people management

Social Media – Approval Processes For Corporate Users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Media – What They Really Want (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two things, then.

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

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

Social Media – I’ll Tell You What They Want

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

So. There I was, sprawled on the couch (the grey one that used to be cream in a time Before Children) in what passes for a living room (which is, incidentally, supposed to be a Child-Free Zone, but has recently, I’ve noticed, been threatened by a slow-moving but inexorable tsunami of plastic cars, aircraft and soldiery) pondering life, t’universe and everything and waiting for the second episode of Flash Forward. 

(For those who haven’t been exposed to this meisterwerk of the television producer’s art, Flash Forward, and its cast of thousands, deals with the premise that everyone on earth suffered a two minute and 17 second blackout – at exactly the same time – during which they all experienced some sort of glimpse of their individual futures. The rest of the series, I’m presuming, will be spent finding out why, who, how and – most importantly – how to stop the future happening.)

Now, Flash Forward isn’t a bad programme, but I’m getting the feeling that Channel Five are absolutely desperate for it to achieve cult status. It’s the irritating voiceover you see. Just when you think it’s safe to sit on your sofa and watch your programme of choice, you get some voiceover lovely (on behalf of the station) telling you just how marvellous the programme is going to be. And, by implication, what a wonderful human being, a paragon of taste and style, you are for watching it. Indeed for discovering it in the first place. You are well and truly sat in one of the very frontest seats in the tip of the pointy end of the vanguard. And then Irritating Voiceover Woman starts asking rhetorical questions! As if you hadn’t noticed the f***ing kangaroo hopping down the street and the strange person in black who should have blacked out but didn’t!

Thing is, this is a blatant sales technique. It’s not adding anything to my enjoyment. It’s simply hyping something that I’ve already bought into. It is uneccesary puffery – preaching to the converted – a waste of resources. It does not bring the consumer in – in fact, speaking personally, it alienates them (me). Worst of all, it’s pitched at a very low level – I recognise it for what it is and find it mildly insulting. And if I do, then, speaking as no Einstein here, so do thousands of others. (And finally, in this instance, unforgiveably, Flash Forward ain’t no Twin Peaks – don’t even think about drawing a parallel. )

Briefly – very briefly, because I didn’t want to miss any programme (I’m terribly respectful of my audience, but I’m afraid, dear blog snorkellers, you’re not as important as Flash Forward) – I was minded of stuff I’ve read and conversations I’ve had about the nature of content. Specifically, obviously, content posted to social media by brands (companies or organisations) as part of a social media strategy.

It’s one of the main tenets of the big US argument for letting employees post to social media, without going through the PR department. As I understand it, the (US) feeling is that anything coming out of the PR department is like the Irritating Voiceover – full of needless promotional puffery, recognised for what it is, and – truth be told – slightly insulting  to the consumer. This, obviously, is not what the social media consumer wants.

Unfortunately, in their mad rush to get away from what the social media consumer doesn’t want, the social media gurus seem to have lost track of what it is that the consumer ALWAYS wants – always has done and always will do.

There’s this belief that the consumer wants a say, wants a conversation, wants to be asked questions. Well some of them probably do – and they’re the ones who are tweeting Starbucks or Facebooking Domino’s Pizza. (Is it just me or is there something rather sad and depressing about Facebooking a global pizza company?) But I’d be willing to bet that most of them don’t. From my experience, there’s one thing that consumers want from a brand (once they’re vaguely satisfied that the brand doesn’t kill babies or manufacture its products from toxic waste).

Consumers want Free Stuff. They don’t want an Irritating Voiceover – although they’ll put up with it, if there’s some Free Stuff at the end of it. They want Free Stuff, given to them in a non-threatening, non-patronising, non-strings-attached manner. They don’t want to be told they’re brilliant, they (mostly) don’t want to be asked their opinions, they don’t really want to have a say.

They want Free Stuff. And if it’s good Free Stuff, they’ll probably come back and buy it next time. The moral of the story, therefore, is:

  • PR people – stop doing irritating voiceover – be genuine, be honest and, occasionally, tell people how to get Free Stuff.
  • Social Media Gurus – stop asking for opinions, stop trying to start conversations and keep them going – acknowledge those who want to say something and tell people how to get Free Stuff.

Tell me I’m wrong.

