corporate dysfunction

Social Media – A Bit of a Roundup

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

This is for those of you who think I’m at my best when dealing with social media as a topic area.

(Keen blog snorkellers may have noticed that I’m essaying a move away from just ranty nonsense about social media to more considered, but still ranty, horse-droppings about other elements of the communications mix. But it’s not to say that here isn’t still stuff to marvel at in the wacky world of social media, with all those fine gals, guys and horrible, abnormal cretins who are busy filling up the internet with mindless, unentertaining shyte. Oooop – did I say that out loud?)

So – thanks to the Evening Standard yesterday evening for their profile of Mark Zuckerberg (for those living in an hermetically-sealed coffin, buried at a depth of 75 metres beneath the Gobi Desert, he’s the 25-year-old wunderkind behind the terrifying Book of Face) and the idea that Facebook has a bigger advertising potential than Google. Which makes it pretty damn’ huge, ladies and gentlemen. As an aside, it also makes Marky richer than several squillion Croesuses, and good on him. Putting an interpretation on this, it means that otherwise sensible companies will be able to stop messing about with Facebook groups, sack their overpaid Heads of Social Media Strategy (bye-bye Scott Monty), and spend their money sensibly on the only thing that social media will ever offer to a commercial concern – advertising space. Yes, good old above-the-line.

What this means is, finally, we can all blow a big, fat raspberry in the face of the truly evil American idea of ‘The Conversation’. Ooooo – it’s all about The Conversation. The Conversation – it’s the future of business. We need to have ‘The Conversation’. I even came across – and I’m not going to link to it, it makes me all wobbly and cross – someone, with (I presume) a straight face, actually suggesting that a good measurement of social media strategy effectiveness would be a ‘share of conversation index’. Oh – please just f*ck off. You nasty little hippy.

And, therefore, the inevitable demise of The Conversation will mean a drop off in the slew of noisome Twitteration that’s being forced down our throats currently. Once and for all, Twitter is an ego trip and no-one cares what you are reading or eating or thinking/watching/excreting etc etc – except those people who also think that someone might be interested in what they are etc etc etc. This is why Twitter’s growth is slowing in the US. It’s a fad, always has been, and it will be for the rest of its (hopefully) short and dwindling existence.

Meanwhile, stuff surfaces proving once again a) the danger of social media to a company or brand and b) that every company, among its employees, has a greater or lesser number of fuckwits who I wouldn’t trust with a digestive biscuit, never mind access to a uncontrolled, unregulated, global communications portal.

Recently the employees of two UK electrical retailers – Currys and PC World – created a Facebook group, poking fun at their customers. Really, really stupid, did nothing for corporate reputation and, I sincerely hope, nothing for the career prospects of those who set the group up. Now, I read, again in The Standard (great paper – free, d’you see?), that they’ve done it again – and the clowns have set up a Facebook page as an open letter to their bosses, which – in summary – accuses them of being barriers to free speech. The sheer enormity of their delusion and stupidity is beyond comprehension.

And finally, as a little light relief, here’s something from msn.co.uk. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – in capitals, just in case you’re missing the point – DO NOT LET YOUR EMPLOYEES ANYWHERE NEAR SOCIAL MEDIA IN WORK TIME, ON WORK BUSINESS, OR ON BEHALF OF YOUR BRAND OR COMPANY. There’s a lot of stupid people out there. Beware.

Social Media – More on Corporate Social Media Use and Policy

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

Just as I’m seeing chinks of light – OK, maybe social media can be used in localised and focused fashion to boost the fortunes of smaller concerns (see here, no apologies for linking you to the US and all that goes with it, we have a special relationship, get used to it), although I’m still a bit fuzzy on the bit that gets the punter to the Twitter – up pop the creatures.

The post in question dates from last week and, because I know you, blog snorkellers, and you can’t be bothered to do clickety-dickety, it’s yet another take on the reasons why corporations don’t embrace social media. I am, surprisingly enough, not going to pass judgement on it – I’m going to limit myself to a few observations.

1) Employees will waste time with social media.

