Articles published in July, 2009

  1. The online rule of engagement – the same rules don’t appear to apply to all

    Published on Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

    The InternetAs we have come to grips with the online environment the rules of engagement have, for the most part, followed the same niceties and social etiquettes we apply in our other interactions.  Those who have transgressed have been outed and dealt with by the group.

    In the early days in particular, a company or brand that naively masqueraded as a private individual in order to promote a product or respond to a complaint was frequently found out.  And so they should be – the truth will find you out.

    But as with all things that involve human nature and the idiosyncrasies that go with this, nothing is black and white and the lines have begun to blur.  As individuals and organisations have become more creative and adventurous, new ways are being found to push the boundaries to achieve end goals.

    Take the chap who decided to post fake nude pictures of his mother on Trade Me as part of a media studies paper – this was the fabler who proclaimed he had not lied. A similar transgression by a major company or brand would have seen this act go down in the annals of history as what not to do. In this case the boy is most likely now seen as the class hero.

    Just recently party pill promoters registered a domain name and created a website similar to TV3, as a stunt to promote their own product.  The resulting media coverage is what they were probably looking for and most likely it was good for business. Had a major drug company done this the resulting hue and cry would still be heard.

    One assumes that the first rule of such on-line prankstering is “firstly do no harm”.  Was any harm done?  That depends on who you talk to.  Did TV3 get damaged?  Probably not! But they did need to protect their brand, and in this instance they have done so.

    But wait a minute, what about the values of honesty, transparency and authenticity, the very ones that have made online communities so powerful.  Content is generated and managed by the very people who want to interact and the real power is in this very fact.  How can they get away with this?

    The reality is, as it is in the off-line world, different rules really do apply to different people and organisations.  If you are a reputable company or brand or even an individual of high standing – you simply can’t and should not lie or deceive. You set the standard and you should know better.  While at times it may seem unfair we need to accept the fact that with certain status or position comes responsibility.

    Just as the standards set for certain professions are far higher than others might be expected to adhere to, so must the standards a reputable company, brand or business adheres to.  And in the online environment as new rules are being established, it is more important than ever that behaviour is beyond reproach.  Boring maybe but in the longer-term is most definitely the right thing to do.

    To quote one of my favourite Web 2.0 experts San Francisco based PR guru Brian Solis. “The point is that when establishing a paid Social Media campaign, anything that is less than clear, honest, or actively contributing back to the bottom line of the business and/or brand resonance is actually taking away from it.”

  2. Tell all … or take that!

    Published on Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

    Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has thrown a hand grenade into the disclosure of private information debate.

    Attacked in the media by two welfare beneficiaries who criticised the support they were receiving, she took the unprecedented step of releasing to media the income they were receiving from the State – without getting their permission or even telling them that she was going to take this action.

    Wow! Every bank, insurance company, utility and company that has been on the receiving end of one sided media stories based on consumer complaints will have taken note of this one.

    For years, lawyers have warned companies not to talk to the media about individuals unless the individual has first provided the company with a waiver allowing them to discuss ‘private’ information. It has led to a great deal of teeth gritting when waivers were withheld.

    The Minister’s reason for driving a truck through privacy legislation is that “she has the right to release information on individuals if they left out relevant details when publicising their situation”.

    I agree totally. But if it’s good enough for her, then I reckon it’s good enough for my clients.

    Significantly the information was not released under the protection of Parliamentary privilege and it’s a reasonable assumption that Paula cleared this brave defence in advance with her Cabinet colleagues and Ministry lawyers.

    If not, she might have a wee problem!

  3. Grumpy customers show the vulnerablity of businesses

    Published on Friday, July 24th, 2009

    MoneyIt is probable that there are very few of us who haven’t gotten grumpy with our bank at some time or other.

    But you have to be pretty darned grumpy to withdraw $190,000 in cash, stipulated in $20 bills.  Mapua artist Roger Griffiths quit his bank of 25 years and carried his cash down the road to the Nelson Building Society.

    We’re told Roger’s parting with his local Westpac branch was over its refusal to give him a mortgage.  In defense of its position, the bank says that it just needed to be confident that regular repayments could be made on the requested mortgage.

    After 25 years you’d expect that the bank would have some knowledge of its previously loyal customer, and would have realized that as an artist remuneration comes in dollop-form rather than a dribbling salary.

    It’s conceivable that this very public customer grievance has done more than $100,000 of damage to the bank’s reputation as, aside from the bad press, Roger’s action may surely embolden others to reflect on their own grievances and ponder action.

    When incidents as dramatic as this arise we are left to wonder how an individual within a major corporation can, in spite of all the policies, training and supervision, act in a way that fires customers up to the point where they terminate the relationship.

    It was another bank this week, BNZ, which reportedly left it to individual customers to sort out an error, and private information was disclosed. The aggrieved customer again went public because she just wants people to know about the “terrible” service she had received.

