In social media circles, there’s been a lot of talk recently about online influencers — finding and cultivating this relatively new genre of people in hopes of getting them to mention your business or write something favorable about your product.

Here’s my question: Isn’t this what PR professionals have always done, now it just has a catchy Web 2.0 name?

Pre-social media, the influencers included the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and well-read columnists at local papers throughout the country. Beyond traditional media outlets, opinion leaders like leading entrepreneurs, prominent business owners and philanthropists have always been integral to the process. As PR people, we’ve always kept them on our radar screen … searching for common bonds to help us develop, strenghten and maintain strong relationships.

When you get down to it, doesn’t that sound very similar to what we’ve now dubbed “cultivating influencers?”

I have to wonder if part of this new obsession stems from the fact that many social media consultants have backgrounds outside traditional public relations. (And, that’s a good thing — social media is about so much more than just good PR.) But, social media is also about strengthening communication. It’s a game changer, so let’s not get hung up on semantics. Instead, let’s focus on the value these new influencers bring to the table and how they can help level the playing field for small- to medium-size businesses. To kick things off, let’s look at a question from this week’s #journchat:

My initial response:

What’s your take? What “offline” influencers are still important? And who are the new influencers? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

It’s inevitable that the social media “iron curtain” would fall. The government has banned Marines from using it – and now ESPN, along with some NFL teams, have restricted its use.

(For anyone who has been living under the proverbial Twitter rock, most NFL teams are no longer allowed to tweet during games or practice, while ESPN employees cannot post anything sports-related through social media. Marines are excluded from all social media for one year.)

Just as I was typing this blog, this tweet from George Diaz, a sports columnist at the Orlando Sentinel, appeared in my Twitter feed: Are the corporate tweets at ESPN stifling free speech by issuing guidelines to employees on social networking? R they going too far?

Apparently I’m not the only one wondering about the implication of these restrictions – and whether or not this censorship violates the right of free speech as protected in the First Amendment. Note Schenk v. the United States (1919): A restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger” – i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.

In 1919, the federal courts would have had no idea how we would assimilate information 90 years later, and obviously, I can see how Marines tweeting about locations of top secret missions could be a threat to national security – both a serious and imminent one. But ESPN? Football?

I’m all for establishing guidelines in the professional realm – employees need to remember that they represent their employer. If you’re using social media professionally, then you must be smart about it. Spilling company secrets or bashing your boss are sure ways to find yourself in the unemployment line – or worse.

Bottom-line: Don’t be stupid.

However, what ESPN has done transcends the professional sphere and gets personal. ESPN employees are no longer allowed to maintain personal blogs, tweet or otherwise use social media for anything sports-related, without approval from a supervisor. I’m operating under the assumption that ESPN employees have a greater love than most for sports, so imposing restrictions such as these would, in fact, prohibit their freedom of speech. And, in a day and age when access to information is instant, waiting for a supervisor’s approval could make the information irrelevant.

And what about the NFL? For example, Green Bay Packers players who tweet during games or practice will be fined for doing so; however, they are free to embrace social media otherwise. Is this an acceptable form of restriction? Basically, the “do it on your own time” mantra? Perhaps NFL franchises would prefer to keep their eye on the game and are less concerned with the content of their “off the field” status updates.

Admittedly, with the use of social media and instant availability of information, the lines of professional and personal communications have never been more blurred. But who should dictate how this is used? Should it be up to the individual to understand what is appropriate information to share – or should we not be trusted enough to disseminate information on our own accord?

So, what’s your call? I say, “Fumble.”

Update: This blog went live last Friday, and in the days since, more social media restrictions have been imposed. Additional information can be found here at Mashable.com.

Now, the SEC (Southeastern Conference) is banning ticketholders from using social media of any kind during collegiate football games.

It seems to me that fans tweeting or posting Facebook status updates during games would create more excitement – and result in more people turning on the game …not the opposite. Would fans really prefer to watch a grainy YouTube.com video versus the real thing on TV? Or read a play-by-play in 140 character bursts? I think not.