Yes. They will. But let’s not confuse the internet with social media. The internet is, broadly speaking, a Good Thing in the work place – a source of information and ideas that can assist the company in the achievement of its goals. Social media are simply bits of the internet, choices if you like, which may or may not be benign, and if they benefit a company only do so if approached in a planned, strategic and carefully monitored fashion. Policies on social media usage by employees should be draconian and companies are within their rights to block usage of social media sites.

2) Haters will damage our brand.

Yes. But haters will damage your brand whether or not you have a social media strategy or presence. This is about whether your brand’s any good. If it isn’t, word of mouth will damage your brand. Get it right, however, and people will like it (simple. eh?) – and no-one goes out of their way to say nasty things about a brand if it isn’t nasty. You don’t need the followers of a Twitter feed to do your crisis containment for you. Trust me, you don’t.

3. We’ll lose control of the brand

Of course you won’t. But that’s because a brand’s essence is controlled by the brand guardians, its equity is protected by law and its appearance enshrined in the brand guidelines. – not because people are talking about it on-line or off-line. Of course people talk about brands – always have done, always will do – doesn’t change the brand unless the brand guardians decide it should.

To say, however, that message control is an illusion is either laziness or a failure to grasp one of the most basic principles of corporate communications. Message control is about the messages you, the brand communicator, and your brand spokespeople, put out there. Your output, over time, should change the tone of the general chit-chat in the way you want it to. That’s message control. It takes time and effort. It is not suited to social media but, hey – if you want to be constantly at risk of being backfooted and you want to increase your investment manyfold – go ahead.

4. Social media requires a real budget! It’s not really cheap or free.

Yes, it does. No, it’s not. And as social media doesn’t deliver a quantifiable ROI and has yet to make anyone any money, just, exactly, why would you put your limited marketing budget against it? I merely ask.

5. They’re scared they’ll be sued.

And rightly so. Employees + unregulated access to social media = Risk.

6) They’re scared of giving away corporate secrets or that information on social networks will affect the stock price.

Yes, you do need to create a social media policy. But policies aren’t foolproof. The FSA (in the UK) has serious rules on disclosure – doesn’t stop people playing fast and loose with financial information, and these are professionals, not naive and untrained employees.

Some employees are hired to represent the brand and talk to customers, others are hired because they have  a specific and specialised skillset. Not all of them would be comfortable being a brand ambassador. Others suffer from a sort of corporate Tourette’s when confronted with message boards and suggestion boxes. It’s not a question of trust, it’s a question of horses for courses.

Someone actually said – and I’ve quoted it in a previous post – that the very nature of social media leads to inadvertent disclosure. Which scares the living crap out of me.

Anyway, I’ll leave you with another post. This time about a company that gets mentioned quite a lot in connection with social media (along with Starbucks, Dell, Zappo, Amazon and Dominos – always these six, strange really), Best Buy. They asked, on their Facebook group, whether they should have the Best Buy website in Spanish. Cue negative, even racist comment. (Actually, in fairness, how were they to know? But it does say something about the type of Facebooketeers attracted to Best Buy.) So what were they to do? Well, as I understand it, if you’re a social media head – a company hippy – then you join the conversation. You motivate your online community to rally to your defence.

Horsesh*t. If you’re sensible, you do exactly what Best Buy did. You pull the plug and hope that it goes away.

This is the wonder of social media – you never know what it’s going to do and whether it’s going to take a big chunk out of your bum. If it does, however, just turn it off.

Join the conversation, my *rse.

Social Media – The End is Nigh!

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

In a recent post, I said I was delighted to be the first to announce the beginning of the beginning of the end of social media. Obviously, I was being provocative – and I’ve been inundated with literally no comments at all about my position.

That has not stopped me maintaining my stance, but changing it slightly. Today, blog snorkellers, I am announcing the beginning of the beginning of the end of this round of social media. That’s not to say that there won’t be more, but this lot are definitely on the way out.

Why am I taking this view? Well, partially because my gut tells me it’s true – and as you’ll all know, there’s a big school of thought that says all decisions should be made with the gut – and partially because of this.

Yes, the Times of London – if you summarise the article and extrapolate the messages – doesn’t believe it’s for real either. And the geeky types they’ve got to explain the social media thing are just trotting out the same old, same old nonsense. So, don’t listen to me if you don’t want to – but do read The Times.

