While talking about Public Diplomacy in Cyberspace… news on Second Life (updated)

Following up on my previous post on electronic media is this article by Frank Rose, writing in Wired, How Madison Avenue Is Wasting Millions on a Deserted Second Life:

For months, Michael Donnelly had been hearing all about the fantastic opportunities in Second Life.

As worldwide head of interactive marketing at Coca-Cola, Donnelly was fascinated by its commercial potential, the way its users could wander through a computer-generated 3-D environment that mimics the mundane world of the flesh. So one day last fall, he downloaded the Second Life software, created an avatar, and set off in search of other brands like his own. American Apparel, Reebok, Scion — the big ones were easy to find, yet something felt wrong: “There was nobody else around.” He teleported over to the Aloft Hotel, a virtual prototype for a real-world chain being developed by the owners of the W. It was deserted, almost creepy. “I felt like I was in The Shining.”

Second Life partisans claim meteoric growth, with the number of “residents,” or avatars created, surpassing 7 million in June. There’s no question that more and more people are trying Second Life, but that figure turns out to be wildly misleading. For starters, many people make more than one avatar. According to Linden Lab, the company behind Second Life, the number of avatars created by distinct individuals was closer to 4 million. Of those, only about 1 million had logged on in the previous 30 days (the standard measure of Internet traffic), and barely a third of that total had bothered to drop by in the previous week. Most of those who did were from Europe or Asia, leaving a little more than 100,000 Americans per week to be targeted by US marketers.

Then there’s the question of what people do when they get there. Once you put in several hours flailing around learning how to function in Second Life, there isn’t much to do. That may explain why more than 85 percent of the avatars created have been abandoned. Linden’s in-world traffic tally, which factors in both the number of visitors and time spent, shows that the big draws for those who do return are free money and kinky sex. On a random day in June, the most popular location was Money Island (where Linden dollars, the official currency, are given away gratis), with a score of 136,000. Sexy Beach, one of several regions that offer virtual sex shops, dancing, and no-strings hookups, came in at 133,000. The Sears store on IBM’s Innovation Island had a traffic score of 281; Coke’s Virtual Thirst pavilion, a mere 27. And even when corporate destinations actually draw people, the PR can be less than ideal. Last winter, CNET’s in-world correspondent was conducting a live interview with Anshe Chung, an avatar said to have earned more than $1 million on virtual real estate deals, when Chung was assaulted by flying penises in a griefer attack.

Hmmm…

Joseph Jaffe, the marketing consultant who advised Coke on its in-world presence, dismisses the notion that such efforts might not be worthwhile. “The learning is now,” Jaffe says. “You are a pioneer, and with that comes first-mover advantage” — that chestnut from the Web 1.0 boom. And the paltry numbers? “This is not about reach anymore. This is about connecting. It’s about establishing meaningful, impactful conversations. So when people ask, ‘Why Second Life?’ I ask ‘Why not?'”

Yes, why not? Are you going to see lots of people? No…

…the popular islands are never crowded, because each processor on Linden Lab’s servers can handle a maximum of only 70 avatars at a time; more than that and the service slows to a crawl, some avatars disappear, or the island simply vanishes. “It’s really the software’s fault,” says Andrew Meadows, Linden Lab’s senior developer. “Way back when, we used to say, ‘This is not going to scale.'”

Why go?

“Companies say, ‘It’s an experiment’ — but what are they learning?” Tobaccowala asks. “Basically, they’re learning how to create an avatar and walk around in Second Life.” Which is fine if that’s what you want to do. Just don’t expect to sell a lot of Coke.

Seems like a good place to have a presence. In a cost-benefit analysis, seems like it isn’t the best investment for the money if you’re attempting to counter enemy propaganda through engaging foreign and domestic publics directly. But that’s just me…

Ok, Michael’s got some updates. First, was his post a couple of months ago about SL being a terrorist training tool. But all ICT(information and communication technologies) can be dual purpose, so I’m not concerned there. Better to use technology to empower the good than to fear its use by the bad. We may as well return to the communications systems of the Seventeenth Century to prevent the spread of ideology, food, etc. But here’s the good stuff MT shares: Virtual Terrorists, Hunted in reality, jihadists are turning to artificial online worlds such as Second Life to train and recruit members.

