Trade Media – Why Does it Feel Neglected?

Posted on July 13, 2009 by jeremyprobert in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations.

“Trade publications are becoming sources for major corporate stories in nationals. Which means that the relationships with trade hacks are at least as important as those with their peers on the nationals.”

I had a brief Life on Mars moment when I read this – I felt like I’d been shot and woken up to find myself in 1995, which is the first time that I realised that – yes – the national media tend to trawl the trades for stories. (Certainly the more ‘interesting’ trades anyway – my formative experience was with a transfer from Marketing to the Daily Star – and I know Estates Gazette and Property Week are national fodder, as are The Publican and The Morning Advertiser. I’m not so sure about Building Products Inc Muckshifter and Crane, or Commercial Rabbit.)

This came from an article which had the subhead ‘Why do trade journalists feel neglected?’ The thrust seemd to be that the national media is a) much more important and b) easier to deal with because it doesn’t know its stuff quite so well as the trade, which study one particular sector in depth. Thus, comms professionals take the ‘easier’ national option and try to (sometimes) cut out the trade guy. And when the trade guy scores a scoop, and a national follows it up, the comms professional uses the journo’s ‘trade status’ to rubbish what’s been written. I can see how that would be a bummer.

Anyway, once I’d got over the shock of the revelation that nationals trawl trades for stories – no, hold on, I’m still feeling a bit weak – no, that’s better – and that it’s a good idea to build relationships with the trades – deep breaths – I thought about it a bit and came to the conclusion that – as in life – it just ain’t that simple.

It’s not about trades vs nationals. Being a trade journalist does not make you a specific type of person and being a national jorunalist does not make you another. In the same way that being a comms professional does not make a stereotype either.

There are good trade journalists and bad ones, good nationals and bad ones, good communicators (no sniggering at the back, readership minor!) and bad ‘uns. Each relationship, each modus operandi is different. For both communicator and journalist, the value of each others’ contribution has to be evaluated and it probably changes on a case-by-case basis.

Sometimes, the story’s not about a trade audience and that’s why a national is a better vehicle (at first, at least). Sometimes the audience is exactly that which is served by the trade. (It’s a clever comms pro, by the way, who can put a story to the trade and be assured that it will be picked up by a national – that seems to happen on a more luck-based basis.) Sometimes you won’t touch the trade with a bargepole, because it’s impossible to get fair treatment from the journalist – and not always because the journalist is a bad ‘un – no, it could be down to your CEO being rude to him/her at an industry event. There are a raft of so-called ‘trades’ that are – as the article I quoted at the beginning of this rightly said – wholly based on attracting advertising revenue. (And if you work for one of those and you’re reading this, stop it. Yes, stop it. Stop working for the magazine and stop reading this.)

The situation is very complex and the good comms professional treats every media outlet – trade or consumer – on a case-by-case basis, using judgement based on strategy, need, experience and relationships. OK, sometimes we’re dictated to by our paymasters, but mostly, we make the judgements ourselves. And, yes, we do understand the nature of the beast – that trade journos end up on the nationals (and sometimes, as comms professionals in later life).

So, the answer to the question ‘why do trade journalists feel neglected?’ I doubt they do. And if they do, it’s more than likely because they haven’t built the relationship with their sector comms people. Or it could be because the publication they’re working for is genuinely pants. If so – time to find somewhere else to ply your trade.

From my own experience, I doubt any of the staffers on Estates Gazette, Property Week, The Grocer, The Publican, The Morning Advertiser, Marketing, Marketing Week, Caterer and Hotelkeeper, actually feel neglected. Au contraire, I think they feel valued, quite important in their sector and delighted at the career on the nationals that beckons should they so wish.

In Search of the Perfect Client…………

Posted on July 10, 2009 by jeremyprobert in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Internal Communications, Public Relations.

Here’s a thorny one. I stumbled across an iteration of this debate recently and made a mental note – after all, isn’t it something that all of us who ply our trade in this vale of tears that we call Corporate Communications have discussed at one time or another – and thought that sooner or later I’d do a desultory post on the topic, see if anyone cared to contribute, see if it threw up anything new.