Social Media – Is Social Not Working?

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

Here’s an interesting post – as far as I can see, what it’s actually saying is that a good story, is a good story, is a good story. If there were no media at all, a good story would spread by word of mouth – that’s what makes a good story – it’s something that people want, or feel compelled, to talk about. It just reinforces my view that social media is over-analysed and that, if it didn’t exist, no-one would bother to invent it. (Only they would, because there’s always someone looking for an opportunity to make a buck. Oh…….yeah………no-one’s actually made a buck out of social media. Not even the social media owners.)

Anyway, this dropped into my inbox this morning. (Why, you may ask – well, I was trying to comment on one of this blog’s posts – having a pop at me, I may add – and thought that, if I registered, I might get access to the posting tool. Nope, all I got was regular updates from a PR woman in America. Lesson – look but don’t subscribe.)

The gist of it is how clever said PR woman has been to dedicate herself and her agency to the pursuit of social media. She’s now ‘ahead of the curve’ and, if you click on some of her other posts, you’ll see that she doesn’t like to fail, either. If you’ve got time, then I recommend you read the comments thread. You can almost hear the high-fives and the ‘woooo’ every time someone is perceived to ‘get it’.

Erm……..is it a possibility that there is, actually, nothing to ‘get’? That the reason that many companies and organisations don’t invest in social media, or outsource it to self-styled social media strategists (the Wizards of Me), is because, in fact, social is not working (on a business level)?

I may be shot down in flames for this – but let’s just stand back for a moment and consider it rationally. In the great scheme of things, social media has been around for a heartbeat. In that time, because of its nature and its ease of access, it has grown out of all proportion to its real value or worth. I’m sure everyone recognises that there has been – as with all ‘next big things’ – a fair amount of band-wagon-jumping, gravy-train-riding, and snake-oil-salesmanship.

Again, as everyone would agree (I’m sure), simply because it is a medium for communication, the corporate communications industry – indeed industry in general – cannot afford to ignore it.

But – it is out of control. By which I mean that it is unregulated, difficult to evaluate (on a qualitative basis), so fast-moving that it requires ever-more effort and investment simply to keep up and – here’s the killer – doesn’t deliver a quantifiable ROI. By which I mean that I, personally, don’t know of any company that’s making money out of their social media activities.

Save for the social media strategy agencies and those involved in providing ‘counsel’ around the phenomenon.

Just to repeat what I said at the top of this post – even the social media owners are not making money out of it.

I do agree that if there is corporate social media activity, then it should be owned by the communications professionals. However I believe that it is but one tool in the box – it is neither a unique selling proposition, nor a deal-breaker if it’s missing.

Oh, and I want to be the first. I want to be the first to say that I sense the beginning of the beginning of the end. I sense (I should be a medium) an ever-so-slight waning in the interest in social media. I sense that quite a lot of companies and organisations have not bought it, and – on reflection – aren’t going to. I sense that the general global population are getting bored with the endless ‘me, me, me’ that is the foundation of social media.

In short – if you’re making your living out of social media – if you are a Wizard of Me – then make hay while the sun shines.

The end, my friends, is nigh.

Social Media Policies – Company Hippies vs Corporate Nazis

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

Yes, it IS that simple. Apparently. When it comes to social media use in the workplace, you are either one or the other – Company Hippy or Corporate Nazi. There appears to be little in the way of middle ground and the two groups do not like each other very much.

I’ve been on the way to this conclusion for some time – as my regular blog-snorkellers will know, I did a tentative post on the new New Age a bit ago, and postulated the existence of the cyber-hippy – but an article I happened upon today served as the crystallisation catalyst and suddenly all was sparkly clear. (Yes, I know it’s four months old, but the internet’s a big place and I’ve only just got round to this bit of it.)

As background, I’ve been giving a bit of thought to corporate policies on employee use of social media recently – yep, quite late to the party, sorry, but, to misquote Kurt Cobain, ‘here I am now, entertain me’ – and today I found a list of such policies, one of which was the policy cited in the Mashable.com article mentioned above. (If you’ve not seen it before, the list is worth a look – it offers an real insight into the true state of corporate thinking on the social media issue.)