In SL people create their own characters, known as avatars, and live an alternative life, buying goods, real estate and living in a community of more than eight million people from across the world. They go about their lives, attending concerts and seminars, building businesses and socialising.

On the darker side, there are also weapons armouries in SL where people can get access to guns, including automatic weapons and AK47s. Searches of the SL website show there are three jihadi terrorists registered and two elite jihadist terrorist groups.

Once these groups take up residence in SL, it is easy to start spreading propaganda, recruiting and instructing like minds on how to start terrorist cells and carry out jihad.

One radical group, called Second Life Liberation Army, has been responsible for some computer-coded atomic bombings of virtual world stores in the past six months….

Earlier this year Britain’s Fraud Advisory Panel warned that SL players could launder money across national borders without restriction and with little risk of being detected. The FAP says criminal or terrorist gangs can also use the game to avoid surveillance while committing crimes including credit card fraud, identity theft, money laundering and tax evasion.

Importance of images and perceptions

On framing US domestic images, Why the Military Hates the Left

On the importance of Iraqi domestic perceptions, see the second half of Sean Smith’s film at the Guardian.

Also, see Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack’s article in today’s New York Times.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

Good news and bad news in a single sentence: “Wherever we found a fully staffed team…”

DOD Blogger Outreach update

Briefly: It took 23 minutes for Noah to connect Jason and myself with the PAO in charge of the “exclusive” Blogger Roundtable. We’re in and already information is flowing. This morning, the PAO sent details on the Center for Combating Terrorism report referenced in today’s NYT article by William Glaberson.

In hindsight, it seems Silverstein and Grim were both talking beyond each other. Perhaps over generalized, but tell me how many of the “Left” actually care to listen to DOD information? How many of the “Right” actually hear the concerns of the Left? From my experience, this is typical of American polarization. It is also contrary to my experience while attending a Welsh university just a few years ago where I enjoyed long conversations with friends from the (far) Left to the Right at the same time about American foreign policy and global security. Try that in the US and you’ll quickly devolve from a factual discussion to an emotional screamfest.

Resurrecting history: facing the unknown, destructive and negative threat

In what would become known as the “Long Telegram” sent 9pm, February 22, 1946, to the Secretary of State, George Kennan ended with “practical deductions” that are worth reading in today’s environment. 

(1) Our first step must be to apprehend, and recognize for what it is, the nature of the movement with which we are dealing. We must study it with same courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which doctor studies unruly and unreasonable individual.

(2) We must see that our public is educated to realities of Russian situation. I cannot over-emphasize importance of this. Press cannot do this alone. It must be done mainly by Government, which is necessarily more experienced and better informed on practical problems involved. In this we need not be deterred by [ugliness?] of picture. I am convinced that there would be far less hysterical anti-Sovietism in our country today if realities of this situation were better understood by our people. There is nothing as dangerous or as terrifying as the unknown….

(3) Much depends on health and vigor of our own society. World communism is like malignant parasite which feeds only on diseased tissue. This is point at which domestic and foreign policies meets Every courageous and incisive measure to solve internal problems of our own society, to improve self-confidence, discipline, morale and community spirit of our own people, is a diplomatic victory over Moscow worth a thousand diplomatic notes and joint communiqués. If we cannot abandon fatalism and indifference in face of deficiencies of our own society, Moscow will profit–Moscow cannot help profiting by them in its foreign policies.

(4) We must formulate and put forward for other nations a much more positive and constructive picture of sort of world we would like to see than we have put forward in past. It is not enough to urge people to develop political processes similar to our own…

(5) Finally we must have courage and self-confidence to cling to our own methods and conceptions of human society. After Al, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.