In conversation with a colleague this week, however, we chewed over this topic and – lo and behold – there was something new (new for me, anyway) that really started me thinking and made this post that much more urgent. Again – as with most of my posts – I’m not offering solutions, just issues, so if you’re looking for some sort of deus ex machina here, then I’d find something better to do right now.

Let’s start with the Perfect Client debate. To make it crystal clear, let’s define ‘client’ as someone (or something) that uses your communications skills and rewards you for them – could be internal, or external. I think (and I’m generalising here, I know, yadayadayada) that most of us have our opinions on what would make the perfect client, and I’d wager a small amount on those opinions being fairly much of a muchness.

Thanks to the wonders of t’interweb, it is – of course – the job of a matter of moments to find out what – exactly – people think the characteristics of the perfect client are and, in a totally unscientific and probably criminally devil-may-care manner, I can exclusively reveal that the two defining characteristics of the perfect client are:

(Wait for it.)

Understanding and Money (budget and bills).

Yes, that’s understanding of what corporate communications/public relations is, the funding for proper communications programmes and the willingness/ability to pay invoices on time (this last for the agency audience). I would imagine that this differs not a jot from the opinions/expectations that you already had, but, lest you think I’m making it up, here, in a cut’n’paste stylee, are some of the comments I canvassed:

I feel that a good PR client is one that is open to new ideas.
A good client has to be willing to listen to the counsel they’re paying for.
A good PR client is someone who pays their bills and allows you to handle ALL their communication (advertising, social networks, etc.).
A good PR client comes with no pre-conceived notions of what PR is like and how you should do it, and comes with a budget significant enough to let you do things at the right scale.
A good PR client is the one who knows that they need you.
A good PR client is one with a clear set of goals, and a willingness to listen to and consider the PR professional.
A good client sees you as part of the team, is truthful with you, listens to your counsel closely, pays promptly, allows you to understand internal dynamics and recognizes your contributions.
A good PR client has a broad definition of what PR is, and is becoming.
A good PR client knows what needs to be accomplished and has an open mind on how to get there, is receptive to advice, knows good advice from bad advice and isn’t afraid to be decisive and direct. Great PR clients add their own value to the process with a great strategic mind in his or her own right.
A good PR client acknowledges that they need help and expertise that is outside their skill set, respects the benefits of PR, is aware that PR is an integral part of managing their reputation/brand and is open to new ideas and flexibility in achieving results.
A good client is one who a) knows what PR is and b) understands the value it delivers. From these two things stem willingness to listen, willingness to act on advice, willingness to share information and to trust and willingness to pay the invoices in a timely manner.
Don’t presume that simply because a client has the title ‘Director of Corporate Affairs’ or ‘Head of Public Relations’ that they fulfil the two criteria.

OK. So far, so groovy. So what’s new here? What’s the thing that we should be thinking about?

The bottom line is that this debate questions the whole model of communications as an industry and the whole raison d’etre of what we do. Forget budget and forget the ability/proclivity to pay bills on time. What happens if you have a client, internal or external, who doesn’t understand?

Do you attempt some sort of education process – in the knowledge that you might not succeed and, therefore, your lifespan and earning potential is limited by how long you can keep things going before it blows up in your face (which it will, guaranteed, if the understanding is not there). Or do you duck the issue and – if you’re senior and well-connected enough – blind your cr*p client with science and tales of what high-profile people are doing or saying? Or do you cut your losses and run – far, far away?

In my travels, discussions and personal experience, I’ve come across many and varied cases where our profession and its practitioners have been burnt by clients who simply didn’t understand and, all too often, didn’t want to. (This – in part – goes back to the general perception of our industry – see previous posts.) In many of those cases, the practitioner (agency or in-house) stuck with it, simply because the business was there and was paying for the advice that was, on the whole, being ignored. Arguably, in all of the cases, the practitioner should have walked away.

This is the issue. As an industry, we’re reliant on our clients – internal and external – and we’re seen as lapdogs. Or ‘tame’ advisors. Many comms practitioners perpetuate this myth, flattering and cajoling and – in reality – delivering nothing, at great expense. The question is whether our industry would be better served if we evaluated clients in the way they evaluate us and those who cannot, or won’t, understand the basic principles of corporate reputation should be cut loose – blacklisted perhaps.

