reputation management

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 – Not the Internet and Vice-Versa

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

At last week’s PRWeek Global Conference, there appeared to be some confusion between digital strategy and online management and use of social media.

Reporting on the conference, PRWeek itself quoted one Mark Adams, co-founder and partner, The Conversation Group, as saying “Most firms use avoidance strategies or lip-service strategies. ‘Let’s get some monkey in the basement to run a Twitter account and then we’ll review it in a year’s time.’ It’s not uncommon.”

This seems to be at odds with another of the speakers, Dominic Chambers, who said digital strategy was ‘too low down in companies’ and that ‘online management often continued to sit within a client’s IT department’. I’m not going to continue quoting from the article – you can find it yourselves here.

I suppose they’re both valid points, but they’re talking about two completely different things. Social Media – which Mark Adams is dealing with – is but a small and not-terribly-well-understood piece of the online jigsaw, one that shouldn’t be ignored but, as yet, is probably not worthy of massive investment in terms of budget, time and human resource.

Dominic Chambers appears to be talking about online in its fullest sense – the corporate website, SEO, PPC, online research, online media relations (story placement, media release distribution), email marketing, online promotions and advertising – and he cited British Airways as a company which has made its website a fundamental part of its business. He suggests that online should sit with marketing and comms, with IT as a support function.

Be that as it may – they are both valid points (one on a smaller scale that the other, mind) – but they highlight a real issue which is that the social media evangelists are slowly and insidiously taking the terms ‘online’ and ‘digital’ for themselves. As they do that, so it becomes easier for those new to the disciplines to believe that you can’t have a digital strategy without some sort of social media element.

You can. Digital marketing and digital communication has been around much longer than Facebook and Twitter. A good corporate website is, arguably, one of your most powerful communications tools – with it you can build customer/stakeholder loyalty and community, engage their interest, build their trust, share their opinions and give them something in return. Permission-based marketing – via email – is ncredibly powerful. Proximity communication – via bluetooth – has novelty (still) and delivers an effect. The internet is a boon and is both cost and time efficient.

The same cannot be said – yet – for social media. It’s a shame, therefore,  that at a key event for the industry, the organisers (and the participants?) can’t seem to make the distinction. Apparently, we (the communicators) are the ones who are supposed to own digital strategy, and its subset, social media strategy. Why’s anyone going to take us seriously if we don’t understand what we’re talking about and how to differentiate the two?

Finally, who thought it was a good idea to let the editor of PRWeek (UK) publish this? As statements of the obvious go, it’s a work of genius and it will definitely get my nomination for this year’s ‘Sorry I’m Late – Have I Missed Anything?’ award. (Note to Danny – if you’re going to join a debate of this size, make sure you’ve got more than 200 words and do a bit of research first. There’s a good chap.)

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 – What Comes After Twitter?

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

This was a question asked on LinkedIn some hours ago. Well, I’m a sucker for these things, so I did the whole clicketry bit on it, well expecting to find – two things, actually.

First, an entire bunch of new social media gubbins, none of which I had heard of, and none of which would actually make any sense.

Second, a wave of new age fullshump (copyright P Mandelson 2009) talking about how this stuff would change the worl..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….wha’? Who? Eh? Oh….yes. Change the world.

But no! Wonder of wonders! There are people who don’t believe! I thought I was on my own! Welcome! Welcome!

Actually, commentary was divided, not equally, into three bits. Those who don’t necessarily see the point of Twitter to start with, those who are promoting the next big thing (Google Wave, apparently) and those who are citing various, what-can-only-be-described-as, minor players.

So – here you are. Have a look. See what you think. MOOs, Aardvark, foursquare, and ning.

Frankly, it’s all a bit bobbins. But you may disagree. I suppose the point, if anyone cared, is that already Twitter is being seen as yesterday’s news. It is approaching the end of its sell-by.