The article and the comments it attracted are a stark illustration of the divide that exists and the lack of middle ground. First we start with the editorial, in which the journalist (a Company Hippy) suggests that the most important question any organisation should ask itself is ‘what can social media do for my organisation’ rather than the (to my mind, more germane) question ‘how can social media harm us and what can we do to prevent it’. (Note the use of language in the second question – I’ll re-phrase it – ‘what potential damage can use of social media do to our organisation and how can we limit that potential damage’.)

The writer then goes on to suggest that ‘any company, really – should encourage their (employees) to intelligently and creatively participate (sic) in the wonderful world of social media. Mixing business and pleasure is bad? I say it gives a human touch.’ Definitely a ‘give peace a chance’ type.

Moving to the commentary – well – have a look at it for yourself. Almost evenly split and (in general) completely polarised. On the one hand, the company hippies – everyone should have a voice, it’s about dialogue and conversations, individual relationships between employee and stakeholder – and on the other the corporate Nazis – there’s a real risk, there’s a lot to lose, serious controls are necessary.

And me? Well, I believe that, as an industry, we communicators do not know enough about social media and how it works to be able to properly evaluate it and devise usage strategies. What I would say, however, is that we do know about other forms of media. We know that other forms of media can bite if mishandled. There’s no reason to expect social media to behave any differently.

Thus – let’s start off with rigid, even draconian, policies. And let’s review them monthly, quarterly, whatever. And let’s relax them – if appropriate – as we learn more about how it works.

Let’s not run before we can walk.

Social Media – Fire the Facebook Five!

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

Another day, another example of social media tomfoolery. Today, for your delight and delectation, we have the Facebook Five – a group of prison guards from New South Wales who ‘stand accused of misconduct after making disparaging remarks about their boss on the social networking site’. The full story is but a click away.

 They’ve been threatened with the sack, however their union has gone to tribunal to save their jobs – the argument being that the guards were letting off steam in their own time, in a ‘private’ Facebook group, and therefore it’s simply like shooting your mouth off in the pub, which everyone does.

 And that’s the nub of the matter. Recently, I copped some flack after saying that employees should not be allowed to post to social media either about their employer or on behalf of their employer. This last function should be left to qualified company spokespeople. I said that freedom of speech is not a right that an employee has on company time or when using company equipment. I went as far as to mention disciplinary action.

 What I didn’t say, of course, because I took it as read, is that employees DO comment about their work, their company and their boss. Of course they do. To friends, family, colleagues and the posse down the pub. That’s a given.

 However, no matter what the Facebook Five’s union official may claim, there is a massive difference between making disparaging comments down the pub and making disparaging comments in a Facebook group, even a private one.

 The difference – quite obviously – is that no matter how private your Facebook group, there is a chance that someone – outside of your circle – will see it. And its content – your comments – may become a matter of public record. And, social media and the internet being what they are, your comments may attract a very wide audience.

 Simply put, remarks down the pub last as long as someone’s memory of them. Comments posted to social media last forever, somewhere. Social media, the internet, is not private and no-one should regard it as such.

 The New South Wales prison service should have had a social media policy – this may have acted as a deterrent. The Facebook Five, however, should have thought about what they were doing and recognised the potential consequences of their actions – and it’s for that crass stupidity that they should be fired.

Social Media – Really Worth the Risk?

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

Came across this paragraph this morning. I’m not going to go into the context – suffice it to say it was the conclusion of a commentary on Barack Obama’s ‘off-the-record’ comment that Kanye West is a ‘jackass’. (Which he is, but that’s another song, as they say.)

 Anyway – it’s not new – it’s what every comms practitioner knows, simply updated for the social media age in which we live.

 “In today’s wired world, every bystander with a camera phone, a blog or a Twitter account can play reporter and turn an off-hand comment into a worldwide news story. For almost any setting, the best policy today is not to say, write or do anything that you don’t want to see in the newspaper tomorrow, on the TV news tonight or on Twitter or YouTube in the next two minutes.”