Perhaps, if we made good and professional communications only available to those who passed an industry standard ‘client test’ , then our services would be valued more highly. And then we’d not have to worry about being paid.

The Social Media Engagement Continuum – Apparently

Posted on July 9, 2009 by jeremyprobert in Communications Strategy, Evaluation, External Communications, Social Media.

An attempt to make sense of something that isn't actually happening?

Here’s an attempt to describe and segment the social media ‘journey of discovery’ (if you will). Clearly, a great deal of thought has gone into it and, when I happened upon it, I could not but be impressed by the sheer quantity of commentary (from people with idents like @bigweevil and @hellbelly) on the diagram and accompanying explanation. There are enormous amounts of people out there who think this work is very important. Unfortunately, I suspect it’s because, in creating categories of social media user, it gives them an identity and legitimises the hours they spend staring at their screens and engaging in exchanges with other like-minded souls.

You see, there aren’t really enormous amounts of people out there. Millions, yes (of users of social media) but in the great scheme of things, that’s not very many. And we also know (for a fact, folks) that 90% of Tweets are generated by 10% of Twitterers. The point being that of those millions of users of social media, a good whack aren’t actually using it at all. They signed up because it was fashionable, couldn’t figure it out or got bored with the spamphish, and just drifted away.

Thus, it is slightly presumptuous, and every so slightly pointless, to divide the world into types of social media user, according to where they are on their social media journey. I would suggest that the majority of people are firmly in category one and, actually, don’t really give a hoot about moving along the scale.

The lie is further given to this when you look at the Immersed category, which contains people who are utilising four or five different social media for work and enjoyment. Shoot me down if you like, but I would guess that the amount of people who are a) aware of four or five social media and b) capable of using them could probably be easily entertained in a small garden shed.

The other thing that this hierarchy fails to incorporate or acknowledge is the companies/brands/organisations that are desperately attempting to harness social media for their own ends – doing so not because they are interested in what social media does per se, but because they are interested in selling more stuff in whatever way possible. It also fails to take into account the natural lifespan of a social network (Friends Reunited, anyone? Bebo?).

No matter how many users (and actually, the more users, the more likely it is to happen) and how careful, diligent and well-behaved they are, a network has a cycle. It will evolve, mature, become decadent and wither – a succesful network will attract the many-too-many, those at point one in the hierarchy, who don’t care about it, don’t want to progress within it or any other social medium and will, sooner or later, kill it off.

LinkedIn – Networking in Isolation?

Posted on July 1, 2009 by jeremyprobert in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Social Media.

Is it just me, or is LinkedIn doing a bit of a a Twitter?

To my mind, one of the most useful functions of LinkedIn is the ability to ask questions and receive answers from a fairly wide pool of people, with a fairly broad range of experience. This is, as far as I can see, the whole ‘social media – an opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations’ thing actually in action, actually working.

Only it’s not.

In the last couple of days, I’ve asked a couple of questions, and I’ve answered a couple of questions. What I tend to do – and forgive me, this is all based on personal experience, an ‘opinion piece’, if you will – is read the other answers to the question and see if I can add anything further, or enter into debate with the other answerers. Because I’m actually interested, I will then re-visit the question later, to see if anyone has posted anything else, that might add to my thinking.

Unfortunately, others don’t seem to have the same MO. I read the answers to one question and everyone – but everyone – was saying the same thing (OK, maybe there was only one answer) – but without referencing any of the other answers. I checked the threads for a couple more questions. More of the same. It appears that very few people are engaging in ‘meaningful conversations’ or entering into debate – in fact they’re not actually listening to others at all.

This could be the first signs of the Twitterisation of LinkedIn – where it gradually morphs into a place for people to state their points of view, communicate their feelings or their whereabouts, shout their messages – without actually taking into account what others are saying.

Millions of people engaged in one-sided communication, networking in isolation and kidding themselves that they’ve cracked the whole social media conundrum.

Back to Basics With The Twitter Pitch

Posted on June 26, 2009 by jeremyprobert in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Social Media.

