1. 2.0 2008. 10 17 2008 10. 17. 20 THE LAB h (www.thelabh.com) KAIST GSCT, Digital Storytelling and Cognition Lab Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 1

2. 2008 (2007. 12. 13), 2008(2008. 6. 25) , , . Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)2 3. PR 2.0 20 ? .PR 2.0? .Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)3 4. PR 2.0 20 ? . Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)4 5. Search : , .9 , Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 5 6. Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 6 7. Case: S thSouthwest announces vs. Southwest t S thtAirlines announces Red Hot Airfares - cheap airfares For over 30 years I ve been fighting For Ivefightingwere not a cheap airline; were a low-fare airline. Herb Kelleher, , cheapairfares (: Michael Miller, Online marketingheroes)) Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)7 8. (search word index) / ? / vs. Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 8 9. Groundswell : (Groundswell, by Ch l(G dll b Charlene Li & J h JoshBernoff): i) , ; ii) , , ( ) Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)9 10. Groundswell . [ ] () () (BusinessWeek) Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 10 11. Case: Zappos2007. 7 72007 7. 7. Zappos , Seth Godin 10 16. , , Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)11 12. Zappos, a story worth retelling Zt th t lliDid you read this customer experience post on Zappos shoe store? If not you shouldNice message Zappos.Seriously, from this day forward, consider me a ZCFL: a Zappos customer for life. Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)12 13. Zappos PR 1.0 ppZappos , Zappos, Zappos , PR Zappos , , , Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)13 14. Zappos PR 2.0 pp Zappos , (quot;IF YOU BUY SHOES ONLINE,+++ GET THEM FROM ZAPPOS. With hearts like theirs, you ,know theyre good to do Zappos business with.)with )Zappos appos (: Seth Godin) ( S th G di ) . , . (power of person like myself) Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 14 15. PR 1.0 vs. 2.0PR 1.0 : PR 2.0 :> /PR /PR: > : ( > /: .) . ( , > : , , , ) . > , > (): ( ), , .Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)15 16. Accidental Spokespersonpp (Rohit Bhargava, 360 Digital Influence Group, Ogilvy) Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)16 17. The Long Tail: (major only) (minor also): 20%() Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)17 18. : . . : , ( . (, , 2007, 63)Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)18 19. The New Marketplace (: , , p. 117) Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 19 20. The New Marketplace for ?Good & Bad News?G(News) (: , , p. 117)Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 20 21. Consumer Complaint Management Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 21 22. Vincent FerrariAOL , , (6/20) (digg, consumerist)(6/23)(6/24) ( / ) (6/26)(7/24) 1 , 5 Case and explanation from Paul Gillin (vincent ferrari, aol)( ,) Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 22 23. PR 2.0 1.0 1 0 () ( () ) PR PR Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 23 24. > .> : (: ) .> PR (/ )Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 24 25. Bad News Overload & Cool Crisis Communication (c) THE LAB h 2008 25 26. Cool-#1: C l #1 .(Contain > Control)(c) THE LAB h 2008 26 27. [ / ] . () ? , [ ] .Paula Berg, PR Manager for Southwest(c) THE LAB h 200827 28. (twitter) : Comcast(c) THE LAB h 2008 28 29. Cool 2: Cool-#2: (Bad News) , (stance) .(Address > Avoid) (c) THE LAB h 2008 29 30. Bad News , ( ), Bad News 2.0 (snowball) . Bad News2.0 BN BN BNBNBN BN BN BN = Bad News (c) THE LAB h 200830 31. . .(Not responding is no longer an option)Deloitte Consulting LLP (David Smith & Rob Underwood)(c) THE LAB h 2008 31 32. Cool 3: Cool-#3: (), () (Disclosure > Closure) (c) THE LAB h 2008 32 33. Disclosure: Art of Apology 1. Acceptance of Errors and Mistakes. ( , , )2. 2 Acceptable Apologia.Apologia ( , , ) 3. Actions for the Affected Audiences. (Bad News , ) (: http://artofapology.com/tt/16)(c) THE LAB h 2008 33 34. Cool 4: CICool-#4: CI , PP (People s (Peoples Personality> Corporate Identity)(c) THE LAB h 2008 34 35. Personality:yWritten vs. Visual Passive Visual vs. Active Visual?vs (: )(c) THE LAB h 2008 35 36. Cool-#5: Cool #5: ,(Through Social Media, g Socialize > Show)(c) THE LAB h 2008 36 37. 