So what of all the Twitter gurus who are busy trying to tell us that a) we’re antediluvian and, actually, quite stupid  if we don’t take part in Twitter and b) Twitter is going to change the face of business practice as we know it? Will they keep bleating, as it all swirls down the twitter?

I often think the problem is the massive disconnect between US-driven communications and communicators and communications and communicators from the rest of the world. Two (roughly) halves of a world separated by fundamental world-view issues. I’m not even going to bother to explain this. If you don’t know what I mean – then ask.

Social media suits the States ( as a generalisation). The rest of the world is not so accommodating (as another generalisation). The one thing that’s certain is that what we see currently – current thinking – will be very different tomorrow.

PR – The Perfect Client

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

Some time ago I did a bit on the Perfect Client – based, unusually for me, on some research findings. Mostly my own research, clearly. Recently – thanks PRWeek – there was a bit of a kerfuffle around a prospective client paying for the ideas presented in a pitch by the losing agencies. (Personally, I don’t see what was strange about this – I don’t like doing it, but I’d say I’ve been paying (something) for pitches for the last decade. Why should any professional give of his/her services for free?)

Anyway, out there in the internet, the discussion raged and I came across this. It’s a nine-point plan for a client approaching an agency, aimed at making the agency selection/pitch process easier. It’s presented in a letter from a client to one of a shortlist of agencies that he’s selected. It’s great, and it’s fair – but what it fails to take into account is the nature of the agency. So, in the spirit of balance, I composed a reply.

I reproduce both texts here – but for the short of time, I’ll summarise the conclusions. Just as there isn’t the perfect client, there isn’t the perfect agency either. Agencies moan about the lack of knowledge of the client (the in-house practitioner) and the in-house practitioner moans about the agency’s lack of commitment, of creativity, of get-up-and-go.

Both have a point. The best way to forge a relationship is to make it commercial – pay for the pitch, pay for the results. Personal relationships come later. You don’t (have to) have a personal relationship with your lawyer, accountant, banker or architect – why with your PR provider?

The question we should be concerning ourselves with is not about paying for pitches, but about paying for – and by – results. No more retainers, people – payment by results. Incidentally, perhaps if you pay for the ideas in a pitch, you should be paying on a sliding scale. How much value – expressed in terms of cold, hard cash – did that idea deliver? And what percentage of that are you prepared to give to the agency? Oooh – it’s a big fat debate waiting to happen.

In the meantime – here’s the client’s letter and the response I imagined from Obfuscate, Bulshitt and Fluff:

Hi,

I’m the PR manager of Les Chapelles Holidays, and I’m looking for a new PR agency. I’ve drawn up a shortlist of four agencies and you’re company is one of them. As such, I’d like to meet.  This is what I’d like to propose:

1. I’ll come to you if that’s OK? I’d like to see your offices.

2. I’m only planning on meeting each agency once in the selection process, but would like a three hour meeting in the afternoon (the reasons for which will become clear a little later).

3. I’m presuming you’ll do your research, so you’ll be able find out lots about our business from our website, coverage search, social media analysis, etc etc. If you have any specific questions, however, feel free to drop me a line.

4. I’m not giving you a brief, because I’m not asking you to pitch me creative ideas and a communications strategy. I’m a forward-thinking guy, and (a) don’t believe that you’ll be able to get under our skin enough in the next fortnight to develop a decent strategy or associated tactics and (b) I respect that your strategic nouse and creativity are valuable, and I should really be paying for them.

5. When I come in, I’d like to meet the team of people that you would foresee working on the account. I think you’ll be able to assess who those people might be from your research on our business, and our budget is currently about £10k a month, so I reckon I’ll be meeting four or five people (and if there’s more than one director in the room, I’ll smell a rat). It’d be great if each of them could give me a five-minute precis of their experience, role and the piece of work of which they’re most proud. I’d also like to know their favourite band and cocktail of choice.