Social Media – Effectiveness Depends on Point of View

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

Flicking through the pages of a PRWeek advertising supplement – it was the Corporate Affairs one – and came across an article by Colin Byrne.

(And no, contrary to what you might expect, I’m not going to have a go at these trivial exercises in self-publicity and ask why do what appear to be otherwise quite sensible people insist on perpetuating their existence by agreeing to participate and paying for the privilege. No – this time I shall demonstrate some restraint.)

The article was, in summary, about the danger to corporate reputation presented by the rise of social media and the fact that guarding against it – or being prepared to guard against it – is now a fact of business life. It also plugged a recent Weber Shandwick (Mr Byrne is CEO, UK and Europe, Weber Shandwick) study – Risky Business: Reputations Online – which I am delighted to re-plug here. Should you so wish, I am certain that Weber Shandwick will be delighted to furnish you with a copy of the study (and some salient advice to go with it), in the same way that I am certain that PRWeek will furnish you with a copy of their Corporate Affairs advertising supplement. For a small consideration.

In the article, Mr Byrne referenced the now-infamous Domino’s Pizza incident, in which a group of employees filmed themselves abusing ingredients and posted the result on YouTube. He suggests, rightly, that ‘reputation assassins in their many shapes and forms are hard at work out there and the real test is how the incident is subsequently handled’.

So far, so good. A description of Domino’s response follows – apparently ‘instead of issuing press releases and back-pedalling to limit the reputational damage, Domino’s released an apologetic YouTube video response featuring company president Patrick Doyle, and set up a Twitter page to answer customer queries’.

Thing is, blog snorkellers, Mr Byrne seems to think this is a good response.  Now, I could be misinformed and my memory could be playing tricks, but as I remember it, it took Domino’s an unconscionable amount of time to do anything at all about the incident – whether on social media or otherwise – and this delay was not seen as a good thing.

Regardless of whether that is the case or not – the incident, which started out on YouTube, rapidly went mainstream and (given that not everyone is plugged into social media, and not everyone has internet access) many thousands of people will have heard about it via broadcast and print without ever having seen the offending film.

By not issuing a press release (hell – I’d have gone further and taken out some tactical ads) and restricting themselves to Twitter (4,412 followers) and Facebook (312,645 fans), Domino’s missed a chunk of their audience, and only semi-addressed the issue. This is the problem with taking the ‘social-only’ route, or giving undue prominence to social in the communications mix. It doesn’t work in isolation. Can’t.

So – the Domino’s issue. Same incident. Same response. Different views on it and – therefore – different views on the effectiveness of social as a whole. Take your pick.

(By the way – the last comment on the Domino’s Facebook page reads “EWWWWWWW THE NEW SALAMI AT DOMINOS IS FUCKING SHITHOUSE. IT TASTES LIKE SOMEONES ARSE!!!!!!!YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK.” Makes you wonder why they bother. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion – but I think I’d rather gather it through customer research, myself.)

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, Usage and Effects

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

The more links I follow, the more commentary I read, the more I am convinced that no-one has a scooby what this social media stuff means, looks like, does or is capable of. In addition – and I’ve been blogging about this for months now (and that’s a long time in social media) – the debate simply hasn’t moved on. The social media devotees are still accusing those who express doubt of being luddites, and the luddites are still arguing about what constitutes a robust social media policy.

(Dear Blogsnorkeller, if you are new to me and my meanderings, I am – I hope obviously – talking about use of social media in a business or commercial context. I have no views on use of social media on a personal, non-work-related basis. It’s a free world. Live and let live.)

Today, I’ve come across discussion of the difference between ‘policy’ and ‘guideline’  – which, admittedly, dates from March, and is in the comments on this post – and which then led me to what looked like a promising debate about what right a company has to dictate to its employees how they represent themselves when posting to social media. I’d have thought every right – but then it appears that some companies, in their attempts to formulate corporate policies, are actually trying to impose rules on their staff 24/7. Which does seem a little strange.

What troubled me was not necessarily the difference between ‘guideline’ and ‘policy’ – in my opinion, it’s quite clear, if you’re talking a set of rules that employees must abide by, then it’s a policy. ‘Guideline’ implies ambiguity – eg ‘Try to be authentic’ (real example) – and ambiguity is open to misinterpretation and misinterpretation leads to error.

