Author: jeremyprobert

Corporate Communications – Make Dictionaries Mandatory

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , .

Opinion piece in PRWeek, issue dated November 13, by Robert Phillips, UK CEO of Edelman. He uses the word ‘mandate’ twice, both times incorrectly.

Is it just me, or is the word ‘mandate’ getting an increasing amount of use amongst communicators currently? Often, as far as I can see, being used to supplant the tried and tested ‘brief’ or ‘account’ or, heaven forbid, ‘service contract’.

Well – here’s the news. It’s an incorrect usage. Getting a mandate does not mean being contracted to provide a service (PR or otherwise) for money. Just a quick look at t’internet reveals the definition here reproduced:

mandate

n [ˈmændeɪt -dɪt]

1. an official or authoritative instruction or command

2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Politics the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory

3. (Historical Terms) (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (often capital) Also called mandated territory (formerly) any of the territories under the trusteeship of the League of Nations administered by one of its member states

4. (Law)

a.  Roman law a contract by which one person commissions another to act for him gratuitously and the other accepts the commission

b.  Contract law a contract of bailment under which the party entrusted with goods undertakes to perform gratuitously some service in respect of such goods

c.  Scots law a contract by which a person is engaged to act in the management of the affairs of another

vb [ˈmændeɪt] (tr)

1. (Law) International law to assign (territory) to a nation under a mandate

2. to delegate authority to

3. Obsolete to give a command to

[from Latin mandātum something commanded, from mandāre to command, perhaps from manus hand + dāre to give]

mandator  n

Collins Essential English Dictionary, 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

Nowhere in the definition can I see the meaning that Phillips and others within the industry would attribute to the word mandate.

Doesn’t make us, as communicators, look very clever, does it.

And as for the rest of Phillips’ article – well, I’ll post some comments when I’m feeling slightly more objective.

Internal Comms/Social Media – Addenda to Social Media Policies

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Internal Communications, Internal Communications and Engagement, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

The whole social media space is a minefield littered with UXBs and especially so for a company’s employees. Social media are growing and changing and influencing behaviours far faster than most people can keep up – it’s got to the point where a corporate use of social media policy is not only a business necessity, it’s actually part of the corporate ‘duty of care’ to employees.

Here’s a thought – educating employees in the use of social media may be seen, in the future, as an employee benefit provided by the company. Possibly those more forward-thinking companies, without exposing themselves to the free-for-all that is open employee access, might actually be seen to be taking a lead on the issue, simply by ensuring their employees are social media savvy in a semi-formal fashion. Brown-bag training sessions, interactive intranets. Who knows.

Anyway – here’s an article from The Guardian that deals with the specific problems of colleagues following you on Twitter, or friending you on Facebook. Particularly senior colleagues. The implication – and it’s correct – is that social media are blurring the lines between work life and personal life. There is no such thing as a personal life anymore – what you’ve got is a work life and life when you’re not working. Use of social media – Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, et al – means that anyone can find you at anytime. Nothing that you post to these sites is private. There is a record of all you have written and uploaded. If it sounds a bit Big Brother, that’s because it is.

There is, obviously, a solution to the dilemma. It’s taken a lot of thought. It’s not popular. It flies in the face of current thinking. It’s this. DON’T USE TWITTER OR FACEBOOK. OR ANY OTHER SOCIAL MEDIUM. If you want to organise a party, send out invitations via email (still trackable, but not available to everyone). If you fancy getting in touch with someone – meet them for a drink. Give them a call. Write a letter. Go on, give it a try.

But no. You want to be free, to get LinkedIn, to have a good time. And this why – as the boundaries between you personally and you professionally blur and dissolve – it’s more and more important that there are not only corporate social media policies, but corporate social media etiquette statements also.