6. I’d like you to present comprehensive agency credentials. Agency history, client base, key areas of expertise and anything else you feel would be relevant. I’d also like to see three case studies of work you’ve done for clients that you think are relevant to our business area. I’d expect these to include the business challenge, strategy you developed, tactics you implemented and the results generated. I’d also like the people in the room to have worked on the case studies, because I might have questions.

7. I’m going to test you guys out with an exercise that will take about an hour. It’ll be challenging but fun, and will give me the chance to see how you guys work together (and with me).

8. I’d like to take contact details for three client references away with me.

9. After we’ve had the meeting, can we go to the pub for an hour or so? I’m buying.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Mark

Dear Mark

Thanks so much for your letter – it is genuinely refreshing to come across such honesty in this vale of tears that we call spin. And as we’re being honest, it’s actually refreshing to come across such naïve honesty in this vale of etc etc etc.

We’re delighted that you’ve chosen Obfuscate, Bulshitt and Fluff to be your incumbent agency. (Hey – I know you didn’t say that, but we’re being honest, and – face it – we’re never going to read anything you send us properly and, even if we do, we’re not going to understand any of it.) I think it would be a good idea to meet up, and here’s my honest (you started it) response to your ten points. (See what I mean?)

1)       By all means come to our offices. You’ll see reception, the nice white corridor lined with random coverage, and our super spangly boardroom. You won’t see the rickety stairs and poky offices, crammed with old mismatched desks and young mismatched execs, threadbare of carpet, limited of storage space and littered with the detritus of product samples past. Why would we show you that?

2)       Three hour meeting in the afternoon? No worries. Although it’ll mean that some of the team don’t get down the pub at lunchtime, which might make them a little edgy.

3)       You’re presuming we’ll do our research – well, I guess we’ll do a bit, thanks for the tips about the website and the coverage search. A lot of our staff spend a lot of time Twittering and getting all Facebooked up, so I’m sure they’ll be able to do some of that social media stuff as well. But, as you’d expect, we’ll also leave some glaring gaps in our knowledge, so that one of our more senior people can regale you with irrelevant stuff that is almost embarrassing in its simplicity, in an earnest and patronising way. You’ll enjoy that.

4)       No brief? Excellent. That’ll save some time and effort and trips to the Nurofen cupboard by those of our staff – most of them, actually – who get a bit confused by the concept of ‘strategy’. Mind you – no problem with tactics, if you want a few. Nothing new under the sun, eh? Oh – and don’t worry about the question of paying. As George Bernard Shaw said to Oscar Wilde (probably) “You will, dear boy, you will”.

5)       Ah – that old chestnut. “The team that will be working on the account.” Yes – we can do that, but bear in mind that staff turnover’s pretty high, clients come and go, first impressions aren’t always right – I think we both know that the team will change regularly. You’re right, we’ll field a team of four or five – but, again, I think we both recognise that your day-to-day will be the small one at the end of the table. Like Russian dolls, d’you see? We’ve got lots of directors by the way – easier to promote than to increase salaries, you know how it is – but, if it makes you feel better, we’ll pretend that none of us have titles. A five-minute précis of their experience? We’ll start making those up right now. Favourite band and cocktail of choice? Well – er – OK. You’re the boss.

6)       Cool – agency creds. We usually find that most prospects lose the will to live during this bit – you’d be amazed how difficult it is to stab yourself to death with a ballpoint pen, but it doesn’t stop them trying – but you seem to want the whole nine yards! Bless.Let me personally guarantee you that by the time we’ve finished, the last thing you’ll want to do is ask questions.

7)       Oh, goody. An exercise. Listen Mark – between you and me – you and I both know that this is a mistake. Like those tabletop crisis management exercises. All you’re going to learn from this is how it could be done better next time. What you’re not going to learn is how we work together or work with our clients. But – hey – you’re the boss.

8)       Three client references? No problemo. We’ve got several in-house PR people wrapped round our little fingers (via a combination of nice lunches, hospitality, celebrity introductions, Christmas presents and their own astounding lack of knowledge and experience) – they’d be delighted to talk to you.