No, what troubles me is that this debate is actually taking place – get a grip – social media is here now, we need to understand it, we need to legislate for it, we need to be prepared for a possible future where – if we let it – social media dictates how we do business. A free-for-all, in other words. And as long as we noodle around, playing semantics rather than seizing the tiger’s tail, the more of a headstart it will have and the less chance we have of being able to harness it for commercial ends.

Today I’ve also seen a piece on social media ROI – which, on the whole, I completely agree with – apart from the implication that there are some things that you can’t evaluate and shouldn’t try to, because they have intrinsic worth. Well, that what we said about PR for a long time – you can’t put a price on corporate reputation – and that’s why PR remains a hillbilly cousin to marketing. Listen up, social media strategists – you HAVE to put a value on this. You HAVE to find a way – if you really want social media to become a valued corporate promotional tool.

And, from the same source a bit on  why social media won’t save your business – only just relevant to this post – but I guess it’s about the effects of social media – or rather the effects that it won’t have unless you’ve got everything else right first. Remember, large organisations with poor customer service records or shoddy products, you cannot polish a turd. Aaaah, the more knowing might say, but you can roll it in Twitter.

And then, a really wishy-washy post on social media policy guidelines. (Well, that’s my opinion – you can decide for yourself.) And it makes me cross – going back to my starting point – to see that this feeble nonsense was posted in August this year. Have we gone nowhere? Is no-one prepared to nail colours to masts? What is going on that people are still talking in terms of employees ‘being treated as grown-ups, given guidelines and being trusted to do their jobs’, when this is so obviously dangerous, liberal, Utopian nonsense? (See my thoughts on ‘policy’, above.)

And finally, to reinforce the fact that we really are going nowhere, here’s a post that takes a good look at social media and attempts to get some understanding. I like this post, but – I’m afraid – I don’t really understand where it’s going and, well, the content isn’t new. (If you ignore these two things, mind, it’s quite reassuring.)

Thing is, we appear to be be stuck in a sort of internetty Groundhog Day. We’re just not progressing. Or maybe I’m not looking in the right places.

Social Media – Culturally Diverse, or Simply Take It or Leave It?

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

Apologies in advance – this isn’t a terribly clever post. (And we do like a bit of clever, blog-snorkellers, don’t we?)

It’s simply that I got randomly forced, like a reluctant and rather fleshy square peg into an unattractive and not-terribly-fulfilling round hole, into attending a training course recently, entitled ‘Communicating Across Cultures’. With the help of some Janets and Johns, we were introduced to the pitfalls of dealing with colleagues and stakeholders from other parts of the world, and the things we might need to think about in order to ensure that the message got across, that we didn’t mortally affend anyone and that the right outcomes were achieved. We talked about direct and indirect styles  of communication, task vs relationship focusing and egalitarianism and status as a leadership and personality styles.

Then, in direct contrast, at home, over the weekend, over a glass of wine, I watched a movie called ‘Body of Lies’. (Which gives you an insight into the sort of cultural level at which I am comfortable operating.) Said movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe, is almost an anti-course in cultural awareness. Russell Crowe is extremely effective as the senior CIA operator who – quite clearly – does not give a shit whether he offends or not, and is either self-confident enough, or deluded enough, not to care how he is perceived. At the end, however, you feel he is rather more isolated than he would like to be and, while achieving against his goals and the goals of his employer, there is something slightly pathetic and tenuous about him.

Unfortunately, I cannot help but thinking that social media is the Russell Crowe Body of Lies character. It’s heavy-handed and there’s no room for nuance. Indeed, as the province of the cyber-hippy, where we should all love each other and share everything and give peace a chance, well – there’s no need for nuance, is there?

It works well across communities and countries which share common cultural dimensions. What this will mean in practice is that the US, the UK, Australia and South Africa will be comfortable sharing a social medium, but it’s unlikely that China, or India or (perhaps surprisingly) Brazil are going to want to join them.

The thing about communicating effectively across cultures – and being successful as a business across cultures – is that it requires a basket of difefrent tools – words, attitude, behaviours and knowing which medium to use. The thing about social media is that it is one-dimensional and it brings nothing to this party.

It’s something else for the social media gurus to start working on and something else for their clients to throw money at. And I’d warrant that it’s something else that will never be resolved.

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.