 So – given that we take this truth to be self-evident – how does this square with official employee use of social media? Already this week I’ve come across – and published – the quite extraordinary assertion that “….since this type of communication is often viewed as less formal than other (sic), there is increased risk for inadvertent disclosure”. And we know, from some very high-profile examples, that – above and beyond inadvertent screw-ups – there are also employees who come over all Tourette’s when confronted by Twitter or YouTube.

 As I’ve said already, I’ve changed my mind. Doing nothing and hoping it will go away is not an option. Every organisation, by now, should either have, or be giving thought to, a social media policy. Preferably one that doesn’t entertain the notion of allowing employees free rein to post to social media either during company time, from company machinery or on behalf of the body corporate. The sanctions against anyone doing it should be quite draconian.

 I was, frankly, open-mouthed when I found out that WholeFoods has over 1,370,000 followers on Twitter. It is extraordinary. I was reasonably shaken when I saw Starbucks had nearly 294,000. Even allowing for the large proportion who became followers on their first visit to Twitter and have never visited again, that still a lot of potential dialogue and a lot of room for error.

 I know that Ford and Coke have created social media ambassadors – carefully trained, briefed and monitored social media spokespeople – to deal with their respective 15,000 and 8,500 followers. I’m presuming that WholeFoods and Starbucks has done the same.

 Best Buy, with its Twelpforce, hasn’t and the experiment is not considered, universally, a success. They’ve had some Tourette’s incidents with some of their employee Tweeters.

 The point is, I guess, that I’m not convinced of the value-add of social media. If it didn’t exist, would anyone actually bother to invent it? What I am convinced of is the increasing amount of time, effort and budget that is going to have to be invested in it – and its ancillary activities like training and monitoring – if those companies who have so bravely (and so very quickly) embraced the technology are going to keep on top of it.

 I am also convinced that the rise of social media has introduced a new, and very elevated, level of risk into external and internal corporate communications that we, the gatekeepers, ignore at our peril. As social media cannot be (properly) monitored and isn’t regulated, so it is difficult to create a plan for its use or target the message.

 Every organisation should, by now, either have, or be working on, a social media policy. And it should aim to restrict corporate usage. Before the trouble starts.

Social Media – Creating a Use of Social Media Policy

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

Now, bear in mind that, on balance, I do not think this is a good idea. If a company has a Use of Social Media policy, it should contain no more than half a dozen sentences. Possibly less. Those sentences should contain the words ‘Don’t’ and ‘Ever’ and ‘Disciplinary Action’. It is, in my opinion, far too difficult and far too time intensive to try to let employees embrace social media on the company’s behalf. The potential risk to your hard-won corporate reputation far outweighs any potential benefit.

 (And before anyone starts – I fully understand that a) people use social media on their own account, in their own time, and probably, during office hours and b) a company’s employees do talk about the company to friends, family, colleagues and the man in the pub on a regular basis, and it’s not always positive. And, as I understand this, I expect my readers to understand the inherent difference between commenting to friends and family, and publishing those same comments on a freely-accessible, global social media portal.)

 But, because I’m a good cyber-citizen, what follows is the best template for a corporate social media policy that I’ve come across. The italics are theirs, the rest is my commentary. Enjoy. Prosper.

 1. Overall Philosophy. An effective social media policy should define the company’s overall philosophy on social media and be consistent with its culture. For example, does the company have a supportive, open philosophy on the use of social media or a stronger, more limited embrace of this technology?

This takes as read, of course, that the company has actually bothered to give social media some modicum of thought. My guess is that most haven’t, so you’ll have to do some work on your company’s  social media philosophy, before you can start on your policy. And I am just loving the ‘for example’ – in translation ‘is the company enlightened and open, or dark, twisted, malevolent and medieval?’ Your choice.

 2 Honesty and Respect. One of the most important aspects of a policy is a requirement that employees be open, honest, respectful and transparent in their usage of social media – especially in the business context.

Can’t disagree with this. Do however think it is a bit Utopian and that it might throw up internal communications issues, particularly amongst those employees who may feel that, in asking them to be open and honest etc etc, you’re actively suggesting that they aren’t currently. But I’m sure you can handle that.

