(It’s actually unclear what percentage of Gingrich’s followers are faux, but his number is particularly impressive when compared to  GOP front-runner Mitt Romney 68,000 number. Yep, mine’s bigger than yours. You know how boys are.)

It bothers me that these mini-scandals undermine good ole Twitter as a platform and a business tool. Just as you’re judged by the company you keep in the real world, Twitter has always risked getting a bad reputation. It’s seen by some as a perfect hangout for the egotists, hucksters, and fakes. That’s not the Twitter that I know and love.

And it would seem to make no sense to the account holders. Why would anyone actually pay a third-party for access to bogus accounts when social media is about connecting and engaging others? Why, like Anthony Weiner, would you risk having the wrong kind of fans – e.g. porn actresses and spambots?  The obvious answer, of course, is pure ego. They’re willing to look foolish by inflating their following in order to impress the few engaged fans that they actually have.

Are you listening, Klout?  The obsession with numbers as metrics is the real culprit here. Judging someone’s social influence by follower count just isn’t viable. I know sophisticated services like Klout claim to go beyond the raw fan numbers, but they are still too Twitter-centric and too focused on the numbers. These recent Fangate incidents are another reminder.

True influence is evidenced by quality and frequency of content, sharing, and action. Most of all, it’s about who’s really listening. And when it comes to the shiny new tool or the point of view that misses this simple fact, well, I just don’t follow.

A California woman’s beef with Taco Bell over the ingredients in her taco served up an interesting crisis management case study last week. The food fight has turned into a class-action lawsuit alleging false advertising by the chain. The suit claims its tacos are only 36 percent beef, which, if true, means they wouldn’t even qualify as beef under USDA regulations.

As usual, social media helped turn the suit into a blogosphere feeding frenzy. A supremely unappetizing photo of something called “taco meat filling” spiced up some of the negative posts, and online commentary was heated. Stephen Colbert launched a frankly hilarious mock defense of the chain that called its key ingredient “beef adjacent.”

(Best PR hijack may be from PETA, which put out a tongue-in-cheek statement congratulating Taco Bell on moving away from meat, and urging it to go “100 percent cruelty-free.”)

The news made for juicy copy, but the risk is more serious than a reputation ding. According to MediaPost, in the week since the beef suit was filed, the chain’s BrandIndex perception score among adult fast-food customers has fallen from 25.2 to 11.7. That’s a hefty drop.

But the chain mobilized fairly quickly to bite back. It launched into a drill that’s unfortunately become a standard recipe for QSR crisis response. But this feedback had real attitude. Full-page newspaper ads signed by president and “chief concept officer” Greg Creed denied the tacos are mostly filler. “Thank you for suing us,” sneered the giant headline. Saucy! The chain also threatened a countersuit and put Creed on the hot seat in a series of major media interviews.

Social media was also on the crisis management menu. Taco Bell’s Facebook wall features frequent postings about the situation, including the (arguably) unflattering Colbert parody and some very mixed commentary by fans. Creed took his case to YouTube with a folksy, but impassioned, video statement. He looked friendly and at ease explaining that its tacos are actually 88 percent beef, and that the remaining 12 percent is water, seasonings, and a longish list of other ingredients like silicon dioxide and “isolated oat product.”

But, when asked about “isolated oat product” by ABC News, Creed admitted he didn’t know what it is, but assured us that “it’s there for a purpose.” I’d argue that the guy in charge should be able to answer that question, and even be able to whip up a taco on-air to show how it’s done. (This is the “Undercover Boss” era, after all.) In the ideal world, the company would be able to produce a “Chief Yum Officer” who could credibly speak to its recipe, while leaving out technical jargon.

But I think the chain knows its core customers, and its response was cooked up for them. Hence, the cheeky tone of the ads, and the CEO’s casual admission that he’s not a food scientist. If it loses the suit, it will lose credibility, of course. But, despite quibbles on tactics, the tone of its communications seemed to hit the spot… not unlike a 99-cent taco.

Shall I quit Facebook?

Facebook’s recent fumble along policy, technology, and PR lines has many asking the question for the first time. Not just privacy activists or technophobes. But, regular people who are pretty savvy about the social Web. The perception is morphing from irritation to doubts about its integrity. That’s not a good thing.

