Communications Strategy

Just a few thoughts on the dark art of corporate communications and how one should approach it – and when you’ve approached it, whether you should embrace it with open arms, or simply walk away. Quite quickly.

Social Media – Social Media Crisis Management

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

I’m still fretting about Domino’s Pizza. As you’ll all know, the company came under some pressure earlier in the year as two employees posted a video on YouTube of themselves – ahem – ‘abusing’ the food they were preparing. Cue furore. Anyway, it’s in the past now, the company hasn’t gone bust and pizzas continue to be delivered to the free world as usual.

Thing is that there are two schools of thought on Domino’s response to the crisis (for such it was). One is that they handled it well, the other (clearly) is that they didn’t. (Just so you know where I stand, I read that it took them some time to address the issue and when they did, the response was limited.)

Anyway, as I was looking for reportage on the incident, I came across this on usatoday.com, which got me thinking more about the general principles of handling a ‘social networking attack’ (their words not mine). The article publishes the views of experts – I reproduce them here. As usual, the plain text is theirs, the italics are mine.

“Here are key things experts say marketers can do to quickly catch and respond effectively to similar social-networking attacks:

• Monitor social media. Big companies must actively watch Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social sites to track conversations that involve them. That will help uncover potential crises-in-the-making, says Brian Solis, a new-media specialist and blogger at PR2.0.

Couldn’t agree more with this, and it’s not difficult to do – however, although it’s easy to believe that Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are the only social media, there are (of course) myriad others that may not appear on the radar and which could be the source of your issue. Nothing beats pre-planning – what are the issues that could impact your business and how would you handle them (and how would you respond) if they came up? Your crisis management plan needs a social media section.

• Respond quickly. Domino’s responded within hours. “They responded as soon as they heard about it, not after the media asked, ‘What are you going to do?’ ” says Lynne Doll, president of The Rogers Group, a crisis-management specialist.

This isn’t what I heard, but responding practically immediately is exactly what’s required.

• Respond at the flashpoint. Domino’s first responded on consumer affairs blog The Consumerist, whose activist readers helped track down the store and employees who made the video. Then it responded on the Twitter site where talk was mounting. “Domino’s did the right thing by reinstituting the trust where it was lost,” Solis says.

Yes, by all means – but how are you going to deal with the wider fall-out? Trust may initially have been lost on Twitter, but you can be certain it was also lost amongst the readers of mainstream, traditional media, who don’t go online, and don’t use social networks. They won’t have seen the response.

• Educate workers. It’s important that all employees have some media and social-media training, says Ross Mayfield, co-founder of Socialtext, which advises companies on new media.

No it isn’t. It’s important that all employees understand what your social media policy is, and the consequences of breaching it.

• Foster a positive culture. Workers who are content and customers who like your product are far less likely to tear down a company online, PR guru Katie Delahaye Paine says. “This would be a lot less likely to happen at places like Whole Foods.”

These are, unfortunately, Utopian motherhood statements. Workers are not content and not everyone likes your product. Social media or not, there is always a risk – even at Whole Foods – that someone will have a go. By all means invest in company culture and corporate reputation – but don’t forget your contingency planning.

• Set clear guidelines. Companies must have clear policies about what is allowed during working hours — and what isn’t, Doll says. “It won’t prevent everyone from breaking the rules, but at least they’ll know what the rules are.”

Yes – but make it a policy, not a set of guidelines. Guidelines are open to misinterpretation and flex – policies say what is and isn’t allowed and specify the penalties for infringement. Call them rules, if necessary.”