    How vulnerable we are to front line people, all businesses, but particularly banks.

  4. An orchestrated litany of fables

    Published on Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

    FableThe teenager who sold raunchy photos of his mum on TradeMe after discovering them in the family garage caused something of a kafuffle this week.

    After his TradeMe inspired notoriety, Michael Chal appeared on Close Up last Wednesday to give an account of his TradeMe experience.

    Soon after this appearance, Close Up learned that despite Chal’s assurances to the contrary, it had been duped.  The programme’s producer, Mike Valintine, seemed more than a tad miffed about the deception, and was reported as saying Chal “lied through and through”.  This behaviour was described as “despicable”, and the Chal was called a “fool”.

    After this outburst, and the headlines labelling Chal an “internet liar”, it was surprising to see him, together with his co-conspirator, again on Close Up last night.  Here we learned that Chal had not lied, he’d merely presented a fable.  Just like 20-year-old French Rugby centre Mathieu Bastareaud!

    Chal and his mate proudly told us that they’d had job offers arising from their fables. So, the end does justify the means after all, and liars do prosper.  Social media is setting new standards, but let’s be careful where this takes us, as Michael Chal’s story was nothing but an orchestrated litany of fables.

  5. A beautiful advocacy campaign to behold…

    Published on Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

    BreadAs a communicator, I’m always impressed when I see the roll out of a good campaign which ‘works’. And I’d rate the current efforts by the anti folic acid advocates as an A+ effort.

    Putting aside that we’ve been adding folic acid to breakfast cereal for years without any fuss (came as a complete surprise to me too) and that we went through the whole shall we/shan’t we debate under a previous Government with barely a protest banner in sight, a month before Folic Acid day looms traditional and social media is alive with for and against arguments.

    First casualty was naturally those who know the true facts. Now we’re really on to the serious stuff which us lay people can understand.

    These are the sound bytes about you needing to eat 11 slices of bread a day for it to be effective (is that thick or thin slices by the way?); children will be getting a quarter more than recommended ‘safe’ levels; and let’s not forget the perennial ‘high doses have been shown to increase the prevalence of cancer among laboratory mice’.

    Even that most astute media personality Paul Holmes referred to the folic acid debate twice within three days on his ZB comments slot.

    If nothing else the campaign has shown how slow the Government is to react to lightening rod issues. It didn’t see the train coming, and when it did it stood there paralysed in with indecision.

    I don’t pretend to understand the rights and wrongs of this issue. However, I’m inclined to the view that we should proceed while the ‘experts’ work it out. After all, the chance of me ending up with cancer is a very minute ‘maybe’ (probably less than from second hand smoke), while we know that it’s a certainty some children will be born with spina bifida if we put it off.

    If subsequent research shows the cancer risk is too high, then let’s pull it then. Until then my vote goes for the yet to be born generation.

  6. One size – sometime its meant to fit, others not

    Published on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

    BatchCurrently the actions of some bloggers and existing media law appear to be incompatible.

    The Crown Law Office has received several complaints relating to coverage of the Clayton Weatherston case. The much-read Kiwiblog has taken down a thread on the case, and David Farrar says he will no longer post comments during trial.

    A Facebook site on the same topic is also under investigation. Some of the group’s near-700 members have been posting comments about murder-accused Weatherston, and the site’s originator believes it is his right to freely express his views.

    In this age of electronic conversations it seems that clear boundaries need to be established around the right of bloggers to use the internet to disseminate information that could possible influence a jury.

    University of Otago law professor Mark Henaghan is completely clear:  “We’ve pussyfooted around blogging too much – it is part of communication.” Any interference with court proceedings is contempt of court.

    The mainstream media are vigilant not to breach the law for reason of costs and credibility, but these realities appear not to extend to the far corners of the internet – not yet.  Perhaps the costs of prosecution could clear up any ambiguities up very quickly.

    When it come to justice there has be one size for all.

    This of course is not the rule for dispute simmering at the top of the South island over iconic bach architecture versus squatter hovels.

    In the 40’s and 50’s these unpretentious little dwellings sprung up along the coastline, often constructed cheaply and cheerfully from surplus materials.

    Currently eight of these baches sit on a strip of public land in Tasman’s Ligar Bay, mere metres from the shore.  Depending on your point of view they’ve variously been described in the community as a ‘blight’ and ‘hovels’ or architectural icons.

    As March 2014 looms the 25 year land leases are running down. But their owners’ campaign to save them is gearing up.

    If the benchmark for the bach or beach house is a faux Tuscan Palazzo, then the these will never do. But on the other hand they do make a statement about our history, about who were are or at least who we were.

    Unlike the rigours court reporting, when it comes to our architecture perhaps there is room for a range of viewpoints?

  7. Because we’re worth it

    Published on Friday, July 10th, 2009

    WomenIt’s with some dismay that we read that women in this country earn on average 12 per cent less that their male counterparts. And now, over three decades since legislation designed to remedy the un-equal pay, the unit set up to address the problem has been scrapped.