For those who frame the modern conflict in Cold War images, it might be useful to remember the real designs and purposes of early Cold War policies. For those who think public diplomacy is simply a beauty contest to hopefully “win hearts”, should go back to the aggressive “five-dollar, five syllable” foundation of public diplomacy as a psychological struggle for minds and wills against an enemy who understood perception management.

On the Blogger Outreach (updated)

There’s been a backlash against Ken Silverstein’s post on the Pentagon’s Blogger Outreach program. It may be that the one paragraph I pulled and questioned may not be entirely accurate. That said, the rest of the post still stands questioning to the role and purpose of Public Affairs. For a discussion on PA, see the comments on my original post.

See Silverstein’s update today. The intent of the blogger roundtable seems to be perception management by the Administration to. Charlie Quidnunc at wizbang, responding to Silverstein’s asking “how they would feel if a group of handpicked, administration-friendly liberal bloggers had done the same thing during the Clinton years,” said

Isn’t that what happens every day to the journalists covering Iraq? (Note the snicker quotes for Mike Drummond.) Don’t they just parrot all the Democratic talking points spreading anti-administration gospel? We’re just fighting back against their spin.

Not the best choice of words by Quidnunc, but perhaps befitting of the reality. 

MountainRunner isn’t playing politics here but simply highlighting the overt political manipulations by the Pentagon’s public affairs apparatus (see Catharsis’s comments on OCPA on my earlier post). I agree with the need to get the word out of successes. Like a tree falling in the forest, if no one knows you’re winning, you’re not winning.

That said, the Blogger Roundtable seems to be a function of perception management more than PA, not having sat in on one and based on Silversteins arguments, which are more persuasive than Grim’s. Now granted the Roundtable can’t include every blog out there, but Quidnunc and others seem to parrot the undesirability of a contrarian view an themselves implicitly parrot the “you’re with us or against us” mantra.  

So let me modify Silverstein’s question to his readers: is it the Pentagon’s responsibility or duty to influence US domestic public opinion?

The US military is sworn to uphold the Constitution and is beholden to two masters: the President as well as the Congress. Since World War II, the uniformed military has realized its place in between these two and manipulated the relationship extensively. However, the creators and managers of the Roundtable are civilian appointees, not uniformed personnel. Does this change your answer?

IEDs as “Weapons of Strategic Influence”

Armchair Generalist and Plontius discussed IED’s as Weapons of Strategic Influence last month. Some thoughts as Plontius apparently didn’t understand the real, and intended, ability of IEDs to influence public perceptions, and thus opinions, through both direct and indirect actions.

First, Plotinius looked at the mission of the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). JIEDDO sees IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) for what they are: tools of influence. IED’s cannot kill enough personnel or destroy enough material to reduce or eliminate American operational capabilities. But through persistence, they can, and have, cause a change in tactics, and posture, to achieve or supplement other informational victories.

IEDs, by forcing a change in tactics and openness alter the effectiveness of American military and civilian personnel. IEDs influence public perception of security not only in Iraq, but around the world, most notably in the United States. As a personal example, the mere suggestion that I might go to Iraq, Wife of MountainRunner immediately responded with a scenario of MountainRunner being killed by an IED. The inability of US forces to protect their own is amplified by insurgent media as well as domestic media, especially as casualties mount.

Continue reading “IEDs as “Weapons of Strategic Influence”

Feeling left out…

Ken Silverstein follows up on a previous post of his about… 

a program run by the Pentagon’s Office of Public Affairs. This program seeks to bypass the mainstream press by working directly with a carefully culled list of military analysts, bloggers, and others who can be counted on to parrot the Bush Administration’s line on national security issues.

I’m a milblogger, off the beaten path, but still a milblogger. Heck, I’m even card-carrying (not much a profile, I know, but still…). Well, perhaps I won’t parrot somebody’s line (unless I agree 100%), so I might not have what Silverstein sees as entry creds.

Not to restate the obvious, but OPA isn’t practicing “Public Affairs” as much as “Private Affairs” because, well, they aren’t exactly reaching out the public. I remember debates within the “public diplomacy” crowd that said if it ain’t wide open, it ain’t “public diplomacy”. We know there are similar debates in the PA community. Remember OSI?