 3 Confidential and Proprietary Information. Disclosure of confidential or proprietary information through social media can be prevalent. Especially since this type of communication is often viewed as less formal than other, there is increased risk for inadvertent disclosure. Guidelines should reinforce the company’s confidentiality and proprietary information policies and apply such to the social media environment.

Scary shit. This is where you might want to start using words like ‘draconian’, ‘disciplinary’ and ‘action’. The idea of ‘inadvertent disclosure’ gives me the shrieking ab-dabs.

(Edited to add) Oh, and if there’s any risk of ‘inadvertent disclosure’ – and there is, there is – then you’ll want to brush up your crisis management plans, and give them a thorough testing. And, as the one instance that I can think of when social media really comes to the fore is in a crisis scenario, you’ll need a section about social media policy in your crisis management document. Good thing you’re working on a social media policy, eh?

 4 Online Identity. When engaging in online social networking, it is important to differentiate an employee’s personal identity from his or her business identity. While regulating employees’ usage of their personal identity may be outside of the scope of a company social media policy, defining such is fair game. For example, is it acceptable to have an employee’s business name and title be connected to a personal blog post which is critical of a certain political party? Is it acceptable for employees to post their work e-mail addresses on blogs discussing controversial topics? An effective policy must address such issues and define acceptable limits.

Again – I agree with the sentiments of this, but I can see all sorts of issues involved with identifying the myriad of potential situations and providing guidelines for each one. You’re going to be working on this for some time, I can see that. Or you could just say – ‘no way, we’ve got authorised, trained and monitored spokespeople for social media and it’s not a free-for-all, so don’t do it’.

 5 Focus on Job Performance. There is a lot of discussion on whether social media hurts worker productivity. For example, is it acceptable for an employee to post on a personal blog during their lunch break? Or, can an employee tweet on business-related topics during the work day? Remember, the new work force does not live in an eight-to-five world. The focus should be on job performance instead of “company time.”

‘Remember, the new workforce doesn’t live in an eight to five world’ – no, because it’s now expected to be on call 24/7. I blame Blackberries and workahol and companies insidiously creating cultures where it simply isn’t acceptable not to be available at any time. And I also blame the workers who are so tired of their own lives that they perpetuate it. ‘Company time’? Any time, more like.

 6 Avoid Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts of interest come in many forms – especially when engaging in social media. The policy should discuss how to identify potential conflicts of interest, what types of conflicts are prohibited and who to talk to when in doubt.

This one scares the living bejaysus out of me as well. Conflicts of interest? I humbly suggest that if it’s going to put your employees in the way of having to make judgement calls on conflicts of interest and when to refer them, then you’re better off not doing it. But – hey – if you’ve THAT much time on your hands – go ahead.

 7 Include a Disclaimer. Employees should make it clear that their views about work-related matters do not represent the views of their employer or any other person. The policy should require a disclaimer, such as the following, when there is the possibility for confusion between business and personal identity: “The views expressed on this blog are mine alone and do not represent the views of my employer or any other person.”

But – surely – if you’re wanting your employees to comment on the company, on behalf of the company, then a disclaimer doesn’t really make sense? And if they’re not commenting about the company on behalf of the company – why – in the name of all that’s holy – are you allowing them to do it?

 8 Monitoring. The policy should state whether – and to what extent – the company has the right to monitor social media usage and identify any associated disciplinary guidelines.

Yes, the company has the right to monitor social media usage, to the very ends of the internet – if it is accessed through a company machine or device. (Mind you, the monitoring’s going to cost a bit, both in terms of budget and resource – but you knew that and were prepared for it. Weren’t you?) Here is another opportunity to use the words ‘draconian’ and ‘punishment’.

 9 Universal Application. A social media policy should apply to everyone, not just a subset of employees (i.e., the marketing department).

Absolutely. No further comment.

 10 Other Policies. Other company policies, such as those on workplace environment, discrimination, harassment, ethics, code of conduct and others apply even in the cyber-land of social media. An effective policy should remind internal audiences of these obligations and relate them to social media

Go on. You have a go at relating them to social media. Good luck.