9)       And the pub. What a splendid idea. Obviously, as we leave, we’ll be joined by another member of staff who ‘was just dying to meet you’. It won’t be clear where she fits in, but who cares, as her brief will be to hang on your every word and do a little light eyelash batting. Relax – you’ll enjoy it! And just in case you’re questioning our policy on equal opportunities, if your name happened to be ‘Marcia’, we’d find a member of staff to do a little tight t-shirt flexing.

10)   Oh – yeah. There isn’t a number 10. Sorry.

Hope all this works for you – oh, and don’t worry about the whole ‘who’s buying at the pub issue’ – we charge all our clients a monthly ‘contribution’. This ostensibly pays for our office running costs, but, in reality, is more of a ‘slush fund’. Have a drink on them – it’ll be you soon!

All the best

Spin – Knowing When to Say Nothing

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

That Lord Mandelson. Sadly, not down with the kids (metaphorically speaking). And, just possibly, misjudging his moment and his audience. I refer, of course, to his (quoted) reaction to The Sun withdrawing its support for Labour. This from The Independent:

“Lord Mandelson, speaking in Brighton to publicise tomorrow’s increase in the national minimum wage, said: “The proprietor might have changed his mind but I don’t think the readers want The Sun to set on New Labour.

“The last thing Sun readers want is to see their newspaper turned into a Tory fanzine. They want a newspaper, not a propaganda sheet.”

Is it me, or do I hear the echo of a million Sun readers voices, like something out of Monty Python, “yes we do, that’s exactly what we want, a Tory fanzine!” And why? Because what they really don’t want is some urbane, pink, weaselly spin-merchant second-guessing their wishes. Even if he is accompanied by some increasingly-less-relevant union spod.

And, while I’ve got a nice head of steam worked up, here’s a few things. Peter Mandelson – looking at him, isn’t he just the archetypal – possibly sterotypical – Tory? And wouldn’t it be fair to surmise that today’s Sun reader- after the economic catastrophe of the last 18 months – actually quite fancies nothing more than a return to the Thatcher years, when everyone (apparently), on merit (so they said), had the chance to get rich, not just a few Fat Freds at the top?

And, putting these two together, would it be beyond the realms of possibility to speculate that Mandelson is actually intent upon facilitating the rise of a New Toryism, for whatever reason, at the expense of the party he professes to love?

It is truly fascinating – and it means my first paragraph is probably completely wrong. Ho-hum. Not for the first time.

Anyway – for your delight and delectation here’s a couple of bits which made me giggle. As usual – do your clickety bits here and here.

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 – In The Interest of Balance…..

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

Aaaaaaah, crap. And it was all going so well. I’d formulated my opinons and adopted my stance and could feel the concrete setting around my position. I had predicted the end.

Then, this.

It’s a post from August, the video may be older and it is – I suppose – possible that the whole social media edifice could have crumbled since then. I will acknowledge, however, that it’s unlikely.

So, there we have it. Social media is everywhere, touching everyone. It’s a people-driven economy, stupid.

But, but, but. Well. I’m sure it’s robust and all – some of the statistics do seem a little on the astounding side, mind (70% of companies now use LinkedIn as their primary recruitment tool?) – but it still doesn’t answer three of the important questions.

1) What happens when people get bored of the medium du jour and sod off somewhere else? How do you track them – where they go, what they’re doing, what decisions they’re making, what they’re buying etc etc etc? 

2) There maybe literally brazillions of people registered for these services – but we know they’re not all using them regularly, in fact (and sorry, I have no stats) we know that a good chunk register and never use the service again. And global internet penetration stands at 24.5% – lots of potential audience simply cannot access any of these services.

3) How do commercial enterprises (brands) leverage social media to make money? No-one’s making money out of social media right now – not even the social media owners. I read a point of view which actually said – why bother with social media ROI – if you’re doing it right, then it will deliver. Hmm – how convenient.

 Anyway, in the interests of balance – there it is. Never say I don’t give you anything.

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.