Social Media – What You Need To Know About Social Media

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , .
  • Social media is here to stay, in one form or another. You cannot ignore it
  • Every company, large or small, should have a clear-cut, unambiguous, not-open-to-misinterpretation social media policy – properly communicated and enforced
  • Social media comes to the fore in times of crisis and is a creator of issues – every company’s crisis management document should contain a section on social media
  • Every company should have trained spokespeople whose responsibilities include responding to comments/issues generated or communicated via social media. Sometimes they might even be proactive
  • The majority of a company’s employees, however, should not be allowed to post to social media, either on company time, on company business or about the company
  • Social media are not – yet – valid marketing tools. Your budget is still better spent elsewhere
  • Social media are, however, communications tools and, as such, belong to the PR or communications department
  • Everything that gets posted to social media on behalf of a company must either go through, or have gone through, an approval system
  • You do not need to spend a vast fortune on social media strategy or social media monitoring – one is an oxymoron, the other can be carried out perfectly adequately, in-house, in minutes, via search engines
  • Social media is not the same as digital. Digital is wide-ranging, well-established and value-adding – social is but one small, unproven, part of digital
  • Social media does not have a track record, no-one has much experience with it, and no-one knows what it can and cannot do
  • Traditional media can bite if mishandled – there’s no reason to suppose that social media won’t do the same
  • No-one has found a way of making money out of social media yet – not even the social media owners
  • Whenever successful social media strategy is discussed, some or all of these companies will be mentioned – Dell, Coke, Ford, Amazon, Starbucks, WholeFoods, Best Buy, Zappo, Domino’s – and it is not a coincidence
  • Social media is not limited to Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Ecademy, Bebo and MySpace – however it’s only the first three of those that you’ll see discussed outside of genuinely niche fora
  • Inevitably, social media will consolidate – the question is which social media brand/s will survive
  • Social media is not the saviour of PR or IR or corporate communications – it is not a doorway to a new society or a new way of doing business. Engage with it by all means – understand what it is – monitor its development – but do not get carried away. If the Emperor has any clothes on, they are limited to a pair of baggy, grey y-fronts

Social Media – These Truths…….Self-Evident…..

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

Well – here’s something of a landmark – the 100th post since this blog commenced its outpouring of random musings on all things communications.

Well, that was the idea, anyway. What’s actually happened, as my regular blog snorkellers will know, is that I’ve been cunningly diverted from my original aim by this new-fangled social media malarkey, which has taken up vast swathes of this blog, big chunks of my time and a fair amount of wordcount.

The 100th post seems a good time to round it all up, briefly. To summarise the small amount I’ve picked up, the conclusions I’ve reached, the positions I took and the way that they have changed over time. The one thing that is certain, however, is that – whether you’re a social media aficionado or not – you cannot ignore it and the speed at which it (and the thinking on best practice that surrounds it) has changed and continues to change is quite – as our American friends would have it – awesome.

My charming wife – who is something big in marketing – was completely horrified when I shared my thoughts on social media as marketing tools – for the record, they aren’t. She was dreadfully concerned that I’d be seen as a dinosaur, a Luddite, and be left behind as the rest of you surfed away on the crest of the nouvelle vague.

So, once and for all, as a statement of intent, here’s where I stand on the whole social media deal.

  • Social media is here to stay. You cannot ignore it
  • Every company, large or small, should have a clear-cut, unambiguous, not-open-to-misinterpretation social media policy – properly communicated and enforced
  • Social media comes to the fore in times of crisis and is a creator of issues – every company’s crisis management document should contain a section on social media
  • Every company should have trained spokespeople whose responsibilities include responding to comments/issues generated or communicated via social media. Sometimes they might even be proactive
  • The majority of a company’s employees, however, should not be allowed to post to social media, either on company time, on company business or about the company
  • Social media are not – yet – valid marketing tools. Your budget is still better spent elsewhere
  • Social media are, however, communications tools and, as such, belong to the PR or communications department
  • Everything that gets posted to social media on behalf of a company must either go through, or have gone through, an approval system
  • You do not need to spend a vast fortune on social media strategy or social media monitoring – one is an oxymoron, the other can be carried out perfectly adequately, in-house, in minutes, via search engines
  • Social media is not the same as digital. Digital is wide-ranging, well-established and value-adding – social is but one small, unproven, part of digital
  • Social media does not have a track record, no-one has much experience with it, and no-one knows what it can and cannot do
  • Traditional media can bite if mishandled – there’s no reason to suppose that social media won’t do the same
  • No-one has found a way of making money out of social media yet – not even the social media owners
  • Inevitably, social media will consolidate – the question is which social media brand/s will survive
  • Social media is not the saviour of PR, nor is it a doorway to a new society or a new way of doing business. Engage with it by all means – understand what it is – monitor its development – but do not get carried away. If the Emperor has any clothes on, they are limited to a pair of baggy, grey y-fronts

There you go, That’s it. I hope it’s unambiguous enough and shows that I’m neither a dinosaur, or a Luddite. I’m a lean, mean communicating machine, currently having a cup of coffee and smoke on the sidelines, waiting to see how the surf develops.

