Romancing the Cloud

The “Cloud Economics 101” panel discussion at yesterday’s Government Cloud Computing conference in Washington, DC created a fascinating juxtaposition between the industry’s top thought leaders and the government IT executives still struggling with how the cloud applies to their specific needs.

Let’s start with the vendors with representatives on the panel -- EMC, Cisco, Intel, VMware, Terremark and Lockheed Martin. Combined, these market leaders represent billions of dollars in annual IT, network and security spending by government and corporate customers. (Full disclosure: I attended yesterday’s panel discussion as a guest of EMC.)

The panelists did a superb job outlining the business case for cloud adoption, including:

1. Maintaining continuity of operations (COOP) when faced with a natural disaster, terrorist act or other form of disruption. Just consider the impact this week of flooding in Nashville on business and government activities.

2. Managing costs and ensuring reliability in an environment often defined by unpredictable computing requirements. EMC’s Tim Harder used the term “burst-ability” to describe a customer’s ability to tap into additional computing resources via the cloud, as needed.

3. Embracing a more green or sustainable IT environment through a reduction in power consumption.

4. Realizing the capability, feature and cost benefits from the economies of scale approach a cloud provider can deliver. The vendor is able to make more frequent financial investments in their infrastructure because the costs are spread across a myriad of customers and/or users.

When it came time for Q&A, many of the attendee inquiries focused on more pedestrian issues, such as how to justify the move to the cloud to internal decision-makers and ways to mitigate the cultural issues that arise with any enterprise shift.

One attendee asked, “Do we have to fire all of our IT people?”

Understandably, the issue of security was also a hot topic of discussion because of profile incidents that have plagued government agencies.

Panelist Barry Sheward of Lockheed Martin who has an extensive security background suggested that cloud computing can actually improve an organization’s security because of the management function.

EMC’s Harder brought the panel discussion to a close with a suggestion for attendees who have yet to adopt cloud computing in their environment.

“Select an application to become cloud-enabled and measure return on investment,” he said. “View this as a test to establish a baseline your agency can then use to evaluate how to best incorporate the cloud into your operations.”


EMC's Tim Harder and Alex Hart of VMware chat at the conclusion of the panel discussion.

The Content Credibility Question

Perhaps my most important responsibility as the head of a boutique public relations consultancy is to anticipate client needs and challenges. Like all small businesses, we bet our investment capital, professional development efforts and staff recruitment plans on these projections.

Accordingly, I spend a lot of time speaking with corporate marketing and PR/communications decision-makers. Where do they plan on investing resources? What obstacles will they face executing lead generation and branding programs? And (most important) how will their performance be measured?

For the past six months the story from the executive marketing suite has been all about content. Companies typically have lots of it, from highly technical white papers and product slicks to more sales-oriented presentations and advertisements. The questions corporate marketing and PR leaders must address include:

● How to identify, collect and evaluate the content that already exists?
● How to best create new content that is in-strategy and action-oriented?
● How to package and deliver content to audiences in creative ways?

This content conundrum has grown in significance with the adoption of social media by corporate marketing organizations. Blogs, podcasts, social networks, Web-based video, etc. are predominantly content-driven communications vehicles.

Recently, I penned an article about the “3Es” of public relations – education, engagement and entertainment (http://attheroundtable.com/blog_post_view.aspx?BlogPostID=7af347d3cb514770b38a01e9aa47bcc0). While I stand by my assertion that content must embody these characteristics, I neglected to address one critical issue: credibility.

Credibility is simply saying what you mean and doing what you say. Following through on words and actions establishes a track record of believability.

Yet, in a business context the issue of credibility becomes a bit murky. Consider the following statements often incorporated into public relations, marketing and sales content:

● Company X is a leading provider of...
● Company Y offers award-winning service to its customers
● Company Z has long been recognized as an innovator in...

While these statements may be technically true, their credibility with and impact on influential audiences is debatable. Customers, partners, investors and employees have become appropriately skeptical and often demand third-party validation of such grand claims. It is incumbent on PR professionals to rise to this challenge to instill a higher level of confidence in our companies.

Here are a few ideas to help your company address the credibility question when developing content:

1. Back it up with numbers. BearingPoint has done a good job of this by citing an extensive portfolio of customer relationships when making a vertical market leadership statement.

2. Quote third parties. This can include customer statements, industry analyst commentary or earned media. The more credible the source (i.e. an article in the business media versus an industry blog), the greater the impact.

3. Make meaningful comparisons. A few years ago I attended a presentation from Cisco CEO John Chambers at the FOSE government IT conference. He supported a claim of industry leadership by explaining that Cisco's market valuation was greater than the combined worth of its competitors.

4. Review your writing through a skeptical lens. Are there any statements that an external audience might question? Are these comments hard to justify? If so, strike them from the text and focus on what is supportable.

Internet Shadows are for the Weak

It’s no secret that the Internet has proven to be a wonderfully powerful medium to engage key audiences and stimulate debate. For public relations professionals, the movement of readers to social media outlets – such as blogs, wikis, communities, microblogs, etc. – has opened up new channels to promote high-quality content and thought leadership.

Transparency must serve as the foundation of Internet-based communications. We have to demand it. That’s because the lack of a formal peer review process in social media creates an environment in which rumor, innuendo and intimidation can easily gain the upper hand.

I find it disconcerting when a professional has to hide in the shadows when voicing an opinion on a topic. It just happened with an in-house attorney at Cisco who came clean about his authorship of a blog about patent trolling only when his identity was discovered.

Cisco Sued Because of Employee Blogging
http://gigaom.com/2008/03/24/cisco-sued-because-of-employee-blogging/

It’s occurring with entrepreneurs and venture capitalists with two Web sites that allow them to trash each other in anonymity. Aren’t they in the business of building innovation, wealth and value together?

http://www.thefunded.com/

http://www.theunfunded.com/

If you have something to say in the blogosphere, on a message board or in a social network...then do it with a strong, well articulated position. Make yourself known. Encourage debate. And blackball those who fail to live up to that standard.

Hiding in the shadows is for the weak.