I was delighted – if still slightly dumbfounded – to read that there are now experts who (for a small consideration, obviously) will teach you how to condense your messages (press releases, mostly) to make them suitable for distribution via Twitter. I suppose there’s no earthly reason why you shouldn’t also Twitterise pitch documents and contract tenders either, on that basis.

I’ve seen it referred to as the Twitter Pitch – you’ve your limited amount of words, and you have to get the essence of your message across in that number of words. Ideally, within those 140 words, you should introduce, illustrate and conclude. Brilliant. In essence, it’s the same as what used to be called the elevator pitch and is now the escalator pitch (shorter and more public), only it’s even shorter and (potentially) even more public.

This is a great thing and, for me, so far, the best and most useful thing to come out of the whole social media whirlwind. Thinking about the Twitter pitch will (should) get people thinking about brevity, about being concise, frugal with words, about the essence of communication.

I was always told that a media announcement should be no more than three paragraphs – tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them what you’re telling them, tell them what you’ve told them – and I lose count of the amount of times I’ve heard media trainers tell people how many media releases an average journalist gets a day, and that your story has to be in the first para, or you’re lost. Why then, do so-called communications professionals still issue three or more page releases? Check PRNewswire if you don’t believe me.

The Twitter Pitch is not new. The Twitter Pitch is really just the equivalent of the first para of a well-crafted media release. Short, informative, to-the-point. Make them want to know more. The advent of email as a comms tool (yes, I can remember a time without it) (1583, small castle, Transylvania) also demanded a return to the less-is-more school, and while it’s physically possible to use more than 140 words in an email – is it advisable if you’re emailing a journalist?

What the Twitter Pitch will do, if we’re lucky, and if Twitter doesn’t suddenly curl up and evaporate (is it me, or is Twitter already becoming a hotbed of spam and phish – the sort of decadence that must, surely, presage the end) is prompt the learning or re-learning of a basic communications skill – taking complex messages and turning them into something simple that everyone can understand.

I have to say that, until recently, I thought this was something that was second-nature to anyone in communications. The rise of the Twitter Pitch consultant proves me wrong. And isn’t it scary that it’s taken something as hollow and transitory as Twitter to make us realise that our basic skills are lacking.

Internal Comms – Under-Evaluated or Not Fully Understood?

Posted on June 25, 2009 by jeremyprobert in Communications Strategy, Evaluation, Internal Communications.

Just a word of warning – this post is not wholly about the evaluation of internal comms, whether it is possible and whether those that advocate defined metrics and methodology are not, in fact, missing the point, and in so doing, possibly damaging the very activity they’re attempting to report on.

No, as an added bonus you’re getting the input of one of the multitudinous host of hapless charlatans who, having done a bit of communicating here and there, choose a niche for themselves and then, with staggering, and misplaced, arrogance, start dispensing counsel to anyone who’ll listen. The rise of the internet, the growth of social media and the advent of web 3.0 have – amongst the pile of other sins that can be laid at their doors – given these mountebanks free rein. Without any form of regulation, they can set up anywhere and anytime, claim anything and everything and (potentially) cause untold damage through the advice they give.

I will admit to quite enjoying the sensation of pleasurable horror that comes from reading their stuff, I definitely get a kick out of pointing it out and passing it on and I can also claim something of a public service. If but one person takes a learning from it, maybe passes it on to a Communications Paduan Learner – then my job is done.

Anyhoo, without further ado, here’s a question that I read recently and to which, because I thought it threw up a whole bunch of issues, I was motivated to post a response:

With matrix structures and overlapping target audience (employees) for many functions what would be the metrics to measure effective internal communications?

I saw this as a very difficult question. The problem lies in the whole debate over measurement of communications, full stop. For years (and years) the Communications industry has struggled with a method of effectively measuring ROI for external and internal comms, in order that the two disciplines could be stacked up against, for example, advertising and direct marketing and thus compete for share of budget.

Internal comms is the thorniest of issues. For example, what is it you want your internal comms to achieve? Increased productivity per employee? A reduction in staff turnover? First place in the Sunday Times Top 100 Places to Work? A greater employee understanding of corporate vision and values, objectives and strategy? Employee buy-in to merger, acquisition, re-structure or redundancy?

