Corporate Communications – Doing God’s Work 3

More sequels than a Governator franchise. Anyway, this one’s for those committed blog snorkellers who’ve waded through my musings on the whole Goldman Sachs/Sunday Times ‘doing God’s work’ SNAFU. Earlier today, I posted links to commentary from the London Evening Standard (which I agree with), which say that Goldman’s have (and I’m paraphrasing) made the mother of all cock-ups with their attempt at public relations, and deserve the pillorying (doesn’t look right – pilloring? pillorising?) that they’re getting.

But then it struck me. (Well, I was watching TV last night, and there was an entire programme dedicated to it.) The London Evening Standard. Owned by a Russian. Ex-KGB. Is it too much to suppose that he (or those who may be backing him) might have an interest in destabilising a leading bank such as Goldman Sachs?

But, you’ll scoff, the original damning Goldman Sachs feature/interview was in The Sunday Times (of London). Yes. It was. Owned by one R Murdoch Esq. Who might also – and I don’t have to stretch my imagination too much – have an interest in destabilising the world’s economy, one bank at a time.

I think there’s more to this than meets the eye. Well, actually, for the sake of conspiracy theorists around the world, I hope there is.

Corporate Communications – Doing God’s Work 2

 Last time, on ‘Doing God’s Work’. A global investment bank – let’s call them Goldman Sachs – breaks the silence of decades and has some of their senior executives interviewed, for a feature piece, by a medium with global reach – let’s call it The Sunday Times (of London). In the course of the interview, we discover that one of the senior executives likes big boats, that all their employees are being paid obscene amounts of money (nothing wrong with that, mind) and that the ultimate boss – let’s call him Lloyd Blankfein – believes he’s ‘doing God’s work’.

The whole thing raised few issues for me. On the one hand, I was impressed that their Corporate Communications head – let’s call him Lucas van Praag – had managed to get the notoriously secretive bank to ‘go public’ (if you like). I think I understood what they were up to – the threat of governments poking their legislative noses into the affairs of the world’s money-machines needed (needs?) to be averted, so what better than to open yourself to the media and demonstrate that, behind the hype and the rumour, you’re simply a business, under the same pressures as other businesses, trying to turn an honest dollar.

On the other hand, I think they (the Corporate Communications advisors) dropped a clanger. Unfortunately – so I thought – this big financial institution didn’t come off terribly well. The big boss wasn’t terribly likeable (and who cares what he’s really like – if he’s going to do media, he needs to pretend that he’s, at the least, human), quotations from employees simply reinforced the preconceptions and, frankly, no-one needs to know that they like big boats. I think we probably assumed that, anyway.

And then the ‘doing God’s work’ quotation. Well, I assumed (and when we assume, we make an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’) (now I feel ill) that this was a joke that fell flat. A throwaway comment, made by a man with not too many social skills. However, this piece, from London’s Evening Standard, tells me otherwise. (Here’s another article, again from the Standard, which showed how they tried to spin it. Oooops.)

And so to today’s lesson, dear blog snorkellers. If you are a corporate communicator, and you are parading your top bods in front of the media, make sure that they are a) trained b) on-message and c) understand that this is not the time for off-the-cuffs. If you cannot tick the boxes against these three points, then do not proceed.

As Goldman Sachs has proved – a bad result is worse than no result at all, and, in their case, may have the opposite effect to the one they were (probably) looking for. Their performance has simply given the world’s media an interest in, and an excuse for, forensically examining everything they do. And guess what? There’s lots to write about.

Social Media – Nothing More To Be Said

“Fry warns on social media” – yes, it’s PRWeek again. (Or, if you’re in the States, it’s PRWeek – but monthly. Of course.)

Englands most treasured national treasure, the warm, mellow, avuncular and perhaps, even, a little tweedy, Stephen Fry (for all those of my faithful blog snorkellers who are not familiar with this afternoon-tea-and-crumpet of a man – he’s a middle-aged, rather camp, comedian) has pronounced on social media. This is the same man who made a complete Twit of himself – he had a Call-me-Dave moment with a surfeit of Tweets – not many weeks ago, so I suppose he has the experience to back his pronouncements up. Anyway PRWeek pounced on the pronouncement (I’m channelling the spirit of Stephen here) and published it (issue dated November 27 2009 – if you haven’t seen it, go out and buy one for £4.22, or whatever spurious cover price they’re featuring this week, it’s a collector’s item, in that there’s not going to be a print version for much longer). (Apparently.)

Anyway, summarising wildly, dear old baggy, arch, loveable Stephen has (apparently, again) ‘warned communicators of the risks inherent in using social media as a new type of PR channel’. (Welcome to the party Stephen! Better late than never, I suppose.) He went on to say (according to t’Week) “All new means of communication have been derided and decried because they are seen as encouraging demagoguery of the worst kind. It may be that there will be dark days when social media are seen to cause genuine damage and even death by inflaming people wrongly.’

By which I think he means that every new type of communication that comes along gets hi-jacked by the snake oil salesmen and the charlatans, and, if a majority of people continue to insist on using social media as an extension of the nasty, murky dark bit in their heads, then there could be fisticuffs.

And it’s not that he’s wrong – rather that what he’s saying is so dreadfully obvious and has been done to death on fora around the world. As Mr Fry is an enormously clever man, I can only take from this that there is nothing more interesting, relevant or current to be said about social media.

The conversation – which, after all, is what social media is all about – appears to be over.

Social Media – Everyone’s Doing It

Here, my most dear blog snorkellers, is a link to a website that explores social media’s promise for the financial services industry. In the US. Specifically, how Chuck Steege, Registered Investment Advisor, is using social media to boost his business. Just look at him.

You should also read this, a commentary on the Story of Steege.

Conclusive proof, if it were needed, that social media is a Bad Thing.

Now. Please take it, and these people, away.

So, Farewell Then, PRWeek

Must……..stop…………reading………..PRWeek…………..gnnnnnnnngh………………..

Morbid fascination, that’s what it is. Anyway, there I am flicking through November 20th’s offering, doing my best to suck what little value I can from the less-than-compelling mix of not-news, hagiography and terrifying light-weightedness (tell me it’s not so) and my eye is grabbed by the ‘From The Editor Column’.

“Striking a Balance Between Print and Web” is its title. It goes on to inform me that I will be noticing a few changes to the ‘Week – cutting news pages and and adding extra space for analysis. (Of what, exactly, pray?) They’re also going to dedicate a page in the magazine to content featured online – which has to imply that there’s not that much news or analysis to fill the pages that they have.

In fairness – it all makes sense. The website is rapid reaction, more easily updated and attracts far more viewers. The print version is out-of-date by the time it’s published and has never really contained the sort of thought-provoking, enduring, educational and value-providing content that would justify its existence.

What all this is clearly leading to – especially given Haymarket’s current title rationalisation – is the closure of the print version of PRWeek, although the editorial team are doing their utmost to hide it behind the smoke and mirrors of increased analysis and assertions that the ‘industry’s bible’, which has ‘enjoyed a major redesign’ is and ‘remains the mainstay of our offering’.

Well, no it won’t, beyond, I’d say, January 2010 – unless it genuinely can reinvent itself and become the ‘industry’s bible’ – and by this I mean something that sets standards, leads the way and provides the industry (at all levels) with stuff we can use.

For example, recently it was reported that very few European businesses had crisis management plans in place. In this very issue of PRWeek, there’s four pages dedicated to ‘crisis comms’ -case histories and commentary from industry pundits. Good start. But.

Wouldn’t it have been a better idea to create a guide to creating a crisis plan? Outline the basics, so that everyone knows where to start? Show the differences between plans for global organisations and local organisations? Demonstrate the potential consequences, the signs to look out for and how to counter them? Suggest a process for employing a crisis consultant? Provide examples of best practice desk-top exercises and full-blown crisis plan trials?

Wouldn’t this be significantly more useful? More useful than yet another Thought Leader supplement, but probably attracting a similar amount of advertising? Useful enough to merit a print version, and useful enough to motivate people to keep it on file and share it with others? Hmmmm?

I don’t want to see any print media disappear as a consequence of the rise of the internet and online content. I do understand, however – and PRWeek almost certainly does as well – that unless print media offers something that t’internet can’t (and I’m guessing that this includes in-depth consideration of topics and issues) then disappear it will.

Luckily, the communications industry has a myriad topics and issues that are ripe for this sort of treatment.

Social Media – Explaining It To The Non-Believer

Never let it be said, that just because I don’t believe in it (as a valid or valuable communications and marketing tool) that I don’t share the opposing viewpoint for the benefit and edification of you, my dear, dear blog snorkellers. So here is the script of a presentation given recently at an events industry event. (Yes, you read that right.) As I read it, I thought – well, if I HAD to try and convince someone of the value of social media, this is the sort of thing I’d use. I will issue a health warning though. It doesn’t, at any point, answer the questions ‘how much will I have to invest to leverage social media to my advantage’ and ‘what sort of return can I expect on my investment’. This is OK for the events industry, who have always struggled with ROI, and just keep talking until people forget what it was they wanted to know, but in other, more focused sectors, this might be an issue. Make up your own mind.

“WHAT THE HELL IS SOCIAL MEDIA?   

Social media is “an umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words, pictures, videos, and audio.”

More simply it just describes the millions of conversations people are having with each other across the world 24/7 

Why the HELL should I care?  Here are 10 really, really good reasons why…  
REASON #1
  

Because social media is now the number one online activity beating porn and personal email to the top spot. 
(Nielsen Wire)  
REASON #2   

Because 2/3 of the global internet population visit social networks.

(Nielsen, Global Faces & Networked Places) 
REASON #3   

Because time spent on social networks is growing at 3x the overall internet rate, accounting for 10% of all internet time.

(Nielsen, Global Faces & Networked Places) 
REASON #4   

Because online including social media has become the most influential source in helping consumer make purchasing decisions.

(Weber Shandwick Inline Research)
REASON #5   

Because social media is like word of mouth on steroids.
REASON #6
  

Because social media is democratizing communications. Big time.

“Technology is shifting the power away from the editors, the publishers, the establishment, the media elite. Now it’s the people who are in control.”

(Rupert Murdoch, Global Media Entrepreneur)  
REASON #7
  

Because millions of people are creating content for the social web.

Your competitors are already there. Your customers have been there for a long time. If your business isn’t putting itself out there, it ought to be.

(Business Week, February 19, 2009)
REASON #8
The next 3 billion consumers will access the internet from a mobile device.   Google Already 80% of Twitter usage is on mobile devices.  People update anywhere, anytime. 
Imagine what that means for bad customer experiences!       
(Mashable.com) 
REASON #9   

In almost all cases social media is free.  All it will cost you is time.
REASON #10
  

Because social media is hell of a force to be reckoned with.
Years to reach 50 million users:  
Radio – 38 years
TV – 13 years
Internet – 4 years
iPod – 3 years
Facebook added 175 million users between in less than 11 months 
The phenomenal growth of Facebook:
January 2009: 150 million users
April 2009: 200 million users
July 2009: 250 million users
September 2009: 300 million users
Friday, November 6th, 2009: 325 million users
That’s half a million users every single day
(Mashable.com) 

If Facebook were a country it would be bigger than the USA and the 3rd largest in the World  
1.                         China
2.                         India
3.                         Facebook
4.                         United States
5.                         Indonesia
6.                         Brazil
7.                         Pakistan
8.                         Bangladesh
9.                         Russia
10.                      Nigeria     

13 hours:  the amount of video uploaded to YouTube every minute.

412.3 years: the length of time it would take to view every YouTube video.

1 billion: the number of YouTube videos viewed per day.

3.06 billion: The number of photos archived on Flickr.com as of June 2009. That’s roughly 1 photo per every 2 people on the planet.

1382%: The year on year growth rate of Twitter users from February 2008 to February 2009.

3,000,000: the average number of Tweets sent per day on twitter.com

5.4 billion: The number of twitter messages sent since launch
5 billion: The number of minutes spent on Facebook each day
1 billion: The amount of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) shared each week on Facebook.

Social media is not yet another channel for broadcasting bullsh*t.

You see, it’s supposed to be a dialogue, not a monologue.

One way marketing has had its day! 

Stop thinking “campaigns”. Start thinking “conversations”.

Listening first, selling second 
Unfortunately most companies are still treating social media like just another marketing channel when in fact it’s so much more…

1: public relations

2: customer service

3: loyalty-building

4: collaboration

5: networking

6: thought-leadership

And yes, customer acquisition, too.  

If your product sucks, social media won’t fix it.

However, if your customer service sucks, social media can help.

If your repeat business sucks, social media can help.

If your company’s word of mouth sucks, social media can help.

Social media playtime is over – its time to get serious!     
Never forget the basic rules…

Rule #1: listen – Google alerts and Tweetdeck (for starters)

Rule #2: engage

Rule #3: measure – audience, engagement , loyalty, influence action (metrics should map to goals)

Now go out there and get social!  Because this is only the beginning.”

Social Media Marketing – Effort vs Reward

I’ve made my feelings on this quite clear in the past – I don’t believe that social media is a valid marketing or commercial/business tool – never have done, never will do. However, in the spirit of entente cordiale (although I prefer blackcurrant myself) here’s a wee something I stumbled across in the vastnesses of t’internet, which, I think, says it all. Quite eloquently.

The problem, for me, is that this post seems to say that the result from social media is worth all the hassle that you have to go through to get that result. No. Sorry, I’m in complete disagreement. What this post says to me is ‘give, give and give some more’ and – realistically – expect nothing in return. In fact it almost says you should be pleasantly surprised if you do get anything.
Apply this sentiment to a ‘real’ marketing discipline. Advertising say. If you were to take the sentiments outlined here – your advertising would give people free stuff, would be wholly unfocused, would take an enormous amount of time, effort and probably budget and would not guarantee a return. I don’t think it would get past the first planning meeting. So therefore why – oh, why – does social media get treated differently?

It’s got no clothes on.

Social Media – Twitter – Is There Really A Point?

Or, as this post would seem to imply, is it just an artificial ecosystem made up of the vain, the docile, the needy, the under-resourced and those who’ve take bad advice?

Comments on the back of a tenner to the usual address.

Twitter – I Can Do That, Gis A Job

Came across this, which is a look at the American political Twittersphere – I know, I know, sounds horribly complicated and not a little worthy (and it is) – but actually worth a quick look – if only to see who’s using it. Anyway, it’s not the point of this post, so don’t waste too much time.

While I was looking at it, I was drawn to @schwarzenegger (like a moth to a flame, or a fly to dog poo, or a small child to an unprotected electrical socket) and my morbid fascination, dear blog snorkellers, was amply rewarded. Do, please, have a quick look.

Quite clearly, The Governator is not going to tweet himself. No, he has a team of tweeters – and judging by their performance over the last few days, they have fallen foul of ‘Call Me Dave’s ‘too many tweets makes a twat’. I’m sorry – I don’t know Mr Schwarzenegger (although I am a great fan of his oeuvre) (serious) but there is no way on God’s green earth that he is going to post “in case you missed it, here is a clip from our water press conf. That’s what I call bipartisan.” He’s just not. Sorry.

So, I may have missed the point. 1) Maybe it is him, and I’ve been suckered by his monosyllabic silver screen routine. 2) Maybe he dictates it. 3) Maybe no-one cares what the words actually are – it’s the message that counts.

Actually, none of this. What we have here is failure to communicate. Governor Schwarzenegger, publicity-hungry, comms-oriented soul that he is (and I believe he is, and for most of the right reasons) has been advised to ‘do Twitter’. So he’s said yes. And he clearly can’t do it himself, so he’s got someone to do it for him.

Nothing wrong with that – I think most people would expect it – but it throws up a fundamental rule of corporate communications which perhaps the social media strategists have yet to learn. It’s a simple one. Ready?

If, in your communications, you take on the voice of someone else – the CEO, or the Governator – make sure that you approximate their usual delivery (either spoken or written).  Most people understand that this stuff is written by a ghost writer, but no-one wants their face rubbed in it.

Anyway, based on the Governator’s twitter feed – I could do better than that.

Dear Mr Schwarzenegger, can I be your twat?

Sustainability, Social Responsibility And Social Media

It’s got to be more than 10 years ago that I was first exposed to sustainable hysteria. I was, at the time, working for a well-known FTSE100 constituent who – it has to be said – had a fairly good (if somewhat misguided) track record in the field of corporate philanthropy (because that’s what it was in those days).

It would have been possible to argue that a literary sponsorship did far much more for the literati than it did for reading in schools, and that the continued funding of a manufacturing plant’s brass band, long after the plant had closed down, was a refusal to let go of the past, rather than an investment in the future. That (rather churlishly) being said, the company tried, and tried to get its workforce involved and on-side.