1. General Motors 2. BMW 3. Volvo Car Corp. 4. Daimler/Chrysler 5. Volkswagen of America g6. UNICEF 7. Nokia8.8 Nissan9. Fiat10. The World Bank 11 Adidas 11. AdidasThe NewsMarket, The Most Popular Content Provider of 2007 (c) THE LAB h 200837 38. B d N Bad News 2 0 2.0 . , , (c) THE LAB h 200838 39. Real Time PRPR: Publishing web (93~01)(93 01)Social web (01~06)? Instant web (07~)? (Loic Le Meur, 08 , 2008. 10. 14)Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 39 40. ( ) , . ( 2 0 PR 2008)(,2.0 , Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)40 41. Two-way Communication ((conversation)i ) (real time response)Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 41 42. DIRECT TO CONSUMER PRHoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 42 43. PublisheR: .Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 43 44. Thomas Friedman NYT GM Is there a company more dangerous h dto Americas future than GeneralMotors? Surely, the sooner thiscompany gets taken over by Toyota, kbthe better off our country will be.(May 31, 2006, The New York Times)Case and explanation from Paul GillinHoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 44 45. Hyperbole and Defamation in The N i Th New York TimesY k Ti (NYT) GM PR , Steven Harris GM FastLane Blog Imagine our shock when weread yesterday y y Mr. Friedman is not normallyknown for such shrill hyperbole. Either Mr. Friedman is being apropagandist, or hes woefullymisinformedHoh Kim / THE LAB h(R)45 46. The Ban on Rubbish in The New York Times Times IveI spent much of the past week tryinh f h kig to get a letter to the editor publishedin The New York TimesI failed. This ismy story.tFirst, theres the word limit We countered by offering to cut our letter to 300words. They offered to go up to 200 words. OK, we reluctantly concluded, 200 isbetter than nothing.bhhi Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 46 47. What rubbish(). How arrogant g Then came the editingThey removed our invitation to Mr. Friedman to come to Detroit to lg y earn the facts about what GMs doing to reduce our nations oil consumption. Rubbish Our letter opened with a paragraph that accurately summarized the most bizarre elements NYT of Mr. Friedman s attack, then reacted with this one word sentence: Rubbish. That wordFriedmansone-word Rubbish. accurately portrays how we felt about the column. Personally, I felt a stronger word referring to male bovine excrement would have been more appropriate, but my boss tends to express hi mself more politely than I in these situations NYT The Times suggested rubbish be changed first to, We beg to differ. We objected.GM . , The Times then suggested it be changed to, Not so. We stood our ground. In the end, the Times refused to let us call the column rubbish.Why? Its not the tone we use in Letters, wrote Mary Drohan, a letters editor. What rubbish. Ho w arrogantHere are the letters we submitted, both the original 490-word version and our 200 -word version. We thought you might like to read them for yourself, since you wont read either I n The New York Times We also thought you might find my email discussion with the letters editTimes. NYT 490, 200 ors at the Times to be both enlightening and a bit amusing. Curious to hear what you all think. , NYT Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 47 48. GM Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 48 49. Company Created Contents Why cant a company website produce content thats asgood as the Wall Street Journal? he[Larry Weber] asks. In fact why can t a Journal reporter write for a company website?In fact,cantwebsite?(Paul Gillin, The New Influencers, p. 127)Hoh Kim / 49 LAB h(R)THE 50. SEARCH GROUNDSWELL THE LONG TAIL REAL-TIME PR PR AS PUBLISHER Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 50 51. :Media/PR 2.0M di /PR 2 0 Mind 2.0 . Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 51 52. 2.0 . 2008. 10 17 2008 10. 17. 20 THE LAB h (www.thelabh.com) KAIST GSCT, Digital Storytelling and Cognition Lab Hoh Kim / THE LAB h(R) 52