Each case would require a different measurement and a different set of metrics. Personally, I’ve always found that, in terms of internal comms, you cannot do better than – firstly – send out ‘ambassadors’ into your workforce to talk to their peers and report back on the groundswell of employee opinion. That way you know whether your internal comms actually having any sort of effect at all.

If, as a result of those report-backs, you are having an effect – then’s the time to try and decide how you’re going to measure it.

And that was pretty much my answer. OK, I know it’s roundabout and I know I didn’t give any examples (I will, if you like) and I didn’t go in to any sort of discussion around ROI for IC (eg whether your ROI should be measured in financial terms). (The answer’s ‘no’, by the way.) Anyway, what I wasn’t expecting, was a response to my answer which I reproduce here:

“While I agree with the examples Mr. Probert sites, I must completely disagree with his closing remark: *If you are having an effect – then’s the time to try and decide how you’re going to measure it.*

IMHO, it is unprofessional to move the bull’s-eye once the arrow has flown. It is standard procedure to work with the client (beit client or department) and jointly set the measures of success. Otherwise, how do you objectively measure effect?

Since every client (communications) situation is different by objective and circumstance, do not be surprised that the measures vary but the effect of communication will report back to a financial goal. The debate of whether or not accurate measurement can be achieved in communications is a little self-serving bumfuzzle, IMHO. The metrics of success are clear cut for each individual client intervention: are the client objectives being met by communications strategy and by the fulfillment of that strategy? “

This came from a bloke called Whipple. Richard Whipple. Based in Poland, he styles himself as some sort of metrics guru. He quite obviously, however, does not have a clue about internal communications and his general grasp of communication itself (especially written) seems to be somewhat lacking. I thought, therefore, with your indulgence (dear readers) that I’d address him (and his ‘points’ such as they are) directly.

Mr Whipple – if you’re having no effect, why would you expend time, effort and resource on evaluation? My comment was specifically made about internal communications, where gauging whether you are having a effect or not is as simple as having a few one-to-ones with your employees.

I am scared senseless by the implication that communications measurement will always “report back to a financial goal.” If we are talking internal communications, and bearing in mind the examples I have cited, then we are dealing with people – who are soft and cuddly and easily damaged. This is why the bean counters, and to a lesser extent, HR, should NEVER be involved in internal comms – if you attempt to put a hard financial value on your internal comms, then you run the risk of undermining its very essence and raison d’etre.

And Mr Whipple, Mr Whipple – self-serving bumfuzzle? Your choice of words makes you sound all tweedy and pre-historic, but if you WERE that old, you’d know quite well that the debate over how to measure communications in a meaningful sense has been raging for at least 20 years (which is how long I’ve been a practising communicator).

Oh – and I notice that your last sentence contains a lot of words, but no recommendations for, or concrete examples of, metrics or evaluation techniques. ‘Bumfuzzle’ indeed.

Unfortunately, it’s not just the Whipplester who isn’t seeing the nuances here – and by that I mean that evaluation, especially in the Communications Field, is not always about financial measurements and direct ROI. Well-planned and well-executed comms strategies achieve results on all sorts of different levels and it this is exactly why the effects are so difficult to measure in a way that makes sense to the other marketing disciplines and the budget controllers, who are perhaps more Whipplesque in their views. This is why the only real way to evaluate or measure comms strategies, either external or internal, is via attitudinal research. Which – of course – is expensive. Which – of course – is why people aren’t doing it.

So, in brief – internal comms – under-evaluated or not fully understood? Both, I’m afraid.

But at least the world of The Wordmonger is safe from the Whipple threat – as, indeed and by association, are you, dear reader.

Internal Comms and Social Media – Yammer, Yammer, Yammer

Posted on June 24, 2009 by jeremyprobert in Communications Strategy, Internal Communications, Social Media.

All this time spent bemoaning the increasing hysteria around social media as a marketing/comms tool, its much-vaunted ability to ‘engage’ stakeholders and provide opportunity for ‘in-depth conversations’, all about ‘quality not quantity’, and I never once gave a thought to the possibility of inward-facing social media and their impact against internal audiences. (And a thank-you to the nice people at Cravenhill Publishing for making me think about it.)