If PA is used to speak directly to the US public (PA officers speak to foreign publics, but nevermind that for now) and they have an inherent responsibility to tell the truth, what part of the truth is absent from the OPA conference calls that a simple guy like me can’t be in on?

What does this say about the current purpose of PA? Where does it fit into Strategic Communications, that concept that may be DOD’s answer to Public Diplomacy, a concept that is so poorly defined and executed that a new “theory” of “smart power” is required to return PD to its roots? But perhaps I digress….

Admin note: this post seems as good as any to create a new category on “public affairs” to focus on IO focused on US domestic audiences, a topic I had lumped into PD for simplicity.

Monday Mash-Up

Monday Mash-Up comes back after a brief break.

 Increasing connectivity to Africa, literally: “Four projects are in the works to link 22 eastern, central and southern African countries to the world’s network of submarine cables and 21st century communications.” 

 According to Powell, perceptions matter: what we say isn’t as important as what we do.

 George Washington, yes that George, speaks out on the war (h/t OJ)

 David Phinney catches us up on the Baghdad embassy investigation

 See also the embassy blueprints 

 Fareed Zakaria puts power in perspective

And now for something completely different

 The ArmchairGeneralist reports BSG has only one more season

 Microsoft 1 : Hitler 0 (H/T: Danger Room, ZenPundit)

U.S. Africa Command has a website

usafricom

The new US Africa Command, USAFRICOM, put up a website. Actually it’s the transition team who put it up. Not only are they physically located in EUCOM, but virtually (note the URL for AFRICOM).

MountainRunner’s been watching developments AFRICOM for a while, even if not posting on it recently. The shape of AFRICOM is important to not only its success but also in our global security needs.

Some links to share for now:

  • CounterTerrorism: “African countries including Algeria and Libya are negotiating tooth and nail with the US to prevent the installation of American military bases in Africa.”
  • Enterprise Resilience: “…understand that African nations view this latest initiative with some skepticism. Attention for Africa has come in fits and starts, but with little lasting commitment. The Americans also are working hard to gain Africans’ confidence that the new effort represents a long-term commitment.”
  • Thomas Barnett: “…franchise Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, replicating it north, south, west and central. I would not locate any HQ in Africa, but set it down in northern VA to attract both the necessary talent and to encourage super interagency development…”
  • Washington Post article Barnett commented on, as well as CRS report (pdf) WaPo commented on.
  • See also Vanity Fair’s July 07 issue dedicated to Africa (h/t SWC
     

Separating IO and PA

To no one’s surprise, the nearly religious separation between information operations and public affairs continues in Iraq today. I just read MountainRunner buddy David Axe’s interview of BGen Robert Holmes, Deputy Director of Operations for CENTCOM at BlackFive:

DAVID AXE: [I]s there like an IO surge, then, to sort of accompany the new tact we’re taking in Iraq?

GEN. HOLMES: Well, I think all along your information operators, if you will — and we have to draw a line there, and I think you can particularly understand — the military, what we would look at as operational capabilities for information operations include certain things like, you know, psychological operations and then some other things with regard to I think Internet ops and things like that, which some of those I can’t get into, one, because they part of ongoing operations, and just for the operational security involved, I can’t go into it.

But I can tell you the focus is to use the information battlespace against our adversary. They use it; they use it quite well. They’re very agile and adept at using it. In some cases they can use it to — they’re not bound to the things — the policies and the values that we hold with regard to truthful information. So we go into that battlespace, if you will, if you don’t mind me calling it that, fully knowing that this is an enemy that is extreme, it is violent, and it’s going to use information to serve its purpose. On our hand, we look at how we counter that violent information or that propaganda with truthful information.

Now, having said that, I definitely understand the lines drawn between military psychological operations and, you know, we are — have policy and doctrine that allows us to do that, to tell “good news” stories, if you will, in the country where we have combat operations going on. And I also understand the line then drawn between our public affairs folks which, you know, are there for a certain reason.