 So there you are. Never say I don’t give you anything. If you’d like to see the whole document that I lifted this from, then perform some dexterous clickaciousness here.

 There’s a bit about training – which you’re going to have to do once your policy’s in place. You’re going to love it.

Social Media – The ‘Meatloaf Equation’

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

Sorry. It’s very easy to poke fun and, as I’m the sort of guy who likes ‘easy’, if I get the opportunity, then I will seize it with both hands.

Today I’d like to draw your attention to mashable.com and an article that was published in January this year entitled ’40 of the best Twitter brands and the people behind them’. You can read it if you like – never say I don’t give you anything.

To cut a long story short because, for some reason, I’m just not that into it today, it doesn’t make edifying reading. In fact, if you look behind the breathless and rather candyfloss tone of the article and examine the numbers, you’ll see that the quantity of followers for each of these brands (the 40 best Twitter brands, mind) is minute. And undoubtedly, there’s quite a lot of effort (even if it’s by one person, in their spare time) going into serving this audience – effort which, simply by the laws of math, isn’t making much in the way of a difference.

Anyway, I recognise that eight months is a long time in social media and there’s been a lot of growth, so – and it’s all my inherent laziness would allow – I picked on one of the 40 best Twitterers (Scott Monty at Ford) and compared followers now, with followers then. Mr Monty is now up to over 25,000 followers, compared to 8,500 in January. Which is roughly a three-fold increase and – on that basis – pretty impressive.

However – and anyone who’s been here before will know that there is always an ‘however’.  Current data says there are 45 million registered Twitter users globally. 10% of that would be 4.5 million. 1% would be 450,000. 0.1% would be 45,000. Ford – and a fair number of the other 40 best – have approximately 0.05% of the available audience. Factor in the statistics for Twitter account usage and attrition and it’s a very, very small number indeed.

It’s an example of the ‘Meatloaf Equation’, which goes something like “Two outta three ain’t bad.” “Yes it is. It’s 66%. It’s crap. A ‘B’ grade at best. Must try harder, boy.”

What’s my point? All that effort put into social media strategies for a possible audience of 25,000. Most of whom are untraceable and leave you with no information about themselves. Many of whom don’t actually exist (in that their accounts lapse as soon as they start them up – the average account, total number of tweets from which is one). And very, very few of whom are going to repay you – for these are brands after all – with a purchase.

’40 of the best Twitter brands and the people behind them’? Self-congratulatory back-slapping for those in the gang. Otherwise – vapid and meaningless.

Social Media – Release the Inner F@*!wit!

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Internal Communications, Internal Communications and Engagement, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , .

Yep, she be gathering momentum.

Having just made a big fat posting about changing my mind, eating gateau d’humilite, and advocating getting a social media policy (quickly, quickly, before it goes horribly, horribly wrong) if only to control those of your people who will undoubtedly, as sure as a werewolf comes over all bristly roundabout full moon, mutate into dribbly village idiots when confronted with social media –  and I surf directly into this.

Oooop. The fine lads and lasses of the Emergency Department at Swindon’s Great Western Hospital find themselves suspended pending a disciplinary, having decided to play the Lying Down Game (google it, my life’s too short) and post their pictures on Facebook. Seven of them were suspended. You’d have thought, simply according to the law of averages, that one of them would have been bright enough to say ‘hey up, guys – maybe we shouldn’t be doing this’. But they did it anyway.

A fair proportion of the blame lies with the hospital authority. Quite clearly there wasn’t a social media strategy (for strategy, read ‘draconian guideline policy’) in place and quite clearly, no-one had bothered to monitor social media outlets to see what was being said/posted. So you can’t wholly blame the employees – they had a right (I guess) to expect to be protected from themselves.

Now – before anyone points out that I’m being a hypocrite and a two-faced, mealy-mouthed, stance-changer (having made it very clear that I believe social media to be impossible to monitor or regulate) – when I say ‘monitor social media’ what I mean is having a quick look at Facebook and Twitter and searching for the name of your brand, company or organisation.

In this case, it wouldn’t have been too difficult to track down the Secret Swindon Emergency Department Group. 

Actually, on reflection, maybe those employees on suspension deserve everything that’s coming to them.