You see, for once here is something that falls within the sphere of social media that I actually get. I can relate to this, I can see how it might work. And I can see the pitfalls.

First let’s start by defining what we mean. Social media (OK, if I must – Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) are exactly that – media relying upon the social instinct of the human condition, the desire to interact with others and to have its voice heard. It is not ‘social’ in the sense of ‘let’s go and have a drink and chat about what we’re doing at the weekend’ – if it was, then LinkedIn would not be a social medium, it would be a ‘commercial medium’. Social media is also boundless and only extremely lightly regulated, often by its users themselves.

Translate that into the internal communications arena. Well, it’s most definitely not a social medium anymore, in either of the senses of the word. Like everything else inside a company, it will be ruled according to the natural hierarchy – for example, if the Pope posts something on LinkedIn that I don’t agree with, then I can (and will) post a reply containing my point of view. In a work situation, on a work-sponsored, work-run social network, I would not take the same liberty with a post from the CEO. I might post about what I’m doing at the weekend, but again, why would I when I don’t know who’s reading it.

And that’s the other difference between a social network harnessed as an internal comms tool and a real, free-to-air social network. The ersatz social network in your company is not boundless – your IT department will see to that – and it is not lightly regulated – your HR department will see to that.

Which brings me neatly to Yammer. It’s a cool idea – an off-the-shelf intranet with many of the functions and ‘feels’ of a social network. Clearly, another difference is that your company pays for it – the top of the range package of $5 per person per month (and, if you’re Cap Gemini, with 86,000 employees – well, that’s quite a chunk of your $8.7bn revenue in 2007. Oh – no…..hold on. It isn’t.) rather than it being free-to-air, like Facebook.

In fact (apparently, and according to the case history) Andy Mulholland, Cap Gemini CTO, was so breathlessly enthusiastic that he was prompted to say “So now I have a social networking tool, with real-time micro-blogging and current-topic searching, and it’s all integrated with email as well as being a web service. At last!” At last, indeed, Andy. I could understand if he’d said “So now I have a Sunseeker yacht, with jet-skis and a sundeck, and it’s all paid for by the company as well as being tax-free. At last!” But no-one says “At last!” about an intranet tool. No-one.

(I’d also like to make it clear that I have no idea whether Mr Mulholland has a Sunseeker yacht or not, and, if he does have one, how it is funded.)

Since 2000, I’ve been trying to find a way of getting employees to participate in two-way conversations through intranets and message-boards. I have tried all sorts ( I won’t say ‘everything’ because maybe there’s something I haven’t tried) which has included training sessions, briefings from Board-level execs, staff events, newsletters (print and electronic), prizes, donations to charity, one-on-one conversations, printed messages on payslips, roadshows and feature articles on intranets. And the result? Nada, niente, rien, nicht, zip, jack, squat – nothing.

As time has gone by, the tools that I’ve wanted employees to work with have become simpler and richer in functionality. At the beginning, it was simple bulletin boards. Post a short message on a topic that interests you, or ask a question of the directors. It was like pulling teeth. In the end, I had a tool on the intranet to which people could post pictures, video, audio, they could start their own polls, they could get a group discussion going – it was genius. And still, no-one used it.

So, back to Yammer – have they cracked it? Is Andy “At last!” Mulholland justified in his schoolboyish enthusiasm? Well, there’s nothing like asking, so I posted a question on LinkedIn – I thought ‘these social networking types will be up for it – Yammer expertise, here I come!’ So, go on, guess how many answers I got? Hmmm? Go on, have a guess. How many do you think? Hmm? (Oh……………yeah.) Actually, two. Two whole people. One of whom had no opinion of his own, but recommended me to an academic in Texas. Can’t work out whether this is because no-one is using Yammer – which might mean that Andy Mulholland doesn’t exist (NOOOOOOOOOOOO!) – or whether it’s because all the people using Yammer aren’t using LinkedIn.

I did get one answer that was worthwhile, though, and it’s what sparked off this post in the first place. My respondent said that she’d started to use it as a place for interns and the marketing department to interact. It had been slow to take off, but that feedback was positive. (I always got positive feedback for my initiatives, but they NEVER took off.)