Now, have we stepped up IO? We have quite a robust process in place to look at the information in media space; we look at cyberspace and see what we can do to engage our adversary there. MNF-I — and I’m sure you’re familiar with, you know, their strategic effects cell under the past leadership of General Bill Caldwell, and now Admiral Fox has stepped up into that role, and they’re very, very prolific, very active, very agile right there in Iraq.

We’re looking now at what we do to counter the Taliban as we see them in Afghanistan, particularly right now with their propaganda campaign about the collateral damage. And then we’re looking all across the region so that we communicate effectively, at least from our role as the combatant commander, those priorities that the commander has laid out for us.

Now, we cannot do that in isolation from what our national policies are, what our national priorities are with regard to security and stability and setting conditions for peace. So we’re interlocking, if you will, with the State Department’s Office for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication under Ambassador Hughes. And we’re setting the conduits up from our components and then here at Central Command, as the combatant command, with the Department of Defense in joint staff activities and then interlocking right into Ms. Hughes’ office.

That may have been a long answer, but it’s sort of a — I felt like I needed to share all of that with you, so that you’d see that it’s not just a huge hoopla in public — in PR, but it’s a well- focused effort to counter the enemy’s use of information and that part of — in our present asymmetric war. And information is a huge part of that.

Damn straight it was a long answer. The short of it, no. He’s stuttering and dancing around, with all due respect. We already know effective preemption is too much to ask for, so what are they doing? Well, they’re trying to “interlock” with Karen Hughes’ office….

I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO READ THE ENTIRE BLACKFIVE POST as well as the very informed comments if you are interested in the effectiveness of IO as well as the breadth of the potential impact of IO beyond Iraq.

I leave it to you to draw lessons from the post.

Will people listen to a General?

The recent news an Army general is writing a biweekly column for a US newspaper caused a stir. The column by Major General Rick Lynch is shown as having to contributors, at least one of which is an Army public affairs officer, has raised questions about the division of news and propaganda, or self-promotion. But does it really matter that he’s writing at all? Will anybody read it buy it, truthful or not?

A recent Pew Research Poll has some interesting findings:

Four years into the Iraq war, most Americans say they have little or no confidence in the information they receive – from either the military or the media – about how things are going on the ground. Fewer than half (46%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence that the U.S. military is giving the public an accurate picture of the situation, and even fewer (38%) are confident in the press’s portrayal of the war…

On the negative side, 21% now say they have no confidence in military reports, while 27% have no confidence in press reports on the war. At the start of the war, virtually nobody expressed such views.

Perhaps has the Georgia paper was on to something: publish military authors to boost the paper’s cred.

I suggest you at least glance at the whole Pew Report for comparisons between news interest / coverage over Iraq, Anna Nicole Smith, Brit sailors enjoying some R&R, and the 2008 campaign.

When a general writes a column, is opinion or “local news”?

A Georgia newspaper published the first of what is to be a biweekly column by the commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, Major General Rick Lynch, on the first page of the second section. What’s interesting is not the message, but that online the column is categorized as “Local News” instead of an opinion piece. (Editor & Publisher wrote that it’s labeled as “story”, but so are Op-Eds. It’s the categorization between the byline and title that counts here.)

What’s the big deal? Well, is it really news? Did contributors Lt. Col Randy Martin, Fort Stewart public affairs officer, and 1st Lieutenant Allie Chase ghost-write the piece?

This is how General Lynch opens his piece:

I’ve asked the Savannah Morning News to allow me to write about Iraq, my personal observations here and your 3rd Infantry Division. So, about every two weeks, I plan to write a column so that you have a better understanding of what is really going on.

From Editor & Publisher:

“I’m on the fence about this, my first reaction is that we need to get this man’s view in the paper,” Catron admitted. “This is a viewpoint from someone who was there and that is how we looked at it. We will start off and see where it goes. I knew it would be controversial.”

There’s a difference between getting his view on paper and making it “news”. In the print edition it’s labeled “commentary” (print circulation: 50,000), but online it’s “local news”, but perhaps that will change soon.

