A few news sites confirmed the rumor with “un-named” sources, but did anyone see ValleyWag’s confirmation post? They happened to notice that key PR contacts at both companies had friended each other on Facebook. Clearly, ValleyWag made a (not so) huge leap of faith, but as we embrace more social technologies, this is something for us all to keep in mind: the scoop oriented media (read: bloggers) may be watching the company you keep.

Rohit’s presentation resonated with me because I agree – it’s not necessarily about transparency in communications, it’s about authenticity – in everything you we do.

If you accept that businesses are around to make money, you must also accept that there will, necessarily, be limitations on how open a company can/should be. That means that sometimes, this “transparency” isn’t always the right choice for companies – particularly when discussing future plans of the company.

However, I believe it is very possible for executives to be authentic while still maintaining a competitive edge and protecting proprietary information. In the end, it’s all about adding a lot more “human factor” and removing the corporate speak — which ultimately helps build trusting relationships with employees, shareholders, customers and partners, and even the media. All this is done by simply allowing a spokesperson to be honest and forthcoming (without disclosing company secrets).

One of the more controversial ranking comes from Edelman’s European office, and is their take on ranking the influencers of the blogosphere. Dubbed the Social Media Index, it looks at 30 blogs, from media sites like TechCrunch and Search Engine Watch to PR/Marketing blogs like Logic+Emotion, to corporate-to-consumer blogs like direct2dell. The Index measures each blog’s “influence” based on their Facebook ranking, Twittering activity, and even the number of contacts on LinkedIn.

In the past week, this index has generated a lot of discussion and responses. My take on the index follows:

• First, I’m still not sure I understand what Edelman is measuring. It’s not clear if they even understand what they’re measuring, which leads to poor data. Just look at the collection of blogs they bunch together – it makes me wonder who TechCrunch and Dell’s consumer blog and a marketing executive are collectively influencing. The answer, of course, is they’re not. Their audience, and ultimately their purpose, varies. So how can a company claim to measure and compare their “influence” in a standardized way?

• The Index is naive in that it assumes quantity and exposure = quality; activity = value; and popularity = influence. For example, it gives credit to the number of contacts on LinkedIn – without confirming whether those are people who have met at a tradeshow, or if a real relationship exists. Look at it this way: can you imagine a company basing a salesperson’s commission on the number of business cards they collect each year vs. the number of deals they close and customers they retain?

• It forgoes any real research that measures influence, listing a site that focuses solely on tech startups as one of the most influential on the Web — yet it cites no evidence that public companies or consumers or any other stakeholders outside that universe have been “influenced” by it. It also neglects to define what influence is.

• I could see value in Edelman trying to standardize how its clients rank the influence of the bloggers relevant to them. But even then, giving weight to effort over results creates flawed rankings.

Another listing that has appeared copies Todd And’s Power 150 approach. The Friendly Ghost’s Power PR Index measures the popularity of the FG’s blogroll. It bases the rankings on a mixture of traffic, linking, etc. Because it only looks at PR blogs, it also applies an apples-to-apples comparison. The one challenge of the list (which I love, btw, and not just because I’m on it) is that it only looks at the PR blogs that the Friendly Ghost reads. But, it’s still a great start.

And finally, we come to possibly the most in-depth ranking list, as well as the most thought out. Check out the Onalytica Blog, which has two great posts about measuring the influence of PR blogs. I’m not sure if this was a response to Edelman’s list or just a very timely post. It takes a look at the science behind measuring influence, recognizing that influence varies by audience, and attempts to measure the influence of PR blogs.

If you haven’t read the posts describing the process and thinking of quantifying influence, you really, really should. Clearly, a lot of thinking went into this list, and it sounds like even more work is planned. Depending on how it develops, it could become a model for actually measuring the influence of other topical blogs. At some point, I’d love to see this list merge with the Power PR Index, to compare popularity and influence side by side.

The first, “Understanding the New Influencers: Promise and Perils of the Blogosphere” was with Paul Gillin. He discussed his book (I do here). What stuck in my mind was a discussion that ensued with an audience member. He made the point that content is not the differentiator for social media — the community is. Gillin countered that content creates and maintains the community. Social media sites (from YouTube to blogs) have to provide valuable content if they want more visitors.

It’s a simple concept that most PR pros will agree with. The challenge, which is something we’ve always faced, is that value is decided by the audience members/website visitors/potential customers. To me, that means that as social media provides more avenues for us to reach individuals, it’s even more important for us to understand our audience and purpose … and map our tone and theme accordingly. And then make sure our content is valuable to those members. And they can find it (or it finds them). Oh, and then keep them happy.