What was interesting were her reasons for liking Yammer. First it was that users can set up private and public groups – private groups so that they can interact ‘without fear of anyone else checking in on them’. Apart from HR and their line managers, obviously. Second, it’s nice to post information in an informal setting. I’m guessing this is because it looks like a social network and thus lulls people into a sense of comfort and security. Third, it promotes collaboration and fourth – and here’s the killer – ‘we can control the network’.

This is why employees (and I’m generalising here) don’t want to participate in this sort of stuff. They suspect that Big Brother is watching them and – by George! They’re right. (Mind you, as we all know, they’re quite happy to post pictures of themselves snogging warthogs while drinking Absinthe and wearing inappropriate socks on Facebook because, obviously, Big Brother isn’t watching them there.)

In brief, the internal communicator’s audience is even more skittish that the digital marketer/communicator’s audience. You can scare them off by doing the wrong thing – a boss of mine insisted on doing impromptu visits to different departments at lunchtimes, wheeling a trolley of sandwiches. Of course, if he’d turned up and there’d been no-one there, then he’d have been most unhappy, so I had to issue a three-line whip beforehand, to make sure that, when he made his surprise visit, there were people there to be surprised. They didn’t like it. And if you do scare them off, it takes some time to get them back.

The best internal comms is done on a one-to-one. There’s a probably a space for an intranet-for-hire like Yammer, but like the whole social media phenomenon, it’s not robust, it lacks substance and it most definitely is not the future.

Social Media – Revisiting the Fish Theorem

Posted on June 19, 2009 by jeremyprobert in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Social Media.

Today I’m revisiting the Fish Theorem of Social Media which my regular readers (ahahahahahahahaha….sorry – and welcome to the Blog That Nobody Reads) will know as my own home-brewed analogy for the impact of social media communications strategies vs traditional media communications strategies. I am prompted to do this by a small success that the team and I had this morning, which just a) made me think again about the effectiveness of social media campaigns and b) made very happy indeed, because there is – simply put – nothing like coverage.

In brief – because I’m not going to make you do clickety on a link (you might never come back) – the Fish Theorem goes something like this. Social media communications strategies are like fishing with a rod and line. There’s a lot of standing around, while you wait for the fish to pluck up the confidence to approach your lure. Then you strike! If you’re lucky, you end up with exactly the type of fish you want on your hook and you’re free to have a meaningful conversation with it (OK, this analogy isn’t perfect, I know). However – and here’s the thing – if your lure’s not attractive enough, or if you strike too soon, then all the fishies scatter and there’s little chance you’ll see them again.

Traditional media communications strategies are more akin to fishing with dynamite. Splash – BLAM! Fish everywhere. OK, they probably aren’t all the right kind of fish, and you’ll be lucky to get anything meaningful in the way of conversation out of them – but there will be lots and lots of them. And a fair proportion will be the fish you wanted.

So. In previous posts, I talked about Sony Ericsson’s digital only ‘phone launch (5,500 hits in six hours). I also (I think) mentioned Pepsi Raw (Twitter, 515 followers). (I didn’t talk about Coca-Cola on Facebook with 3.5 million friends, but that’s because it doesn’t suit my argument. And also because, technic’ly, it’s a page for the people, by the people, without any (much) input from Coca-Cola. And how the lads and lasses at Coke must hate that.)

Today the team and I achieved a full page in one of these free papers that get given away around the capital. It was achieved on a shoestring (budget about £800) and we got it by providing a story that was genuinely newsworthy, which the paper wanted to print. Yes, it was branded. Yes, it contained key messages. Yes, it hit 200,000 people (circulation, not readership). Dynamite. Boom.

So the question for today is: are we trying to get too clever in our desperate search for the grail – the answer to the billion dollar question ‘how do we harness social media’ – and is it, actually, that imperative that we find it? Should we not be honing the traditional skills of the communicator – creating and pitching stories that people want to hear about and that the media want to use – for, after all, there’s still massive benefit and value to be gained? Might we actually be in danger of losing the old skills in our desperate rush to acquire new ones, that aren’t even defined yet?

Just a thought.

(Oh, and PS. The capital city in question was Belgrade, and the free newspaper was 24Sata. But, even so – 200,000 people? Result!)

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: