Internal Communications

Internal Communications – Freedom of Speech? You Cannot Be Serious – Part 2

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

In a recent post, I suggested that allowing employees to post to social networking sites without checking what they’re posting first (which is, pretty much, what Ford and Coke are planning to do) was just on the howling-at-the-moon side of psychotic insanity. For the record, I blame the inappropriate and unmerited levels of influence ascribed to the rash of self-styled ‘social media strategists’ that are oozing out of the woodwork wherever you look these days.

I got a response. Here it is:

“I completely agree! That’s why it’s so important to make sure your employees are all always well-briefed. That goes for every single employee throughout the company. John C. Havens and Shel Holtz give several good examples of the importance of internal transperancy in their book, Tactical Transperancy.

Good, up-to-the-minute internal communications will make sure your employees are always on-message and well-briefed. Asking them to recommend the brand to friends in person is no different than asking them to do so online, except that online their voices can be heard by a lot more people.

Your point is well-made for employers that urge their employees to go out into cyberspace (and the real world) and promote the brand. That’s why a good social media strategy includes a strategy for keeping the employees well-briefed and well-aware of the message.”

Ah – would that it were so easy.

 ‘Internal transparency’ (in one meaning of the term) shouldn’t exist. There is no argument whatsoever for ensuring that everyone knows everything. In fact, it would be dangerous – it’s not that you cannot trust your employees with the information, it’s that you cannot trust their interpretation of the information.

 No matter how good and up-to-the-minute your internal comms is, unless you undertake to brief each employee individually, on a one-to-one basis, then you cannot guarantee understanding and a correct interpretation of the data. Which is why all internal comms messages need to be broad-brush and unambiguous – there is no room for subtlety in internal comms. Because of this, good internal comms does not give you the control you need to allow your people to go off on their own.

 I would never ask an employee to recommend the brand or organisation to their friends – it seems needy and might, in fact, turn that employee against me. I want to capture the hearts and minds of the employee (through broad-brush, unambiguous internal comms) and then I want them to talk to their friends, in their own words, of their own accord, with the unambiguity that I have provided for them. And talking to their friends is very different to them posting online PRECISELY because it can be seen/heard by so many more people.

 I wouldn’t ask my employees to post about my brand or organisation on social networking sites – and if they decided to do so, I would want to see every post before it was posted. There may be a strategy for keeping employees well-briefed (isn’t that simply another reference to our internal comms programme?) but it will – I’m afraid – have the same lack of subtlety that I’ve just mentioned. The added issue with social media is that it’s not just your employees that may misinterpret the message – their misinterpretation will then be freely misinterpreted by an audience that you cannot track or measure.

 It still seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

Internal Communications: Freedom of Speech? You Cannot be Serious.

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

Now, please tell me what is wrong with the quotation below. (And I’m not talking about spelling or syntax, smartarses, I’m talking about content).

“Some companies are training staffers to broaden their social-media efforts. At Ford, Mr. Monty plans to soon begin teaching employees how to use sites like Twitter to represent the company and interact with consumers.

 Coca-Cola Co. is preparing a similar effort, which initially will be limited to marketing, public affairs and legal staffers. Participants will be authorized to post to social media on Coke’s behalf without checking with the company’s PR staff, says Adam Brown, named Coke’s first head of social media in March.”

This is from the Wall Street Journal – an article already mentioned on this blog – which witters on about how companies are using social media (specifically Twitter) to do something. I’m not sure what. On the face of it – to waste time, resource and budget. But hey! Maybe it’s just me.

But that’s not what this is about. (For once.) No, this is about the wisdom of letting your employees have free and uncontrolled access to the media which, in effect, is what the good people at Ford and Coke are thinking of doing.

Are they completely insane? As we all know, your people are your greatest asset and your greatest liability. As ambassadors for your brand and product, there is nothing more powerful than a vociferous and loyal employee – and here’s the important bit – that has been well-briefed and is on-message.

This is why internal communications departments exist – to generate that loyalty, to bring the workforce on-board, to maintain motivation and momentum – to ensure the messages that are going out are consistent and in line with company strategy and policy. This is why internal comms works hand-in-glove with external comms – and why all messages go past the external comms (PR) department – because anything said by anyone about your brand or business can impact on reputation. And it’s your reputation that you trade on.

In no company or organisation that I know do employees get to comment publicly, to an external audience (and I’m not talking mates down the pub, here) without being carefully briefed and monitored. In fact, in many companies and organisations, it is more than their jobs are worth for them to do so. Why? Because not everyone is as sensitive to the message and to reputation as those employed as guardians of reputation and, time and time again, through simple error of judgement, or naivety, or malicious intent, employees’ comments and actions in a public arena bring a company into disrepute. And then you have a crisis, and then you have some shit to shovel.

Example? Dominos Pizza (apologies, because I’ve used this example before, but – damn – it’s a good one) and the posting, on YouTube of video footage of unhygienic practices, in a Dominos franchise, by employees.

You simply do not allow employees free rein. You don’t. It is accepted.

Then along come the social media strategists. “It’s all about content, it’s all about dialogue, it’s all about the quality of the conversation” – free spirits in the digital age. Not for them the rules of the old guard – no, the rise of the internet and FaceBook and Twitter has changed the world and we must move on or wither and die.

It appears that their lobbying – and the continuing spread of Shiny Object Syndrome – has convinced even the most conservative of organisations (Coke, anyone?) that they should be allowed to let employees post directly to the social media sites, without passing the sense/health check that is the PR department.

I know – if anyone ever reads this (hello?) – that I’ll be accused, as a PR professional, of being miffed that I’ve been edged out of the frame and that stuff is going on without me.

Maybe. But I think this is a disaster waiting to happen. Time will tell. Personally I hope there’s someone in both organisations (Ford and Coke) who remembers what the real role of a corporate communicator is, and is powerful enough to perform it.

The real role of a corporate communicator is to look at stuff like this and say ‘no fucking way’. And put a stop to the stupidity immediately.

In Search of the Perfect Client…………

Posted on by 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.

Internal Comms – Under-Evaluated or Not Fully Understood?

Posted on by 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 by 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.

Corporate Communications Professionals – Why are we Here?

Posted on by in External Communications, Internal Communications.

All a bit zen, perhaps, but a germane question nonetheless. For almost all of my lengthy journey through this vale of tears that we call Public Relations, and sometimes Corporate Affairs, and at other times, Corporate Relations and, mostly, Corporate Communications, I have been plagued with doubts. (And if this sounds kinda religious, well, it is – remind me to give you my views on Corporate Religion sometime soon.) Doubts about why our profession (for such it is) actually exists, about the value it adds and about why, in effect, we are here.

And I know that there are myriad answers. Protecting reputation, supporting sales, influencing behaviour, building relationships, limiting issues – all these things can be laid at our door, but still the HR professional on my shoulder says ‘If you weren’t there, would it matter? And look at how much money we’d save!’ OK, that last phrase is what I imagine a small HR Professional might say, once he/she realised that perhaps the Communications function doesn’t add as much as maybe it would have the rest of the company believe.

Don’t get me wrong, generally I brush off these doubts – I am a firm believer in the visible and tangible benefits of good communications – and if I weren’t, I wouldn’t be doing it – but every now and then, one comes across an example that puts it all into context. An example that demonstrates exactly why we’re here and what our role is. What I would like to call the ‘No F***ing Way’ skill set.

Today, therefore, I offer you two examples for your delight and delectation. One extremely high profile, one that I came across by accident.

Example 1. All I really need say is ‘Gordon Brown’ and ‘YouTube’. Who thought it was a good idea for Gordon Brown to appear in a videoclip, gurning like an idiot? Not that the gurning was the worst of it. No, the worst of it was that someone thought it was a good idea, the same someone – or a different someone – actually went out and made the videoclip and then the same someones – or a third someone – approved it for posting on YouTube. Cue global merriment and further damage to an already tarnished reputation.

Where was the communicator whose job it is to say ‘No F***ing Way’? Come on people, that’s our role! This is why we exist! To stop those in our care making really, really stupid communications mistakes. Oh – this, of course, pre-supposes that you can spot the mistakes before it’s too late. And if you can’t, well, you might wish to consider an alternative career. Something with numbers, perhaps?