Another session I found interesting was called “Web 3.0 – Changing the Ways We Interact.” It was moderated by Joel Dreyfuss, Red Herring’s editor-in-chief, and featured execs from Userplan (AOL), Schwartz Communications and Yahoo. Carol McGarry of Schwartz made a few interesting points about Web 2.0/3.0 and its impact on PR:

• The PR industry is witnessing a blurring of the lines, with traditional media going online and bloggers acting like media with staff, offices, etc. (Think of USA Today’s move to be more social, and TechCrunch’s move to deliver news via a blog).
• One of the greatest impacts these new technologies has had on PR has been on the decision tree. Now, company execs need to be ready to respond immediately to a negative blog mention vs. having junior PR people do it. Also, this new PR world means that messaging needs to be in place in order to enable a real-time response.
• A great advantage of the blogosphere is that when companies are mentioned — good or bad — they always link to the company website (well, almost always). PR people need to remember that, because if your company is in the news, it’s very likely like the readers will go to the company website, so be sure to deliver your message there first.

A few other interesting points made on the panelists:

• Social media turns passive consumers into active value creators. Marketers should use those brand advocates across the network to watch your brand and promote the company. Of course, that means you must relinquish control of your message. You should also provide incentives to encourage the discussion, which often is as easy as embracing them as extended family to the company.
• Affinity networks are going to be huge. Facebook and MySpace are popular now, but as business professionals join the consumer members, the communities will eventually get too large and their value will diminish. Some of the panelists felt that in the not-so-distant future, people will pay money to join affinity networks that provide more filters and targeting (and of course, it makes sense for PR people to do the same). So don’t put all your social media eggs in the Facebook basket.

I don’t use all of the technologies captured in the presentation, but I think it highlights two key points of social media:

1. Everyone has free access to these technologies (unless your company won’t let you download Firefox, in which case you should protest).

2. These technologies are taking off because they make our lives easier and end users are incorporating them into their lives, not because companies did a major ROI evaluation.

For communications and PR people, the benefits are huge. Content is still king, people just want to digest it on their own terms (phone, RSS readers, etc.). At the same time, it’s easier to get content out there with so many audiences and mediums. We can even publish the content ourselves.

The challenge we face is the same one faced a century ago when the first press release was issued: content is still king. If you/your client doesn’t have something new or interesting to say, or can’t back up the claims with customers, analysts, revenues, etc., it will still be hard to find an interested audience.

Key points that resonated with me:

“Realize that messages are not conversations. This is where most companies fall down in traditional marketing. People just don’t speak or hear things that way.”

“The future of marketing integrates traditional and social media elements. The new mix will include what you know along with the tools to succeed in social media and customer relations … Remember, the future of communications introduces sociology into the marketing strategy. The technology is just that, technology. The tools will change. The networks will evolve. Mediums for distributing content will grow.”

“What does the future of integrated marketing and communications look like? It’s a mashup of new media and traditional media – all with the common goal of engaging people and influencers on their terms.”

Any my favorite:

“The best communications programs will reach out to traditional media, a-list bloggers, people, and communities equally. But it requires a new mindset.” Although, I don’t think we need to limit it to simply a-listers.

It’s really a great piece. Take some time to read it (print it and take it on your next plane ride if that’s not too Web 1.0).

I’ve also been thinking about setting up a del.icio.us site, but I’ll admit it’s a Web 2.0 technology I’m not in love with. I recently stumbled across Pageflakes and am experimenting with using it to catch up on my news. I don’t think it’s going to work, though, because I have hundreds of news feeds, newsletters, Google alerts and blog feeds going into Bloglines. But, it could be a cool, more visual alternative to setting up a company-focused del.icio.us. Stay tuned on that…

Finally, I’ve been told I need more graphics in my blog. I’ll try to get better about that. If you have any other suggestions, comments, tips or tricks, I’d love to hear them!

• Companies don’t know how their customers use social technologies. So true. It’s safe to say your customers are online, but knowing whether they’re using blogs, RSS readers or YouTube is an entirely new challenge.

• Inexperience with what works, when, and why. The social media world is so new, there aren’t any experts (even those who think they are … aren’t).

• Just when you’ve mastered these technologies, something new comes along. An even bigger challenge. I’m finally “getting” this blogging thing, and I have a list of about eight new technologies I want to experiment with.

Forrester ended the call with six suggestions to consider when creating a social computing/social media strategy:
• Understand the Social Technographics profile of your target audience.
• Map out how users will participate — both today and in the future.
• Create multiple participation points.
• Find lightweight ways for first-time Creators to contribute.
• Make it easy for Spectators to find user-generated content.
• Prepare your organization for participation — and criticism.

I’ll add one more: learn from your failures, but don’t give up.