I’ve never been a privacy freak. In my book, anyone who decides to live online is responsible for that choice, and no one’s forcing us to (over)share. But the recent flap is more serious than previous ones. True, Facebook users tend to resist change (ironic, isn’t it?), and the company has a history of clumsy and self-serving privacy moves. But with Quit Facebook Day looming, something is different this time. Loyal users feel misled by the “everyone can see everything” default and confused by the new settings. Privacy advocates smell blood. Even formerly apathetic Facebookers are on the fence. Has Facebook gone too far this time? Is it just clueless, or actually evil?

Two months ago, a close relative of mine who is, like me, an adoptive mom, was contacted on Facebook by the birth mother of her son. The birth mom had been out of touch with our family for over a decade. Her note was tactful and sensitive. But, my relative was startled by what was gleaned about our family, even with supposedly stringent privacy settings on our end. And when we set out to find out more about her before responding, we were amazed by how much we learned with little effort.

Neither of us had been friended by the young woman, and we had no friends in common. But within an hour, we learned where she worked, her complicated marital history, and the age, name, and gender of her young baby. We also pieced together other, less factual details about her life, including a recent family conflict. 

My little experiment was nothing compared to the findings of bloggers who’ve set out to test Facebook’s privacy parameters. If you want an eye-opener, check out PC World‘s post about the intimate secrets of perfect strangers here. But, the experience, coupled with fresh headlines about Facebook’s tone-deaf handling of the latest changes, has chipped away at my confidence. And I’m someone who makes a living counseling clients on how to harness the power of Facebook as a brand marketing platform.

This week, Mark Zuckerberg mounted a belated charm offensive, admitting mistakes, penning op-ed pieces, and pledging the change that the community demands. If Facebook follows through with real changes, instead of empty statements, it will probably blow over. This time. But, Facebook is vulnerable to a creeping mistrust in its commitment to users. And though I won’t be canceling my account any time soon, it’s a little less fun than it used to be.

First, anticipate. If your crisis plan was last updated in 1993, or even two years ago, it’s not relevant. Have an online listening post, focus on the most likely criticisms and complaint scenarios, and make sure your messages are current.

Ramp up customer service. Would you put an intern on the phone to handle a client complaint? Don’t do it online either. Make sure your communications team is trained in customer relations, and vice versa. Not every company is ready to jump into Social CRM, but the line between communications and customer service is getting blurrier every day.

Stay calm. When the heat is on, sarcasm and anger are not your friend. Don’t be funny or flippant either. Use of humor is a classic apology PR tactic for an individual under fire, but a corporation should take legitimate customer criticism very, very seriously.

Be transparent. In most attack situations, it’s not worth closing off comments or trying to astroturf your way out of trouble. It rarely works and is often exposed.

Be timely. Nothing pours kerosene on a customer complaint fire like silence. A timely answer, even if not the desired response, is better than the void.

Take it offline. When complaints cascade anonymously, it’s often impossible to deal with them offline. But, on Facebook and other sites where comments are transparent, offline resolutions may be possible, and the complaint chain may be interrupted.  

Apologize. If the situation warrants. Though the public apology is being rapidly commoditized, a sincere, factual, and personalized apology beats silence, defensiveness, or apathy.

Use the media. Be ready to produce a response commensurate with the attack – through online commentary, video, and social media news releases.

Look for – and leverage - the opportunity. A negative situation doesn’t always spell lasting damage. In fact, it can be an opportunity to tout positive change, clear up a misimpression, and build customer engagement. No one is more loyal than a grateful customer. If the problem can’t be fixed, a fair hearing can still go a long way.

Facebook petitions are like email jokes. They may be novel and intriguing at first, but they get old quickly. E-petitions in general have always had a sketchy reputation. They’re easily faked, often misdirected, and frequently about causes that don’t hinge on public opinion. Some think they encourage “slacktivism” by lulling us into mindset that we’re doing something when we’re not.

But, now there’s Betty White, who may have restored our faith in social media’s power to effect change. I’m kidding, but only half. The unsinkable White will host “Saturday Night Live” this weekend. And as the world knows, the idea behind her Mother’s Day eve appearance was born in a Facebook petition that garnered over half a million supporters since last December. The momentum and publicity generated by “Betty White To Host SNL: please?” was apparently impressive enough to convince SNL to give her the host gig. 

Pundits are calling it more proof of the power of social media. Yet, on reflection, it probably doesn’t prove much about those sites and pages that lobby for everything from gay marriage to Domino’s pizza deliveries in helicopters. It’s hard to find examples that really demonstrate the success of e-petitions. Facebook helps with fraud concerns, but the most compelling online petitions tap into a passionate cult following, a pop culture trend, or a serious social or political issue where many other influences are at work.

I loved how fans of the NBC show “Chuck” leveraged social media to save their hero, but the show was never actually cancelled in the first place. And despite websites that record e-petition successes, the examples are…well, random. Like the move to allow Jackson, Mississippi student Nathan Warmack to wear his kilt to a high school dance. Or the current petition to name William Shatner as Canada’s next Governor General. That’s got my vote.

The Betty White Facebook campaign is less a social media win than a statement about the power and popularity of Betty. Clearly, the 88 -year-old actress is having what Simon Cowell would call a Moment. It was actually kicked off by traditional media – the Snickers Super Bowl ad in which she and fellow octagenarian Abe Vigoda played football. (At the time, the Daily News cheered, “The New Orleans Saints might have won the game, but Betty White won the Super Bowl.”)

The campaign was then advanced on Facebook and shrewdly promoted by White’s PR team, who were busy last week worrying about overexposure and coyly refusing to do nudity. And, you have to hand it to NBC for seeing a Golden opportunity. In a demographic balancing act, it’s paired White with Jay-Z as musical guest.

So, the lesson of Betty White may be more about the message than the medium. But, like Conan O’Brien’s Twitter campaign, it’s a perfect marriage of brand personality, timing, and media mix. Should be a good show.

I once had a client whose CEO was so PR-averse that his response to requests for media interviews was the Zen-like platitude, “The spouting whale gets harpooned.” That unfortunate phrase popped into my head as I read stories like “Shamu Attack Exposes Social Media Risks.” The Orlando Sentinel and others recounted how @Shamu, the Twitter feed set up by Sea World, morphed from a branding platform into a business and marketing liability after the tragic drowning death of a killer whale trainer.

A month later, Nestle’s Facebook page was brandjacked by Greenpeace activists in a well-orchestrated protest against its use of palm oil.  It’s been hailed by PR and digital marketing experts as a social media fail for Nestle, with plenty of mainstream coverage. The move promises to usher in a new era of online activism. As digital media strategist Jeremiah Owyang blogs, “Facebook page brandjacking is the new form of tree-hugging.”

So, what’s a brand to do? Is social media simply too risky for some categories or companies? My answer is no, for several reasons.

Out of sight is not out of mind. If an organized activist movement is like war, a single protest is like a brushfire. If you tamp it down in one place, it just flares up somewhere else. The anti-deforestation movement didn’t even start on Nestle’s Facebook page. It migrated there only after Nestle removed a Greenpeace protest video from YouTube. Nestle might have been better off engaging with protesters directly or creating its own YouTube channel. But, the learning here is that having no Facebook presence won’t prevent an orchestrated protest.

You need allies. Another reason not to hide from the social media dialogue is that it robs a brand of a natural constituency that might be mobilized in its defense. Olivier Blanchard makes this point in an excellent and thoughtful post on the Nestle response. I’d add that a brand with Nestle’s history of boycotts has even greater reason to engage with its core customers and nurture those relationships. They tend to come in handy when the heat is on.

A brand community is a listening post. A Facebook or Twitter presence is a practical move for a company with vocal detractors. It’s easier to monitor, listen, and respond when the action’s on your own turf. The palm oil-deforestation issue isn’t new. The key here is effective and experienced community management, along with good planning.

It’s a mouthpiece in a crisis. Or, it can be. As seen in the Sea World incident, a sudden, tragic occurence is vastly different from an organized boycott. But controversy around wild animals in captivity – a big part of the online dialogue after the incident – isn’t new. Again, Sea World should be accustomed to protests, and to communicating its position under pressure.

In this case, it showed. Sea World immediately suspended the Shamu Twitter feed after the incident. But, it continued with the dialogue, directing it to the more appropriate (and generic) @SeaWorld_Parks and its moderated blog. It’s still posting both lighthearted updates as well as serious statements about the incident, the measures being taken since February 24th, and the future of  whale Tilikum. Its Facebook page, after being briefly overrun by ghoulish posts and images, was quickly transformed into a forum for mostly civil discussion.

It takes time to build. As all PR professionals know, the most vehement attacks aren’t easily resolved through civil dialogue. But, that’s when a planned and organized response is most needed. Though they usually simmer slowly, most precipitating crisis incidents happen suddenly, and the response window is a matter of hours, not days. You can’t transform inexperienced staffers into battle-seasoned community managers. And, you can’t build a social media following from scratch when you need it most.   

Does Facebook have a problem with commitment? Or, on the flipside, has it fallen in like so hard that it wants to own both the word and the concept all over the Web?

There are a couple of ways to look at this week’s announcement that the Facebook fan page will soon be a thing of the past. Instead of clicking to become an actual fan of a brand or company – that is, really engaging with it – we’ll only be able to “like” it the same way we do personal updates.

I think of “liking” something, in Facebook terms, as fairly tepid, even lazy. Sure, it’s more natural, as Facebook executives point out. They say users click to “like” something twice as often as they become a fan of a page. But, to me, it’s the social media equivalent of a greeting card. It’s what you do when you have no time or can’t think of anything much to say.

So, why the thumbs up for like? Clearly, Facebook intends to create more opportunities for corporate advertisers. “Liking” a brand lacks the psychological hurdle of becoming a fan, and users can “like” the page’s content also, so the move will presumably expand page interaction and ad revenues. AdAge has a summary of the implications here. It’s not without problems, and there will surely be confusion among both users and marketers.

My first response to the move was that it devalues and dilutes the relationship between a Facebook user and a favorite brand. True, it might actually be good for small businesses like, say, a creative PR firm. It’s easier to put out content that others endorse (however casually) than it is to generate thousands of fans. But, if I’m Coca-Cola, I want to know where my hardcore enthusiasts live.

But, Facebook has big plans for that “like” button. As developers have heard, Facebook wants to expand it throughout the Web. It has visions of browsers instantly “liking” all kinds of content virtually anywhere. That way, Facebook can funnel more engagement onto its pages and enhance the virality of just about anything. Once the “like” button is popularized outside of Facebook, it’ll be easier for users to find the “most liked” content – as well as the preferred products and services – in their areas.

So, Facebook becomes not only a social utility, but a search engine that harnesses the power of social recommendations, which can be a great tool for marketers, and a benefit for consumers. Most of all, it helps Facebook. As TechCrunch and other sources explain it, Facebook will become more like Google. Yet, while Google spends billions to index the Web, Facebook is trying to get the Web – or a big chunk of it – to index itself. And, what’s not to like about that?

As I’ve previously blogged, I get a charge out of the Fiesta Movement, Ford’s nontraditional campaign to promote its new subcompact car. Not because it’s innovative, although it’s undoubtedly a departure for the automotive category. I admire it precisely because it’s not groundbreaking in the truest sense. It’s something better.

The Fiesta Movement is a great example of  a simple idea and a classic public relations strategy – influencer marketing – adapted to the age of the social Web.  And, it’s a template for how a multi-platform social media campaign should be done. By offering cars to 100 carefully selected heavy users of social media, and letting their “agents” market the car for them, Ford has proven that social media can sell cars.

The company’s been very forthcoming about the results of the first six months of the movement. It’s already racked up 6000 pre-orders well in advance of the subcompact’s US launch. What’s more, it’s ignited interest among 100,000 more prospective customers. Those may not be huge numbers, but for a category like this one, in a year like the one we’ve just had, it’s pretty powerful. And it’s proof that social media can drive brand engagement as well as actual sales.

As Ford’s Scott Monty reminds us, this is all without a car in the showroom, and without spending on conventional advertising. “Social media can mean more than just Facebook and Twitter, if it’s done in an integrated way.” The PR mileage, as measured in traditional media coverage, has been pretty impressive as well.

The next leg of the campaign doesn’t sound quite as simple as the first one, which was part of its beauty. Apparently Ford will enlist 20 additional “agents,” who will engage in competitions in local markets that bring to mind “Amazing Race”-style antics. Except that the local contests are meant to “immerse them in cultural movements, allowing them to ignite passion into their communities through social media while opening the discussion about Fiesta.”

Hmmm. I’m not sure what that’s about. But, given the grassroots groundswell surrounding the first Fiesta campaign, we can probably count on more milestones in the near future. At this juncture, the Movement’s about more than just Ford or its subcompact; it’s become a symbol of marketers getting the customer religion. What’s wonderfully ironic is that it took an uncool, utilitarian brand from a tired and crumbling industry to show us the way.

When I was 23 years old I worked for a PR entrepreneur who insisted we accompany the sales reps of a large client company on their customer calls at retail. He said it was the only way to learn how the company’s products got to market and to gain a real-world perspective on our PR planning.

What an education. My field experience was a permanent lesson in how even the most strategic marketing and PR programs can miss the mark if they’re developed in isolation.

That’s why I was interested in the CBS reality show “Undercover Boss.” You know the one, about disconnected CEOs who get down with the workforce on the front lines. It also made me think about our business. Getting your hands dirty is not only valuable, it’s more necessary than ever.

It’s not a new idea, actually. HBR reports that more than forty years ago, legendary Avis Rent-a-Car CEO Robert Townsend insisted that each senior executive spend time every month behind a rental counter. Last year, Jeff Bezos spent a week working in an Amazon distribution center in Kentucky. Some enlightened companies even make every employee spend a week per year inside that Siberia of business functions, customer service.

But, customer service means something different today. In a small way, we’ve learned just how different by creating and managing a Facebook community for a major technology brand. Most of the inquiries we field have nothing directly to do with PR. Many aren’t related to positioning or brand attributes, of course. Lots come from outside the U.S. – not our purview. None of this is really our job.

Except that it is. And, in dealing directly with consumers and working closely with our client’s customer service team, we’ve learned enormously about how consumers perceive product quality. And how the quality of even the smallest interaction with the brand has an impact on its reputation.

Many have written about the growing intersection of PR, brand reputation, and customer service. As more customers post, tweet, blog, and shout their dissatisfaction on the social Web, the risks to brand reputation grow. And, with the disintermediation of the traditional press, PR and communications has a new set of rules.

So, whatever you think about reality TV, the “undercover” concept has real relevance to what we do. The customer experience is out there. It’s public, it’s dynamic, and it’s a growing part of brand reputation. As formerly behind-the-scenes strategists and communicators, we can’t hide behind the media any longer. Our cover’s been blown. We’ve been outed, too, and, like the White Castle CEO, we’d better put on another hat and learn the ropes.

What happened instead was a very mixed reaction to its new privacy settings, and a fresh PR problem for the company. This time, it’s not just the user backlash that greets any Facebook change. There’s a measure of genuine confusion, doubt about its intentions, and a modest public relations blunder by Zuckerberg himself.

Given the build-up to the unveiling of the new privacy tool, the expectation was that Facebook would help users tighten their controls and limit the information they share with the world. Instead, the opposite message was communicated. It’s not all bad. The transition wizard forces you to examine your settings. That’s good, because many people, like me, signed up ages ago and have forgotten what we did then, if anything.

But instead of offering options based on a user’s current settings, the transition tool encourages its own recommendations. And, guess what? The recommended defaults nearly always urge sharing with “friends of friends” or “everyone.” I don’t know about you, but I’m not eager for “everyone” to see photos of my young daughter. But, that’s what Facebook recommends.

So does did CEO Mark Zuckerberg. To call attention to the change, Zuckerberg adjusted his own settings. Good PR move, right? But perhaps he didn’t realize that his family photos and contacts would be available to “friends of friends.” Or maybe he was just setting an example in following the recommended defaults. Facebook claims that he always meant to make certain areas accessible to everyone. Yet, mysteriously, after gawker.com and others rifled through them and posted many online, Zuckerberg’s settings were changed to make personal photos off-limits.

I can’t blame Zuckerberg for his about-face. Who wouldn’t want to keep their personal photos safe from prying eyes…and snarky gossip websites? The good news for users is that the online community has jumped into the breach. Within a day or two of the launch of the new settings, hundreds of blog posts appeared with clear, how-to tips and guidelines on protecting privacy and identity on Facebook. And, to be fair, Facebook’s put plenty of information on its own site.

In explaining the default, Facebook told Reuters that making updates available to everyone is “the way the world is moving.” That may be true, but in pushing members to open up online, Facebook is both becoming more Twitter-like, and seeming to bow to pressure to monetize the wealth of personal user information on the site. Both risk eliminating the very thing that many members found so appealing about it in the first place.