Happy hundredth post – I look forward to seeing you at my next centenary.

Social Media – Regulation, Mercan-style

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

And I know you’re going to think that I’ve come to this late, dear blog snorkellers, but it has come to my attention that the august body that is known as the Federal Trade Commission (Protecting America’s Consumers) has published some new (well, revised, actually) guidelines covering endorsements and testimonials (changes affect testimonial advertisements, bloggers, celebrity endorsements) – click-click away, click-click away, stateside!

Now it seems – to my pale and fevered mind – that the upshot of this is that bloggers are going to have to make it clear if they have been paid to review (or write about generally) products or services. It also appears that this covers not solely hard cash, but also the very products and services that are reviewed, if they have been supplied to the blogger free, gratis and for nowt. If not, they will be punished to the tune of $11k per violation.

(And, credit where credit’s due, I found out about this via a blog that I cited before – take a trip over here. I think you’ll find it quite edifying, in terms of the light it sheds on US PR practice. Unless you’re from the US, in which case, it’s still quite edifying in terms of the debate it foments.)

Anyway, as is my wont, a couple of questions thrown up by the FTC revised guidelines.

1) How, on earth, are they going to enforce these? I read a piece somewhere, written by a lawyer, who compared this to the legislation that brought down Napster, and how Napster users (down to teenagers in their basements, downloading one or two tracks) were sought out and punished. Well – again, to my mind, that’s very different – Napster was one site, and its users could be tracked by their IP addresses. In the case of the blogosphere – well – there’s simply too much of it, isn’t there? If this legislation is to apply – and it must, surely – to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, Bebo, private blogs, corporate blogs, comment posts on special interest sites – well, just how is the FTC going to monitor all of it, let alone impose punitive measures?

2) Isn’t this just a step too far? What happened to caveat emptor? If we are going to trust people to surf the net, engage with social media and comment on blogs, surely we should also trust them not to get suckered by advertising masquerading as editorial. Consumers are a fairly media-savvy bunch, aren’t they? They’re not going to buy a product or service just because some blogger, magazine, TV show or celebrity told them to. Are they? (Apart from those who went to Iceland because Kerry Katona told them to. But they deserve all the frozen horror that they get.) 

Bottom line. The FTC is, to all intents and purposes, trying to regulate the internet and, as we know, by the very nature of the internet, this is pretty  nearly impossible. Yes, the internet is in dire need of some regulation (and good spring clean) but it’s not going to get it.

What this regulation will do, however, is further hobble the relationship between brands and traditional media, to the detriment of traditional media. In a well-meaning attempt to protect the consumer from the iniquities of the blogosphere, the FTC has, in fact, created something that the blogosphere will largely ignore and will impact most heavily against an already (arguably) overregulated traditional media sector.

And what impact – if any – will this have on non US-based blogs?

Social Media – YouTwit? TwiTube? Twidioboobe?

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

Article in the Sunday Times says that Twitter’s thinking about offering a short video hosting and broadcast facility. As far as I could make out – and read it for yourself, mousey-clicket – it’s a video version of Twitter (erm – that sounds a bit obvious, doesn’t it) by which I mean it’s the video equivalent of 140 characters or less, ideally suited to eg mobile ‘phones. I see a new craze – HappyTwatting.

Mind – all of a sudden, Twitter’s encroaching on YouTube. And when it starts an audio service, it’ll be encroaching on Audioboo. I suppose the reality is that there’s a limit to the media you can offer. It’s text, voice and pictures. So – actually – they’ll just be the same services under a different brand. And how many social media brands can actually survive in this limited space?