Example 2. A long story which I will cut short. Starbucks. Big global brand, interacts with millions of people each day. Divides opinion. Those who use its facilities develop – weirdly – a sense of ‘ownership’. Set up blogs and online fora to discuss it. One such forum is here, and here’s the example I’m talking about:

http://starbucksgossip.typepad.com/_/2007/01/starbucks_exec_.html

Yes, Matt Murray (sorry Matt, if you’re still there, name and shame, name and shame) a self-styled communications specialist with Starbucks, responded to a thread about a Frappuccino (is that how you spell it?) price increase. Nothing wrong with that. What was wrong – so, so wrong – was his use of language. He even wrote “on behalf of Starbucks, I wanted to reach out to you….” – no, no and thrice no, Matt. The phrase “reach out” is hardly acceptable within the confines of a big corporate’s marketing department and wholly – wholly – unacceptable in everyday conversation (for that is what an online forum is) with normal people.

I personally don’t think Matt is terribly senior. But I am presuming that his response is part of Starbucks’ digital media strategy, and thus it was approved by someone. And that someone, clearly, was lacking the essential ‘No F***ing Way’ skillset.

While there are examples of sheer numptiness like this still going on, there will always be a valuable and value-adding role for the corporate communications professional. And as one, I shall continue to point them out when I find them. It is my duty – nay it is OUR duty – to keep saying ‘No F***ing Way’.

This is one of the ways that our profession will get the recognition it deserves and the all-important seat at the top table. Oh, and it might deflect the attentions of the HR Professionals, in these tough times, as well.

Internal Communications – More Questions Than You Answered

Posted on by in Internal Communications.

True story, and probably all too commonplace in the current economic climate. Take one large company, still having it large – probably less large than it was having it over the last five years or so – but an absolute leader in its field. People really, really want to work for this company, in fact there have been cases of candidates resorting to expressions of physical violence amongst themselves in the car park post-interview. (OK, I made that last bit up, but you get the picture.)

Anyway, and I do go on, don’t I, said company – like so many at the moment, is imposing a pay freeze. Before you get all uppity, this is a good thing. In imposing a pay freeze, jobs will be saved, redundancies avoided and the company keeps a talented workforce, which it has spent so much time recruiting, in anticipation of the good times rolling again. And for this company, they will. However, and this should be borne in mind (or rather, without giving too much of my story away) should have been borne in mind, the people who work for this company are used to big rewards – for which they work, some might say, stupidly hard.

So, a pay freeze. The first inkling that all was not right was when senior management, used to getting spreadsheets showing the amount that they had available to divvy up between their teams, realised that those spreadsheets were not forthcoming. The delay become rather less of a delay and rather more of a talking point. Two weeks later, they got the email.

I’ve been privileged to see the email. I consider myself to be quite good with words and to be able to see through the jargon and grasp the message pretty quickly. Not in this case. Oh no. It took three reads before the upbeat and obfuscatory language gave way to the underlying blunt truth – there would be no salary increase this year. A turd wrapped in candy-floss.

Sadly, I can only imagine the joy of the internal comms people at the reasonably remote corporate HQ – “Yaaay – we’ve done it! We’ve made this unpleasant and unheard of (in the history of this company anyway) news seem palatable! We’ve dressed it up and covered it in make-up and no-one will be the wiser!”

Oh dear. Because it was so ‘clever’, no-one immediately understood what it meant – and these are busy people, with better things to do than to examine emails from every angle in order to try and glean meaning. No, these are the sort of people who call a turkey a turkey and, if they suspect it’s a turkey, are unafraid of asking questions.

Which they did, and the lovingly-crafted edifice that had been built around the unpalatable truth came tumbling down. These people, used to big rewards for their big workloads, understandably felt ill-served – not necessarily by the fact there’s a pay freeze, but by the way that they were (or more accurately, weren’t) told.

It’s by no means a long-term disaster, mind, the company will survive and their employees will get over it – although their trust and faith may be dented which will have undoubted, if invisible, effect on the company’s ability to recruit the best of the best in the future – but there are a couple of immediate lessons to be learned.

If the news is bad, don’t try and wrap it in tinsel. Don’t treat intelligent people as if they were stupid. Tell it how it is and they’ll respect you more.

And don’t let the big boys get away with it. If you’re running internal comms then you have a duty to advise at the highest level and ensure that it’s done properly. Sometimes that means putting yourself in the line of fire for the greater good. And if you can’t see that, or aren’t prepared to do it, then give the job to someone who can and is.