So, as an exercise in community relations – and this was a company that operated in communities – and as part of building a cohesive internal culture, this company’s CSR programme didn’t do too badly.

But then along came the concept of ethical investing. For the first time, it seemed as if investment decisions – particularly amongst the big investors – would be made as much on ethical track record as on corporate business performance. On top of that, it was suggested that consumer purchasing decisions would be made on the back of the brand’s ethics – so either way you looked at it CSR, sustainability, corporate ethics became the things that would make the difference between success and failure.

And in no time at all, an industry had grown up around it – consultants to advice you on your CSR and your sustainable business model, and organisations that would benchmark you, so that you’d know how you’d performed. FTSE4Good, Business in the Community, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index – all time-consuming, all expensive – but all doing a very good job of selling themselves to the business community to the point where absence was more conspicuous than inclusion.

It’s just my perception – and many would argue with me – but there was something of the Emperor’s new clothes about it all – and I for one, in my next job, told the executive Committee that we would not longer take part in FTSE4Good, or the DJSI as they cost money, wasted resource and delivered no real value. I have a feeling that many communicators felt like me – not dismissive of CSR, rather dismissive of the parasitic industry that sprang up to feed on the corporate social conscience.

Of course, ethics never went away – in the same way that they’d always been there in one form or another, long before someone invented the term ‘ethical investment’ – and a set of corporate ethics is fundamental to all business success. Simply put, if you make your products out of toxic waste, employ slave labour in the manufacturing process, and test the results on children, then you WILL be found out. You don’t need a consultant to tell you that. (I hope.) Business ethics have been around since Dickens’ Christmas Carol – some companies shout about them, others choose not to. No company needs to pay an outside organisation a fortune to judge their ethics for them.

Sustainable hysteria took hold again about two and half years ago. As the icecaps melted, the last few square hectares of rainforest were cut down and (in the UK anyway) there was the threat of a) a change in government and b) legislation in terms of emissions and operating practices, so companies started on their Social, Ethical and Environmental Policies – put something in place to stave off the worst excesses of the legislators. Again, out from the woodwork came the mountebanks and the charlatans – the advisors on sustainability, ready to devise you a plan and relieve you of your budget. A budget, incidentally which hadn’t existed before and which had thus been taken from other areas of your business. A business that was probably already in decent shape.

And then came the Great Recession of 2008/09. Suddenly a lot of people – business leaders, legislators, consumers – all realised that corporate ethics are all well and good, but really, you’ve got to treat business like the grown-up that it is. On the one hand you have to trust that it will behave ethically most of the time and on the other hand, you’ve got to believe that it merits your trust. The recession demonstrated that there are more important things in life. Not that anyone forgot about emissions, recycling, energy saving – they simply stopped wasting time agonising and proselytising.

The Great Recession, however, by some strange twist of fate (and this cannot be coincidence, can it?), has been accompanied by one of the greatest social shifts of modern times – the global embracing of social media. And, as I’ve posted here before, the rise of social media has created – mostly in America, but I fear for the UK – the cyber-hippie, who believes that all people are equal under the blog, that everyone should be free to have a voice, that the very fabric of capitalism will change as the inherent contract between consumer and brand becomes a contract between consumer and brand employee, via the social medium.

This is both frightening and infectious – the idea that business as we know it will change, become more embracing of its stakeholders, accept and act upon feedback and suggestions – to the point where products and services will not be created by the companies who manufacture and supply them, but by the consumer. A Utopia where the consumer simply has to blog that they want a frozen pizza with banana and limestone, and a brand owner will make one.

The Great Recession, and the misery that’s gone with it, has made this a very attractive proposition. Everyone wants to believe that we can make a better life with what we know now and that the post-Great Recession world will be focused more on ethics and social responsibility than it will be on capitalism and the creation of profit. People-driven, rather than profit-driven.

Clever people have been suckered by this. Some, such as Robert Phillips writing in PRWeek, have been so taken in by it, that they’re actually setting the communications profession up as the next set of charlatans, mountebanks and snake-oil salesmen who will advocate this way of operation at the highest level. (Sorry, can’t link to the PRWeek article, which is a shame.)

Until the pain of the Great Recession fades, and we re-enter the ‘Good Times’ phase of the cycle.