It pains me, but we’re here (how? how?) and now we have to deal with it. So, in the spirit of understanding and sharing, here’s something that I stumbled across earlier. I should say now that these are the thoughts of one Bristol-based managing editor (mid-thirties, apparently) who makes it clear on his blog that monkeys like me are not to steal his thoughts without due attribution and permission. I haven’t got permission, but consider this attribution. These are not my thoughts – I am simply passing on the wisdom of another.

(NB The guidelines that Mr Bristol sets out here are, actually, quite corporately focused. But they work equally well for use of social media on a personal level. You could adapt them. But I’d ask Mr Bristol for his permission first. You never know.)

Internal Communications – Solving The Sidewiki Issue

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , .

Oh dear. Much Fuss in the Wold. Google launches Sidewiki at the end of September and in reasonably short order – well, a matter of weeks – the blogosphere is givin’ it all that about how a) anyone can post anything about your website and b) your employees (if you’re a business) can get all disgruntled and post stuff about your website. Aaaagh – we’ll all be ruined!

 So, let’s get this straight. You’ve got a website and – for those people who’ve downloaded Sidewiki – they can now see visitor comments on your site, in a side bar. These comments are posted by both randomers visiting your site, and regulars, so they may – or indeed may not – be positive or negative or neutral. Those with Sidewiki can, obviously, post their own comments.

 And the hysterical rationale from those who’ve ‘embraced’ social media is that, of course, everyone who’s on social media will all get jiggy wid de Wiki and it’ll be the end of corporate web presences as we know it. Well, no. Bollocks.

 1)       In order to use Google’s lovely Sidewiki, you’ve got to download it. And in downloading it, you tacitly allow Google to track your internet usage. And you have to have the IQ of an Eccles Cake to do that

2)       Those people who do have the IQ of an Eccles Cake are, obviously, not people about whose opinion anyone actually gives a shit

3)       Those fine folk at Google have the final say on what’s posted on Sidewiki and they’re interested, obviously, in the thoughts of those people who’ve given them the most trade/traffic/personal information. The average (and most dangerous) Eccles Cake-head does not figure in the Googlisation of the world and thus their comments won’t get posted

4)       What are you doing anyway? Why are you worried about your employees (those who are Eccles Cakers anyway) posting to Sidewiki – they shouldn’t be able to do it from work anyway. And they should be dissuaded from doing it at home by a  binding contract that will see them skinned alive, rolled in salt and then parboiled should they decide to get all clever on your arse

5)       What are you doing anyway, Part 2. Why on earth should your website attract unpleasant Wikiness? Are you not the model of a business? With a luvverly corporate culture, and employees who believe in you and a demonstrable set of ethics and – hopefully – no instances of toxic waste and smothering children in your past? Of course you are and therefore – why should you be bothered?

6)       No company is wholly able to tick the point 5) box – get (and enforce) a Use of Social Media Policy, quick-smart, choppy-chop

 Oh – and please, please, can we stop panicking. How have we – perfectly sensible people – come to this?

Corporate Communications – The Whale Penis Story

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , .

Here’s something you simply couldn’t make up if you tried. Some Russian automotive manufacturer decides to upholster the seats of their latest blingmobile in – yes, obviously – whale penis leather. For the hard of thinking, that’s the tanned skin of a whale’s penis. For the puerile, yes, it came in four skin colours.

 Pamela Anderson gets involved, because, obviously (again) she can’t bear to think of the plight of the whales’ penises. Sends email to Russians. Russians decide not to use whale penis leather any more. Issue a retraction. Everyone happy.

 Now, listen up. The serious message in this is…………………..no, you’re right. Who cares. Enjoy it for what it is.

Social Media – A Presence On Youmytwidioboobespace

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Evaluation, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Some time ago, I suggested the imminent coalescing of one or more social media – as the only real way that they can survive individually is by broadening their offer and thus encroaching on each other’s space. (It’s my space! No, it’s not, it’s TwinkedIn.) Just in case you’re not an avid follower of my random – but increasingly accurate – musings, you can catch up here.

Hurry up, the rest of us aren’t going to wait all day.

Right. Anyway, the point is that I’ve just received my first request though LinkedIn to be someone’s bitch follower (or was it that she wanted to be my follower?) on Twitter. Oh, but yes. The gradual merging of media has started and who knows where it will end. As an aside, I cannot see how the Twitter/LinkedIn deal is going to work – LinkedIn has already taken on some of the aspects of Facebook, as people forget that it’s a business tool and post quick updates on their musical tastes – and the culture of Twitter (the Twattish behaviour, if you like) will not mix well with the orignal culture of LinkedIn.

Be that as it may. This is the beginning – as I’ve said several times before – of the end, specifically the end of the social media free-for-all that exists now. So – if you’re a corporate, and you’re thinking of dipping your toe – perhaps even investing something in it – is now the time?

Remember Betamax. You don’t want to be Twitter-savvy, if it turns out that Wave is the future – and yes, OK, I know that’s a bit faux-naif. (Qui? Moi?)

But social media, as a business tool – marketing, comms and to a certain extent, sales – does not deliver tangible benefit. And while it’s still sorting itself out, it’s unlikely to. So curb your enthusiasm – because I know you’re just busting to get involved – and let’s see how it shakes down.

It won’t take long, mark my words……..

Crisis Management – Yes, Stupid, You Need A Plan

Posted on by in Crisis Management, Crisis Management Guides, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , , .

Following on from news of Burson Marsteller’s research in to European companies’  level of crisis-preparedness – I wrote about it recently – which revealed (in addition to such gems as ‘crises may affect share price’) that while 60% of companies polled had encountered some sort of crisis, 53% didn’t have a plan – PRWeek sees fit to inform its readership that “Crisis Comms Is (a) Hot Topic”. (What is this? Some sort of uncontrolled outbreak of the Galloping Bleedin’ Obviousnesses?)

Now, in fairness (because, when all’s said and done, I’m a reasonably fair bloke) PRWeek is reporting that ‘more than 60 communicators from large international corporations across the EMEA region were set to meet in London to discuss the findings” (of the Burson-Marsteller report).  Which I find both terrifying and very difficult to believe in equal measure – what are 60 communicators going to do with the loosely-structured, scaremongering collection of motherhood statements that is the B-M report? Will they agree with the statistics – ie 36 of their number have experienced a crisis, while 32 of them don’t have a plan in place? And will the 28 who do then jeer and point at the others?

I suspect, given that the keynote speaker at this – judging by the breathless PRWeek copy (“Senior comms executives were set to convene this week to thrash out crisis comms strategies in the wake of new research” – oh, please) – hastily-arranged gathering, is the owner of a security and risk management advisory firm, that this is more of a paid-for training session cum conference. But, hey, call me an old cynic.

Two things then. All you 60 communicators set to gather in London – what are you doing? If you haven’t got a crisis plan – and you don’t know where to start –  don’t spend your money on coming to London to listen to a lecture. Get in touch with the CIPR or the PRCA and ask for their recommendations on a crisis management consultant, and then go and have a conversation. Quick-smart, choppy-chop.

Thing two. PRWeek. Instead of reporting this horseshit in a breathless fashion, could we please, please have a three page feature on creating a robust crisis management plan – some case histories maybe? You could even shadow one of the 32 of the 60 who don’t have a plan as he or she goes through the process of getting one together. Just a thought.

Corporate Communications – Doing God’s Work?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations.

Goldman Sachs is an organisation that has always fascinated me – partly because a friend worked there for a while – but mostly because no-one really knew anything about it. It was mostly rumour and speculation, about the codes of silence, the 24-hours days, the cult(-ish) behaviours and, obviously, the massive hessian bags of money that lined every corridor in their office buildings. (OK, I made the last bit up.) And there was the mythical partner status, conferred upon only the most deserving and diligent of employees in a special ceremony that culminated in the bestowing of a personal licence to print money.