Possibly not Twitter. According to the Sunday Times (I knew this, but The Thunderer is a reputable source) there’s a few high profile Twitterators who are leaving, and despite the service being valued at 630 million units of some currency or other, the operators are finding it difficult to make any money out of it. The video offering is, more than likely, a late attempt to revitalise a flagging brand.

I suppose the next thing will be the live Twitter. Go to a venue, meet someone, limit yourself to 140 characters. Or go to a venue, meet lots of people and exchange 140 characters with each one, moving from one to the next when you’ve exhausted your 140 character allocation. A bit like speed- dating but with even less chance of a shag at the end of it.   

As I’ve said before – the end is nigh.

Social Media – Approval Processes For Corporate Users

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

This is one of my favourite topics (and I’m only partly joking when I write that). In brief – to bring you up to speed – my thinking goes like this. Social media are channels of communication. As such, they represent an opportunity and a threat for brands, companies and organisations.

They can enhance and damage corporate reputation like any other channel of communication and, like any other channel of communication, because they are not ‘tame’ they can bite if mishandled. This is why every organisation needs a rigid social media policy, why corporate dealings with social media should be restricted to the professional communicators and trained spokespeople, and why everything should be approved so that the message – as far as possible – can be controlled. After all, that’s what we, as communicators, do.

Now (he sighed, wearily) there is an opposing viewpoint. And, in the spirit of balance and fair play, I give it a bit of an airing now and then. In my travels round t’internet, stuff tends to stick to me (such is the nature of the beast) and I find myself receiving all sorts of bits and bobs, like souvenirs from the places I’ve been. In the last couple of days I received this and it’s only now that I’ve got round to reading it.

This is a very prevalent school of thought in the US. Corporate dealings with social media should be, to all intents and purposes, unregulated and unapproved. We should trust our employees, whoever and wherever, to post on behalf of the brand, company or organisation. In fairness, this post talks about those within the organisation responsible for handling social media – so it’s not a free for all that’s being recommended (which is a relief and a definite development of the argument from where it was a month and a half ago) – but it still talks about people who can speak on behalf of the organisation without getting approvals.

As far as I’m concerned, no-one speaks on behalf of the organisation without – at some point – having had their messages approved. No-one makes off-the-cuff remarks – the company’s reputation is far too valuable and the result of far too much effort for it to be jeopardised by unrehearsed commentary.

So potentially what we have here is a question of what constitutes approval. And what is, generally, being posted to social media. I agree, if you’re answering a customer query on the price of one of your products, then as long as you’re polite, and the information’s correct, you don’t need a formal approval to post it on Facebook.

But, all too often, social media throw up questions that aren’t about price, or opening hours or other anodyne stuff. (As most of this information is/should be available on your website.) No – social media either throws up people with Tourette’s, or protest groups, or litigants, or questions about matters that either are not up for discussion, or require a ‘corporate’ response. All of this stuff needs to be approved. So that everyone knows what’s being said and – if they’re asked – knows what the response is.

And if you’re in a situation where some stuff needs approval and some doesn’t – sorry – it all needs approval. This is the only way of ensuring that nothing slips through the net. Yes, it’s time-consuming, no it’s not as ‘free-to-air’ as some would like, but hey – busines isn’t a democracy or a commune. It’s a process whereby people make money from other people.

And I completely disagree – approved responses do not equivalent to ‘canned’ PR messages. And I also disagree that there is some Utopia being created where people want to have relationships with the people who work within organisations.

No. They don’t. They want their cereal, or soap, or computer, or socks – they want the item or service at a fair price, delivered in a polite and timely fashion and they want to be reassured that it is not responsible for the deaths of babies and that it’s not made from toxic waste. Occasionally they want some free stuff. Mostly, however, the vast majority of these people – myself included – want to pay our money, take our choice and be left alone to consume our item in private. Thanks a heap.

Research – Data Doesn’t Imply Understanding

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

(Your deity of choice here) bless CNN for this story. 

I’m not sure whether it’s just me, but this has got to be wrong – and on so many different levels.