This policy is ridiculous for many reasons – and the main one doesn’t even have anything to do with social media per se. It’s about the logistics. Who is going to be patrolling the stadiums looking for any sort of illicit cell phone use?

While I can understand that CBS wants to protect its lucrative advertising contract, this policy raises numerous concerns. The most resonating is: What’s next? Is this becoming a new trend because companies don’t understand how consumers use social media?

Social media and nonprofits are a perfect match, which explains why so many organizations are testing the Web 2.0 waters. From national organizations, like the American Red Cross, to our very own Central Florida Coalition for the Homeless — nonprofits are discovering value in this interactive way of communicating with current and potential donors, volunteers and advocates.

If you’re a nonprofit in Central Florida, we invite you to attend one (or both!) of these upcoming events, where we’ll be speaking about how you can incorporate social media into your overall communication strategy:

Central Florida Nonprofit Expo
Thursday, August 13,5:45 – 7:30 p.m.
Holy Trinity Reception & Conference Center. (Google Maps)
Contact RJ Bock (rjbock@orlandoeventseries.com) for more details

Florida Public Relations Association,Orlando Chapter, Nonprofit Roundtable
Tuesday, August 18, 2009, Noon – 1 p.m. (includes lunch)
$10 per person, free for FPRA members
Canine Companions for Independence (Google Maps)
Click here to RSVP on or before Friday, August 14, 2009

Quick – you need a restaurant recommendation for a special night out; do you…

A. Google “Winter Park, FL restaurants”
B. Send out a tweet asking for help
C. Check reviews on Yelp!

Yesterday’s HARO (Help a Reporter Out) conference call, hosted by Peter Shankman and Chris Brogan, introduced listeners to the idea of the “human web” versus the “machine web” – and why brands need to utilize one more than the other.

The human web includes social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Yelp! – while the machine web refers to search engines like Google, Yahoo and Bing. When you’re looking for movie times, it is smart to get help from Google – but if you want a review, your human network is probably your best bet.

For example, some critics deemed recent movie Brüno the “one-day wonder” due to the fact that its numbers declined 40% from Friday to Saturday. Time suggested that Twitter might be to blame, claiming that “Brüno could be the first movie defeated by the Twitter effect.” As moviegoers tweeted their various experiences, ranging from walking out of the theater to being completely mortified, their followers caught on.

It is sometimes easy to forget that search engines are, in the end, machines fueled by search algorithms and, in some cases, advertisements. Having a “loyal army,” as Shankman puts it, is vital to brands in the social media age. It might be easier for a consumer to ask a search engine what restaurants are in the area, but if the consumer asks their Twitter followers to suggest one, they get a recommendation from someone they trust – whether they know them personally or not. On the same note, as discussed in the conference call, a recommendation from a loyal customer is more trusted than the restaurant itself suggesting you try their newest dish.

The key for businesses is to get customers to be their biggest fans (and their ultimate source for PR) – but this is easier said than done. One step in the right direction is to make sure you are interacting with your social media network… not just having a one-sided conversation.

Photo credit: hyku

Anyone who has ever been asked to measure the impact of social media will tell you that it’s a daunting task. Given the lack of standardized metrics, it’s tempting to fall back on the number of Twitter followers, Facebook friends or fans, blog hits, and so on. After all, these numbers are representative of a social media campaign … aren’t they?

The truth is – as many people will tell you – that “it’s not about the numbers.” 20,000 followers on Twitter might sound fantastic, but does that translate into value? While 20,000 followers may convey a sense of popularity on the surface, are the followers actively engaged? Are they retweeting articles, or at least clicking on the links you tweet?

While numbers aren’t everything, they shouldn’t be ignored. A fair share of Twitter users are lurkers (more than half, according to a June HubSpot report), and even though they aren’t retweeting, clicking or conversing … they’re still seeing what you share. However, basing the measurement of a campaign strictly around numbers ignores one of the most valuable aspects of social media: the opportunity to engage.

What is more valuable to you (or your client): A silent follower – or someone who actively participates in conversations with you and shares your information with their network? While there is value in broadcasting to a large audience, that value is heightened when people begin to engage.

What do you think about quantity vs. quality – and how do you communicate this to clients, or to superiors?