    This country has built a reputation for fairness. New Zealand led the world in giving women the vote, enshrining the 40 -hour working week and protecting the community’s safety with ACC. So why has the push for pay parity fallen off the menu?

    We hear it is because we have no successful role models to aspire to. This claim wears a bit thin when we’ve had near 30 years of the ‘girls can do anything message’, a woman Prime Minister, Governor General and Chief Justice to boot.

    Mai Chen is actively addressing the ‘no role models’ claim by heading the New Zealand Global Women group. This fine collection of power women is in serious catch up mode if they want to inspire a fresh crop of lady-leaders because the situation is actually getting worse.

    In 2004 New Zealand was ranked 4th in female representation in business management, now we have dropped to 10th place.  Fran O’Sullivan in the NZ Herald points out that just 54 out of 624 director positions on NZX companies are held by women.

    Invisible glass ceilings have been blamed for keeping women down, sticky floors too, and that women bully each other, or are too cooperative and empathetic to truly succeed. We hear that men are genetically privileged so especially tall ones get the top jobs, that they are bred to lead. Women who take time out of their careers to have children can blame biology for losing their place in the promotion queue.

    Surely the communication message is quite simple: an equal day’s work deserves an equal days pay no matter how you put your trousers on in the morning. Alternatively as one leading business woman suggested more than a decade ago, if women’s pay can’t go up, perhaps men’s pay should come down!

  8. Brand, a treasure worth protecting

    Published on Thursday, July 9th, 2009

    CoffinAlthough many of us think that imitation is the height of flattery and common usage the measure of fame and acceptance, one manufacturer has made it clear that its sub-brands are not to be trifled with; and have a cache that demands respect and protection.

    We’ll call the story of Glad Snap Lock bags Part 1 of this brand story.  At the weekend we learned that the manufacturer of Glad Snap Lock bags was warning people against the appropriation of their “Snap Lock” trademark or sub-brand.

    Of course, the Glad brand is ubiquitous in the nation’s kitchens, with cling films, freezer storage bags, rubbish bags, sandwich bags and a multitude of handy containers whose lids are so frequently orphaned.

    The reality is that Glad has been and is an extraordinary innovator, and innovation costs money. On simple, low-cost household items that return on investment is a long-run process, so its advertisements are warning that flattery will not be tolerated.  While some may think its approach a tad heavy, it is reinforcement that Glad takes seriously its brand and will fight to protect it.  That is something we as consumers should respect.

    Part 2 of our brand story, won’t be so familiar to most.  Two weeks ago Google held a ball – that’s right, trip the light fantastic and all that. Thinking it would get into the spirit of things, Vodafone arranged for two body-painted models “baring” the Google brand to titivate fellow ball-goers.

    Google was not amused. Displaying their brand on near naked women was out of line with its brand’s values.

    The lesson? If you are flirting with someone else’s brand, always be sure that you know and respect its values.

    And speaking of respect,  TVNZ’s American correspondent Tim Wilson got the message from fans of late Michael Jackson while he was doing the piece-to-camera on the prince of pop’s untimely demise.  Security men had to hold back fans as they shuffled forward menacingly when Wilson was less than respectful of Jackson.  One cockney was heard to say to her friend: It’s alright, Linda, there are respecters and dis-respecters and we’re the respecters!

  9. Bored senseless by recession

    Published on Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

    Green shootsThe recession is the elephant in every room and a tired and grey elephant it is at that.

    Here in New Zealand we started our slide, to feel the effects of economic decline well before the likes of Lehmann Brothers and the spectacular collapse of the subprime mortgage sector in the US became front page news.

    Our recession began with a whimper some 18 months ago. Quietly many businesses re-organised, changed structure and readied themselves for the economic winter ahead before the Northern hemisphere noticed.

    New Zealand had come off a long period of sustained growth.  We all enjoyed record high employment where a shortage of skilled workers was one of the biggest hurdles to business development.

    While the world went credit-crazy the deep conservatism shown by much of the banking sector here (on a comparative basis with the US and Britain) has saved many a Kiwis’ bacon.

    We are often criticised for our love affair with bricks, mortar and land but the housing market has showed surprisingly resilience, not plummeted anywhere near to the levels in the UK and US.

    Now we are into the dull-phase of the recession, the hard yards where gloomy global messages are being recycled over and over again. Tried dodging the talk of the downturn at a dinner party? Businesses going to the wall-stories pile up like a body count.

    But where is the perspective? World news is not our news. Many key elements of our economy are in robust health and unemployment rates are still relatively low. Today’s business confidence survey points to sparks of optimism returning as a net 5.5% of firms expect business conditions to improve in the next year.

    As a nation we struggle with self-belief, and this applies here. What we really need to do is ‘knock the bastard off’ and we can do that with confidence, grit and self belief.

    Spread the word.