Be that as it may. What piqued my interest further was its communications operation. I met one of the team not so long ago and she was everything I would have expected, in that she would tell me that she’d done some ridiculous number of interviews (18 I think) to get the job and she most definitely wouldn’t tell me anything else about it.

The Goldman Sachs comms team works at not getting coverage – and does it very well indeed. It is, of course, run by the highest paid man in corporate communications – one Lucas van Praag (my apologies to him if I’ve spelt it wrong) ex-Brunswick and a partner at the firm. Now, I know nothing about this, but I feel fairly confident in saying that his yearly package runs into millions. Possibly, in a good year, tens of millions.

So imagine my delight when there, in the Sunday Times, but yesterday, was an interview with Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs and the head of the London concern (5,500 employees and counting), one Michael Sherwood. Have a read here.

It throws up loads of questions – not about the business of GS – but more about their comms strategy and whether, for an institution that (according to itself) never fails, it hasn’t, in some manner, dropped a bollock with this one. I’m presuming that this is a one-off – we’re not going to see a new, friendly Goldman Sachs popping up everywhere – and I guess you have to admire Mr Van Praag for getting the people to do it – accustomed, as they must be, to keeping their heads down and avoiding ostentation and example.

But I cannot help but thinking they’d have been better off drawing the blinds and turning down the music, and waiting until the mob goes away. Yes, I’ll buy what the article proposes – GS is being tarred with the same brush as the banks that really f***ed up over the credit crunch, and that’s damaging to it and, potentially, to the way it operates. One potential solution? Make it less mystical – open the doors, show people there’s nothing to be afraid of, explain that the money is reward for doing the job – the job that keeps the rest of the world turning.

Only the article didn’t. Unfortunately, Mr Blankfein didn’t come across as a very nice man – or one that in any way understands the feelings of the general population (irrespective of whether or not GS is responsible for what’s happened and those feelings). His explanation was not very convincing. Mr Sherwood talked too much about multi-million pound yachts which, apparently, he likes. Too many staffers were quoted, and in their quotations, there were the echoes of the slightly weird, slightly freakish, slightly ghoulish nature of the business. It scared me, let me tell you.

No, on balance, I think this was a piece of coverage too far. I think it would have been a piece of coverage too far even if the good times were rolling. But they’re not, and as news of a cold winter and an austere New Year gather momentum, this just seems a little undiplomatic and slightly unnecessary. Of course, it might be that GS is sticking a big middle finger up at the world and is saying, through the media, we’re bright, we work hard, we get paid a sh*tload and – oh yes – f*ck you. I hope not, but………….

(Incidentally – a small non-sequitur. Mr Sherwood of Goldman Sachs talks about buying multi-million pound yachts. Which he likes, apparently. On the other hand, his remuneration is placed at the 6 million unit-of-some-currency-or-other mark. Dollars or pounds. Not lire, obviously. Anyway – is it just me, but if you only earned 6m a year, you wouldn’t be able to afford £32m yachts, would you? No. Suffice it say, he earns a sh*tload more than the paper went away believing.)

Corporate Communications – The Boxing Metaphor (2)

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , .

Story of my life really – I back an almost unassailable certainty and, with my support, it rapidly turns itself into an outside chance at best, a practical impossibility at worst. So it was with the Haye/Valuev boxing extravaganza on Saturday night last – I used the fight as a metaphor for companies/organisations who are caught out in a lie. They lose respect, consumer confidence, loyalty – in effect, they get caned. So it was – obviously – to be with Haye – mouthy git, giving it all this about knocking Valuev out, comes the time to prove it, he’d get in the ring with the behemoth and – smack – good night, Vienna.

Only. Only…..he didn’t. When push came to shove, he danced round the foothills of man-mountain, nipping at Valuev’s heels, worrying his hamstrings and cutting a long one short – as you will all know, my boxing blog snorkellers – he won on points. So – firstly congratulations to Mr Haye and secondly – OK, OK, I was wrong.

