Posts Tagged ‘online’

1. Maintaining the art of real communication

   Published on Thursday, June 23rd, 2011
   There have been recent protests in Dunedin and Grey Lynn about the closure of local NZ Post Shops. As locals mobilise with their placards, NZ Post points to the new era that will see electronic kiosks replace or supplement face-to-face services.

   Now, if you’ve ever queued outside the door of a busy Post Shop waiting to execute a simple transaction, kiosks can’t come soon enough. But if you’re of a certain age and used to a weekly trip to check out your Kiwibank account and have enjoyed this social interaction, the world as you know it will seem to be coming to an end.

   The protesters’ placard shout “SAVE OUR POST SHOP”; and NZ Post rejoins, “that’s exactly what we are trying to do”.

   After a slew of closures a couple of decades ago, NZ Post is following the trend to migrate online and electronically. As with all such initiatives, it comes at a cost: an ever-reducing amount of face-to-face contact and social interaction.

   This adjustment is hard for many, and ultimately we may question how ideal it is for humankind. The economic rationale is beyond challenge. But surely the cost of this relentless journey toward the virtual and online, the impersonal channels of communication, is still debatable.

   As communicators we are being challenged to achieve the right balance between the two – personal and impersonal – least the art of human communication is lost. The evidence of demise of real communication is everywhere: we used to write letters, now we email; we used to phone people, now we text.

   It is more pronounced among young people where there are signs that real forms of communication have given way to online. Young people will express their most intimate thoughts online, but not in the spoken word. Sometimes with tragic outcomes.

   How, then, do we resuscitate the personal at the expense of online? Or is it too late?

   Will we be left to sing, with apologies to Joan Baez: Where have all the communications gone? Long time passing…

2. The email world – where waspish comment, voyeurism and freeloading flourishes

   Published on Tuesday, March 30th, 2010
   “Whore” – the email response to a politely declined request for sponsorship is now part of email history. 

   Had I received such an email, I’m inclined to think I would have passed it on to a few colleagues. However, when  I received a copy for the third, or was it the fourth time, last week – under the heading how not to communicate in email – I asked myself why we are so quick to share someone else’s misspeak with everyone else when it is on-line. 
    
   We already know that this is not the way to communicate via email, so we can drop that as a reason for spreading it virally! The author ‘deserved it’ is another reason, but I have at the back of my mind that the ‘sender’ claimed someone else used his email address.

   When we communicate in the on-line space we sometimes forget to exercise common sense, and some fail to show basic good manners. 

   For some reason we treat mail-type communication totally differently.

   It is still regarded as bad form to open or read other people’s mail, and why when we pen ‘dear sir, madam, Jim or Jill’ at the start of a written communication do we tend to be more polite and more thoughtful in how we construct our sentences or what we want to say.

   Is it the instant speed with which email communicates that causes us to be more blunt, rude and forthright than we would be in a letter or on the telephone?

   If a person’s mail is accidentally delivered to our house or place of business we would make sure it got to the right person as soon as we could. Yet a recalled email message, or one sent to us inadvertently, is an invitation to check out what was sent before it is deleted. Why the difference? 

   Another area in the digital world where the norms of society have changed is the wireless ‘freeloader’. On Danny Watson’s Newstalk ZB show recently one chap announced he was entirely comfortable with using his neighbour’s wireless access as he only did it once a month to pay his bills.  Besides, if the neighbour didn’t want him to use it he should have had it password protected!

   I‘m wondering if I need to make sure my Sunday paper is put in a locked mail box as having it sitting there might suggest to people that I am offering it to them to read.

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

   Published on Wednesday, July 29th, 2009
   As 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.”

4. Mad about Copyright

   Published on Monday, March 9th, 2009
   The new Copyright Act was all set to come into effect on February 28, but just a few weeks shy of that date an on-line campaign was waged that saw government call timeout and stop the Act becoming law.

   Regardless of your position on Section 92A, the approach taken by the on-line community is one to learn from.  It was unique in its effectiveness and in outcome, but most of all its speed. The campaign demonstrates the power of on-line communities – both as a friend and foe.

   The so-called ‘Guilt upon Accusation’ clause caused the storm in a laptop for many in online and artistic communities.  Section 92A of the Act provided for Internet Service Providers to cut users web access on suspicion of a breach of copyright, and this was at the heart of issue. The strategy to get their views heard was very simple. The community opposed to section 92A blacked out their online avatars on social networking sites Facebook and Twitter. The idea, inspired by an All Blacks supporters call for fans to switch their avatars to silver ferns, was proposed by web developer Brenda Wallace at an un-conference held February 15.

   Come the following Monday morning the ‘blackout’ news was spreading and the lights went out all over the internet. Web influencer and twitter-er extraordinaire Stephen Fry weighed in and turned his picture black in a bold signal to his 250,000 followers.

   The opposition movement to Section 92A gained momentum, those motivated to lend support or find out more, crashed blog sites. The mainstream media here and internationally suddenly sat up and took notice. Scores of news items, from a range of viewpoints, appeared across all media. There ensued an unprecedented amount of coverage for what is really a dry, complex and niggly piece of legislation.

   Within eight days from conception to completion the ‘blackout’ campaign organisers had made their way to John Key’s office and the law was suspended.

   This campaign showed how an issue can now move at lightening speed, across countries, organisations and traditional groupings.  It is also a reminder to companies how, with the speed of new media, they can have a major issue on their hands before even being aware it exists.  The solution lies in keeping in touch with all critical audiences both on-line and off-line.

5. Hanging by a thread

   Published on Tuesday, October 14th, 2008
   In issues management there is always a new experience to be had, and based on a recent episode online media will bring challenges aplenty for those of us involved in issues and reputation management.

   This new media is like talkback on steroids where those with a point of view or complaint can rage to their heart’s content, largely under the cover of anonymity. 

   Trade Me’s community message board is usually a forum where members, mainly active traders and, from what I have seen, women share advice and experiences.  On the message board there are segments of interest, such as computing, environment, parenting and farming.  Within this structure members are free to start up discussion topics, or threads. 

   A current example of a new thread in the “opinion” segment of the message board is: Does John Key have a wife and children….???  Yesterday this thread attracted 52 comments ranging from criticism of using his daughter in campaign material to comments about his wife. Another thread on the “parenting” segment is titled: Bleeding from the bladder.  Within three hours last evening there were 43 postings, many from the same people.

    All slightly odd – but probably harmless, you might think.  

   My experience was with a product issue – product satisfaction not safety – and a few individuals went beyond mere commentary to actual threats.  

   Unlike talkback, Trade Me’s message board has no anchor point or moderator, such as the radio host, through whom a balancing point of view might be represented.

   So how to you manage such issues?

   From my recent experience, the ABC of managing these situations goes like this:

   • Maintain a ‘clean’ membership of Trade Me – one that has never traded before – and hold it dormant.
   • Seek advice from the Trade Me’s administrators, and discipline yourself to follow it.
   • Respond only to the macro scene, not individual jibes and baiting.
   • Prepare from the outset for the issue to potentially graduate from the dark world of “online’ to traditional media.

   Some general observations:

   • The Trade Me community has its own leaders and followers, and there are members who also communicate and plan with each other offline.
   • If you have a real issue act sooner rather than later – decisively and clearly.
   • The medium is prone to the ill-informed leading the uninformed.
   • The moderate voices in the “community’ are often bullied into submission.
   • The more extreme postings/commentary seem to be made late at night.

    How do you view online media, and is this a medium that you currently monitor?