Continuing our series on Social Media Ethical Dilemmas, this post is about the guidelines related to agencies who help client contacts to identify and engage, via commenting, on industry/influencer blogs.

The goal is to insert our clients’ executives and perspectives into industry conversations; to help them build up their credibility, and ultimately to create valuable relationships with influencers.

How do you do this?  How can you effectively inform and educate busy clients while also cultivating the bloggers’ goodwill in an authentic way?

Here’s the general process…

The Agency is tasked with monitoring a series of influential blogs.

The Agency staff read the blogs every day, and sometimes comment — with full transparency, i.e., they comment as themselves, since it is not only in the client’s best interest but also in the PR pro’s interest to be engaged with the blogger.

On occasion, the blogger writes about something — a trend, a client competitor, etc. — that truly impacts the client.

At that point, the PR agency pro alerts the client, with a note that describes the blog post, its relevance to the client, and a brief description of the key points that the client might want to use in their own response, should they choose to engage.

EXAMPLE: Let’s say we have a client in the Search industry.  An influential blogger drafts a post about the evolution of SEO.  Our team reads it, drafts a synopsis, and immediately sends it to our client with a recommendation…

“We recommend inserting yourself into this conversation from a broader standpoint in terms of how many technologies, not just SEO, are changing in response to innovations in Search… Helping consumers move beyond the limits of traditional search is a more important end-goal than focusing on tweaking SEO.” (etc.)

Ethical dilemma #1: is this an unethical engagement strategy??  On the one hand, as I just noted, our PR team is taking an inordinate amount of time to read and really think about each of these blog commenting opportunities, on behalf of our clients.  The resulting comments (ultimately written by clients personally) come across as lucid and engaged.  BUT, yea, there’s no denying it: many of our clients need us to tell them when, where, why and how to engage — and that engagement is often a cursory exercise.  The Agency often does the heavy lifting in terms of monitoring, identification, analysis, and recommendation.

Why?  Because the clients are busy running their companies and working with customers. Because there are now hundreds of blogs to monitor.  And because, over time, it tends to happen that genuine relationships are cultivated, e.g., when the blogger reaches out to the client contact directly, as a result of their interesting comment. What started out as a 1–level-deep commitment can convert into a true relationship; the Agency just helped plant the first few seeds.

In other words: it’s a gray area that I am comfortable living in.

This is not about misrepresenting the client; it’s actually about a) making sure the client is well informed about the trends and opinions of the blogosphere, b) saving time for the client and, c) making sure the influential bloggers are justifiably made aware of the fact that our clients do care about their content (even if they can’t keep track on a daily basis).

Ethical dilemma #2: it happens that sometimes the Agency’s suggestions can be pretty easily cut&pasted as the actual comment… the busy client might not take the time to put their own touches on it.  Worse, they sometimes say, “Yea, that sounds good.  Just use that language, and assign my name to that comment: you post it.”

While we are chagrined when our suggestions are used whole-cloth, there’s not much we can do.  When asked to post a comment on a client’s behalf, we always decline — both because our IP address could be traced back, and because, well, we don’t think it is ethical… though some clients are left scratching their heads.  After all, we will sometimes “ghostblog!?”  What’s the difference?  I don’t have a good answer.  My gut says “don’t go there.”

You can see how, as this series progresses, the dilemmas get trickier, stickier, harder.  All I can assure you, Dear Readers, is that we grapple with these ethical issues mightily, and often.  We take nothing for granted.  We harbor no cynicism nor deviousness.  We operate with every intention of maintaining the highest degrees of integrity…but we also live and work in a gray and uncharted land.

Your thoughts appreciated.

Several of my friends have launched iPhone apps recently.  (I am lookin’ at you, Brian Solis, Chris Brogan, Tamar Weinberg and C.C. Chapman.)  This is getting easier and easier to do, thanks to emergent services like Mobile Roadie and Motherapp.

On the one hand, yea, I admit it, I smirked at each new announcement.  Felt a little too self-reverential.  Even Mitch Joel — no shrinking violet — called them “Golden Calf” apps.

But I parleyed with C.C. about it, and read his post carefully.  His point is not lost on me: RSS is a tool of the elite; most folks surf their Bookmarks rather than use an RSS Reader.

Meanwhile, apps are becoming ubiquitous — not just on iPods, iPhones (and upcoming iPads), but via the Android Store, etc.

So why not create a single-serving RSS feed, in app form, which offers the further benefits of providing additional content (podcasts, etc.) in one place?

I get it.

I’m just not ready to do it.

Last Thursday was a banner day for SHIFT, as we cut the ribbon at the opening of  our NYC office.  We celebrated in style, ‘natch, with a party that included everyone from SavvyAuntie Melanie Notkin, to reporters from the Wall Street Journal, PRWeek, MediaBistro and RealSimple, to venture capitalists, and many more friends and colleagues.  Full-house.  Raucous and fun.

David Parmet of Marketing Begins at Home probably did the best job of capturing the “real me” — an unmatched combination of goofiness and ego.  I half-drunkenly stumbled out onto our NYC office’s (illegal) patio for this video interview:

Todd Defren – SHIFT Communications from David Parmet on Vimeo.

In other news, I am traveling a lot this week (thus being a week late with this post!) but, yes, I plan on writing up additional posts in our Social Media Ethical Dilemma series soon.

A new survey conducted by Cision and Don Bates of The George Washington University’s Master’s Degree Program in Strategic Public Relations found that “an overwhelming majority of reporters and editors now depend on social media sources when researching their stories.”

Specifically, “89% said they turn to blogs for story research, 65% to social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, and 52% to microblogging services such as Twitter.”

Per the news release: While the results demonstrate the fast growth of social media as a well-used source of information for mainstream journalists, the survey also (noted that) eighty-four percent said Social Media sources were less reliable than traditional media.

The survey also noted that “most journalists turn to public relations professionals for assistance in their primary research … they depend on PR pros for ‘interviews and access to sources and experts’ … ‘answers to questions and targeted information’ … and ‘perspective, information in context, and background information.’”

Let’s take a step back; it’s too easy to come up with a self-serving “See? Told ya so” statement in defense of PR’s role.  Let’s take it up a notch.

The VAST MAJORITY of journalists now turn to Social Media for story ideas.

Part of the PR pro’s new job in this era is to create, seed and cultivate content about clients in the socialstreams.

We are casting breadcrumbs. Done well, consumers react.  Journalists notice.  They follow the trail of breadcrumbs to PR pros, who can then validate and augment their prospective stories.

It’s not just about pitch, pitch, pitching, 1:1, PR to Journalist, anymore.  The pickup of story concepts at a grassroots level, by consumers, is now part of that process.