But it still niggles, The metaphor was quite a good one and I think there’s something to be salvaged here. Like the company that’s called to put its money where its mouth is and prove some of its claims, Mr Haye did enough to save himself from exposure. But it wasn’t terribly convincing. It was an explanation with holes in it, that everyone knows probably isn’t the real deal.

So my metaphor still stands – David Haye is the company that’s done some burbling, bumbling and obfuscating and has wriggled off the hook. But make no mistake – no-one’s going to forget this and they’ll be waiting should this company/organisation try something similar again.  

And in my metaphor’s case, he has no choice other than to try something similar again.

Crisis Management – Who’d Have Thought It?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , .

Today I is mostly loving Burson-Marsteller and their ability to keep a straight face. That most marvellous of publications, Communicate Magazine, has a story about some research that B-M has conducted into the crisis-preparedness of European companies.

I am extremely lazy, and therefore, you – dear blog snorkeller – can read it for yourself. Click the light fantastic here.

What prompts me to share it are B-M’s findings as regards the consequences of a crisis (crisis (n.) an unstable period, esp one of extreme trouble or danger in politics, economics, etc), which, apparently, can include “falling share prices, loss of corporate reputation, loss of media and/or public trust and law suits by individuals or groups”.

In other news, scientists at the Institute for Studies have discovered that water is wet, the sky is blue and petrol is frighteningly flammable.

Corporate Communications – The Boxing Metaphor

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , , , .

Following on from an earlier post about publicity and the rules of engagement. Taking it as read that publicity – in some form or other (publicity (n) – information that concerns a person, group, event, or product and that is disseminated through various media to attract public notice) – is the end goal of everything that we do as communicators, then – ergo – there must be rules that the professional communicator has at least an eye to when going about the task.

For my part, these include (but are not limited to) telling the truth (or at least a part of it), not misrepresenting, not insulting, not belittling and not demeaning – and, here’s a biggie, not saying anything that you cannot, if called upon to do so, back up.

Obviously, there’s a fine line here. Many moons ago, Tesco announced a new home delivery service – for those of its customers who lived in some splendour and didn’t wish to see a Tesco-branded van up their cul-de-sac (to coin a phrase). The new service involved delivery by dark green Range Rover, and the pictures of said Range Rover (along with the story) got square hectares of coverage.

I myself announced that a particular pub restaurant chain was to launch ‘Pincher’s Portions’ of chips – to solve the age old issue of wives, girlfriends and partners refusing to order their own chips and then pinching yours. (Ooooooh – it still irritates me.) Again, the story tapped into the zeitgeist and generated a decent footie pitch of coverage.

Of course, neither story was strictly based in complete fact. Tesco had one, perhaps two, Range Rovers, and the posh delivery service vanished as fast as the story did. My lovely pub restaurant chain put the Pincher’s Portion on the menu in a couple of its outlets, for a brief while. It didn’t matter at all, though – the ideas behind the stories were great and, if absolutely pushed (by some humourless killjoy) to prove they were true – well, we could.

Now the boxing metaphor. As you may know, dear blog snorkeller, on Saturday, one David Hayes is to step into the ring of pugilism and face Nikolai Valuev of Russia. Clearly, Mr Hayes’ fortune rests on the publicity he can generate around the fight, encouraging people to pay their subscriptions to watch it, and making himself more marketable. He has been most vociferous around how well he is going to do, and how is is going to knock his opponent out. There has been reams of coverage – the story has been wholly unavoidable, unless you’ve been living in an hermetically-sealed bunker somewhere for the past couple of weeks.

Unfortunately for Mr Hayes, he is going to be called upon to prove all the claims he has made. Also unfortunately, his opponent is seven foot two inches tall, and weighs 23 stone. He is – looking at it in a logical and balanced fashion – going to get spanked.

A company caught generating publicity on the back of a lie will lose the trust of its stakeholders and the impact on its corporate reputation may be mortal. If you squint a bit and look at Mr Hayes as a company, what’s going to happen to him on Saturday is exactly the same.