  • Why did they do this study in the first place – what purpose does it serve?
  • What made the Pew Forum think it was a good idea to release this?
  • Why didn’t someone make Brian Grim change his name? To Brian All-Embracing perhaps?
  • Who wrote it? And if it was the Pew Forum, why didn’t CNN re-write it?
  • “Nearly one in four people worldwide is Muslim – and they are not necessarily where you might think” – er – where did you think they might be? (Incidentally, it’s 0.9 people in four who are Muslim. 1.3 people in four are Christian, and I’d bet they’re not necessarily where you might think either. I know I’m not.)
  • Did it not actually cross anyone’s minds that this might be – well – incredibly insensitive and insulting?

It’s not research I have a problem with – we’ve all got to know stuff.

The issue I have is with those who think that – because it’s a legitimate study and thus statistically proven and correct – it’s OK to tell the world you’ve done it.

In this case, the way the research and its findings are presented make just under 25% of the global population seem little more than a curiosity. Congratulations, Pew Forum.

(Oh – and I particularly enjoyed this quotation. “When it comes to issues of outreach to the Muslim world, these numbers will indicate that outreach cannot be focused so narrowly on the Middle East. If the goal is to create better understanding between the United States and the Muslim world, our focus should be on south and southeast Asia, not the Middle East.” So – where are we off to war next?)

Social Media Policies – Pros and Cons

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

You may well have seen this, but I hadn’t and I thought it’s worth commenting on. This is from February this year, when an Irish blogger – Jason Roe – thought he had discovered a glitch in Ryanair’s website. He blogged about it. His post attracted commentary from Ryanair Staff – later confirmed as being, yep, a member of Ryanair’s staff.

Read – and gasp in wonder – here.

Quite clearly, at the time, Ryanair had no social media policy, governing who could post to what, when and how they should approach it. When the official response came out – here’s an article containing it (and a picture of Mr Roe) – it was made quite clear that they had no intention of getting a social media policy anytime soon.

You can take one of two things from this – up to you.

  • This is a salutary lesson in the importance of having a social media policy and ensuring that all your employees understand and abide by it
  • This demonstrates that it really doesn’t matter whether you have a policy or not, and whether your employees post to social media sites/blogs/messageboards or not – if your company has a sound business proposition, corporate reputation is not important, you’ll continue to make money

Personally, I think it’s all about what sort of company it is and – most importantly – what sort of leadership it has, based on the eternal truth that, like it or not, all business organisations will reflect the character of their leaders (CEO, President, Chairman – whatever).

In the case of Ryanair, it’s all about price. It’s cheap and it at the moment it has a strong customer base because it’s cheap. As long as it’s cheaper (or as cheap) as its competitors, it will have a share of the current market, a market which is (must be?) growing as people (generally) have less money. Therefore, the warmth of corporate reputation and customer admiration is something it doesn’t need.

And its leader is Michael O’Leary, a seemingly unpleasant, short individual with – it would be easy to infer from interviews given and commentary made – the emotional intelligence of a scorpion and the subtlety of an angry rhino. (Just in case anyone’s missed him – here’s some O’Learyisms.)

On balance, a company such as Ryanair has no need of a social media policy currently. It remains to be seen how long they can continue like this, mind.

(Oh – and I’d fly Aer Lingus or Aer Arann if I were you.)

Social Media – Eliminate the Negative

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

On Monday, I noticed that the latest post on the Domino’s Pizza Facebook wall read something like – who am I kidding, it read EXACTLY like – this:

“EWWWWWWW THE NEW SALAMI AT DOMINOS IS FUCKING SHITHOUSE. IT TASTES LIKE SOMEONES ARSE!!!!!!!YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK.”

At the time, I mused that – while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I’d rather gather my consumer feedback in a rather less public manner. Focus groups, for example. Or an online survey. Anyway, who am I.

Thing is, this raises one of those thorny social media issues. The whole thing about social media is that it is supposed to be an open and transparent dialogue. It’s free-to-air. Anyone can join in. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you disagree, then you should attempt to convert the other party through engaging and persuasive conversation. The medium is not the message. Oh – and this one really make me laugh – you cannot control the message.

