- Social media is here to stay, in one form or another. You cannot ignore it
- Every company, large or small, should have a clear-cut, unambiguous, not-open-to-misinterpretation social media policy – properly communicated and enforced
- Social media comes to the fore in times of crisis and is a creator of issues – every company’s crisis management document should contain a section on social media
- Every company should have trained spokespeople whose responsibilities include responding to comments/issues generated or communicated via social media. Sometimes they might even be proactive
- The majority of a company’s employees, however, should not be allowed to post to social media, either on company time, on company business or about the company
- Social media are not – yet – valid marketing tools. Your budget is still better spent elsewhere
- Social media are, however, communications tools and, as such, belong to the PR or communications department
- Everything that gets posted to social media on behalf of a company must either go through, or have gone through, an approval system
- You do not need to spend a vast fortune on social media strategy or social media monitoring – one is an oxymoron, the other can be carried out perfectly adequately, in-house, in minutes, via search engines
- Social media is not the same as digital. Digital is wide-ranging, well-established and value-adding – social is but one small, unproven, part of digital
- Social media does not have a track record, no-one has much experience with it, and no-one knows what it can and cannot do
- Traditional media can bite if mishandled – there’s no reason to suppose that social media won’t do the same
- No-one has found a way of making money out of social media yet – not even the social media owners
- Whenever successful social media strategy is discussed, some or all of these companies will be mentioned – Dell, Coke, Ford, Amazon, Starbucks, WholeFoods, Best Buy, Zappo, Domino’s – and it is not a coincidence
- Social media is not limited to Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Ecademy, Bebo and MySpace – however it’s only the first three of those that you’ll see discussed outside of genuinely niche fora
- Inevitably, social media will consolidate – the question is which social media brand/s will survive
- Social media is not the saviour of PR or IR or corporate communications – it is not a doorway to a new society or a new way of doing business. Engage with it by all means – understand what it is – monitor its development – but do not get carried away. If the Emperor has any clothes on, they are limited to a pair of baggy, grey y-fronts
social media policy
Social Media – Approval Processes For Corporate Users
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 Policies – Pros and Cons
You may well have seen this, but I hadn’t and I thought it’s worth commenting on. This is from February this year, when an Irish blogger – Jason Roe – thought he had discovered a glitch in Ryanair’s website. He blogged about it. His post attracted commentary from Ryanair Staff – later confirmed as being, yep, a member of Ryanair’s staff.
Read – and gasp in wonder – here.
Quite clearly, at the time, Ryanair had no social media policy, governing who could post to what, when and how they should approach it. When the official response came out – here’s an article containing it (and a picture of Mr Roe) – it was made quite clear that they had no intention of getting a social media policy anytime soon.
You can take one of two things from this – up to you.
- This is a salutary lesson in the importance of having a social media policy and ensuring that all your employees understand and abide by it
- This demonstrates that it really doesn’t matter whether you have a policy or not, and whether your employees post to social media sites/blogs/messageboards or not – if your company has a sound business proposition, corporate reputation is not important, you’ll continue to make money
Personally, I think it’s all about what sort of company it is and – most importantly – what sort of leadership it has, based on the eternal truth that, like it or not, all business organisations will reflect the character of their leaders (CEO, President, Chairman – whatever).
In the case of Ryanair, it’s all about price. It’s cheap and it at the moment it has a strong customer base because it’s cheap. As long as it’s cheaper (or as cheap) as its competitors, it will have a share of the current market, a market which is (must be?) growing as people (generally) have less money. Therefore, the warmth of corporate reputation and customer admiration is something it doesn’t need.
And its leader is Michael O’Leary, a seemingly unpleasant, short individual with – it would be easy to infer from interviews given and commentary made – the emotional intelligence of a scorpion and the subtlety of an angry rhino. (Just in case anyone’s missed him – here’s some O’Learyisms.)
On balance, a company such as Ryanair has no need of a social media policy currently. It remains to be seen how long they can continue like this, mind.
(Oh – and I’d fly Aer Lingus or Aer Arann if I were you.)
Social Media – I’ll Tell You What They Want
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
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
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?
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.
Social Media – In The Interest of Balance…..
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!
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?
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.
thewordmonger 