass sourcing ideas that surely some cold jabberwocky will inevitably rise to the surface but to quote a travelling Frenchman from the 19^th century to focus on this jabberwocky is to miss the point that “the moral empire of the majority is founded in part on the idea that there is more enlightenment and wisdom in many men united than one.”  Stick that in your whimsical pipe.

In fact the more I think on ‘fo’s’ agenda the more I am worried.  If the pedants such as ‘fo’ get their way and ascend to becoming the influencer and online arbitrator because the shout the loudest and most humorously  then perhaps this majority becomes tyrannous? To quote the more elegant Frenchman: “As long as the majority is doubtful one speaks but when it is irrevocably pronounced everyone becomes silent friends and enemies alike then seem to hitch themselves together to its wagon.”   

Clearly the danger of this tyranny becomes greater when anonymity is allowed to go unchallenged so in the name of all that is good would ‘fruit of’ please reveal his true identity.

Disclosure: Edelman has a commerical relationship with Imaginatik