Catron said Monday that Lynch is not paid for the column, adding that at least three newsroom staffers have complained. “They were objecting to it and there is a valued argument there,” she said, noting that one of those who objected was the paper’s military reporter, who could not immediately be reached for comment. “Our military reporter is quite concerned, and we are not finished talking about it.”

There are many parallels with news stations broadcasting stories passed of as news but made by government agencies and private firms highlighting the benefits of some program or product.

I think it’s a good public affairs move for the general to reach out, but does the way the newspaper is positioning harm the intent? What if the general wrote only a small bit or none of the story at all and just signed off on what the PAO(s) wrote?

If the general’s article is local news, then shouldn’t Frank Rich’s column, especially yesterday’s damning “Sunday in the Market With McCain” (subscription required), be listed as news as well?

What do you think?

Credibility: a requirement for a Spokeman but not a country?

Human nature is fascinating, everybody knows that. We either tend to believe people or we tend not to believe people. Sometimes we want to believe what is congruent to our belief systems and disbelieve that which is not. This to-believe-or-not is influenced by by the valiance of the item and the visibility or frequency of the item, to borrow from Jarol Manheim. In the case of a country, the relationship with the news provider may cause a leaning one way or the other, and in the case of a reporter, influence the output, in this case the news.

Pressbriefingscscott The construction of the White House Press Secretary, in the American tradition, provides a level insulation from the President and the Administration as whole. When messages fail to maintain positive traction with the reporters in the room, the inoculative effect of the messenger increases. Because of intentional independence of the Spokesman, potential "crash & burn" media briefings may be seen as frustration in reporting (the reporter might to work more since the information desired is not as readily available as desired or expected), a loss of credibility from the Spokesman, but apparently not of the Administration. In the case of Scott McClellan, his rumored resignation is founded on this notion.

According to PR Week (14 Nov 05):

There
are certain things no effective press secretary can do without. Topping
the list are a podium, a BlackBerry, and credibility.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan certainly has the first and
probably the second. It’s the third that some are starting to doubt.

First, it is interesting how much leeway certain people get. The desire to trust, if it matches our pre-formed beliefs, is strong and for reporters who are dependent on the Press Secretary for their jobs, they really want to trust him. Interesting is this trust is not transferred to the Administration, or distrust for that matter, in equal amounts. The Press Secretary is a convenient firewall.

In contrast, the spokesperson of the UK Prime Minister is not identified by name nor is there a picture of the "Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson" (seen as the PMOS or PMS). The language of the PMOS is polite and formal, as is expected of the British of course, and never standing in front of the PM to take a bullet. The difference is largely in the managerial style of the chief executive. The buck stops with the Prime Minister for he has to defend it personally and weekly during the Prime Minister’s Question Time in Parliament. In reality, the PMOS is the spokesman for the government of the Prime Minister. This model makes the American Press Secretary more like a separate office, which is the goal when trying to insulate.

There are a couple of interesting exchanges Scott McClellan had with the press recently that should have reflected poorly on the Administration but because of the construct of the Office of the Press Secretary, had far less of an impact on the Administration’s credibility. The impact being mostly constrained to McClellan himself. The credibility problem only becomes the White House’s problem when it hurts a certain level because, in point of fact, the Press Secretary is granted his own leeway.

In a Press Briefing 13 Oct 05 the Press Secretary attempted to dodge and twist questions and answers but the press was having less and less patience with it. Attempts to defer to DoD, sometimes allowed, were not. On 8 Nov 05, there was a long back and forth with a reporter asking for a clear yes or no answer with the Press Secretary dancing around.

The reality of his likely resignation is not his deteriorating (deteriorated?) relationship with the press, but the need to get a new lightening rod in the press room. The reporters give the Press Secretary a lot of freedom at the beginning of his shift, more so than they should but an understandable amount considering the relationship. A less distinct office would allow less time to "get up to speed", a disadvantage to any entity looking for distance between policy and message.