But. When you get the sort of comment that Domino’s got on Monday, and you’ve got over 330k Facebook fans (who ARE these people, who want to share the fact that they ‘just order (sic) a Pastabowl and a Sandwich’? I don’t care! Although I do find it odd that you’re ordering a pastabowl and a sandwich from a caterer specialising in pizza) – well, no doubt about it, it’s damaging.

Here’s where the social media thing breaks down and all you can hear is the sound of social media gurus’ heads exploding. Yep – the basic principle of social media says everyone’s entitled, and therefore you cannot take the post down. But – the post is damaging to your corporate reputation – and you must take it down. What to do?

Simples (thanks, Aleksandr). You do what Domino’s has done. You take the post down. You censor the horrible mutant who thinks it’s a good idea to post comments of this nature on a public forum. You put an end to your Facebook group, release your fans back to their ridiculously needy litle lives – I’m sure they’ll find another large caterer to be their (only) friend – and start re-investing the marketing budget that you’ve just liberated into something that’s actually going to make a difference and deliver some real ROI.

Unfortunately, Domino’s stopped short of closing its Facebook group and you can still visit it and – should you wish – poke fun at the trolls, gnolls and dweebs who live there.

A big up to Domino’s however – I’ve been posting about the consumer need for Free Stuff over the last couple of days, and drawing the conclusion that social media cannot realistically satisfy this need. I still run with this opinion, but (thanks Domino’s) I’m forced to qualify it – you can use social media to publicise your free stuff amongst the trolls, gnolls and dweebs and – according to the stats – of 330k fans, 95 of them like it.

In fairness, Domino’s would probably have captured those people through its website without the social media aspect but – hey. I’m just an old grouch.

Social Media – What They Really Want (2)

Posted on by in Communications Strategy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Since my last post I’ve been inundated with quite literally no requests for clarification of the term ‘Free Stuff’. This complete lack of interest seems to centre round the misapprehension that, when I say ‘Free Stuff’, I’m talking about tangible goods, for free.

No. It’s a metaphor. What I’m talking about is something that a consumer (or stakeholder) wouldn’t otherwise have, that adds value to their existence, and comes without charge. So – it could be tangible goods for free, or it might be an exclusive discount, or a print-and-play voucher, or a competition, or simply some useful information.

As we’re discussing this in the context of social media, I know there are those who will maintain that this is exactly what social media does – through the medium of the conversation, the Q&A, ‘Free Stuff’ (generally information) is provided.

Well, yes and no. Mostly no. Social media are populated by several groups. Those who seek to belong, those who seek validation (through followers and fans), those who cannot bear to be alone, those who believe others are interested, those who are there by mistake and the ghosts who came once, never go again, yet leave traces of themselves in terms of usernames and unfinished profiles. All untraceable, unevaluable and – mostly – unquantifiable.

And as they are so diverse and give little clue to what they really, really want (and I’m certain that many of them do, simply, want to zigazig ah) a brand or organisation wishing to give them ‘Free Stuff’ actually can’t. Because one size does not fit all and they don’t ask directly (well, not often).

What this means is that brand or corporate pursuing its benighted and expensive social media ‘strategy’ is obliged to provide one of three things. Reaction to negative comment, general product or corporate info or Irritating Voiceover. Or any combination of the three.

Well, the pedants will say, this IS, by the definition outlined here, Free Stuff.

And indeed it is. But it’s low-level, generic Free Stuff that should be on your website anyway. If your consumers are having to get, or ask for, general info via Twitter or Facebook, then there is something seriously wrong in another area of your communications mix. Or, maybe, those consumers (stakeholders) are just sad and needy and desperately crave human contact. Any human contact.

Going back to Free Stuff – the Free Stuff that people want is stuff that feels special and unique – unique to them and their group. It’s stuff that cannot be delivered via mass-market social media, open to everyone. It’s stuff that can only be delivered on a ‘personal’ basis – in today’s internet age, signing up to a brand’s website is personal enough.

Two things, then.

  • Social media cannot fulfil the consumer’s defining need for Free Stuff
  • Your website (and associated digital marketing) can

Why, therefore, are you wasting time, money and effort on social media?