Posts Tagged ‘Social Media’

1. Not dead, but often in need of resuscitation

   Published on Tuesday, September 13th, 2011
   When Google acquired the restaurant survey guide Zagat last week one media columnist boldly declared that the “press release”, the traditional format for announcing such initiatives, was now “officially dead”.

   You see the Zagat owners used the style of one of their restaurant surveys to communicate with stakeholders, and Google, unsurprisingly, tweeted the news.

   In our view, the way the acquisition news was conveyed said more about creativity of the parties involved than the demise of any particular form of official communication.

   Their creativity is to be applauded.  It was simply their recognition that social and online media are empowering us to be more creative with our tactics for news generation. And with the ‘medium is the message’ in-mind, now more than ever we need to be proactive about crafting to-the-point, snappy messaging.

   Press releases are not sacred and they are not dead.  They will continue to be the “record” of certain events.  However, in many cases they need some creative resuscitation, and they need to be leveraged to ensure they touch all the necessary audiences.

   With the treatment of the announcement of their deal, Google and Zagat are challenging us to work harder at finding audience-specific forms of communication to achieve our goals.  The traditional press release will almost certainly be part of the mix.

   A press release tells our story – plain and simple.  The communicators then needs to tell that story to different people in the best way possible.

2. Social media and rule of the mob

   Published on Tuesday, July 19th, 2011
   Writing his opinion piece in the Dominion Post today under the descriptor “curmudgeon”, columnist Karl du Fresne says it is hard to recall a time when the tone of public discourse was more vicious and abusive.  He cites the attacks on former EMA boss Alasdair Thompson and ACT leader Don Brash, saying little attempt was made to address the substance of the issues they raised.  “Far easier to shout them down with epithets”.

   The veteran journalist is in my view conservative when he says the level rancour in public debate has been cracked up tenfold by the internet, and puerile abuse trumps civilised discourse every time.

   Du Fresne says that anonymity gives courage to cowards, and newspapers learned decades ago that they attracted a higher standard of letter by having people sign their own names rather than hide behind pseudonyms.  Unfortunately I don’t think we will ever achieve the same level of maturity with social media.  For all its positive attributes, it’s a tailor-made tool for those with a mob mentality.

3. Something to tweet about

   Published on Monday, May 2nd, 2011
   We are told that the level of digital traffic around the Royal wedding last Friday surpassed that of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the uprising in Egypt.

   According to the trackers of such trends, the greatest volume of activity came from the monarch-starved USA.

   Between all this buzz and the much argued global television audience figure of two billion viewers, there is clearly still an appetite for a fairy tale in this cruel and cynical world.

   This is no bad thing, as it reinforces for us all that while one week we can argue over the merits of giving Easter, fundamentally a religious–based feast, a more commercial edge, we can wile way several hours watching the pomp and splendour of a Royal wedding. Proving, I think, that even the toughest nuts have a soft centre.

   Since Friday, I often heard it said that more than anything else, William and Kate gave us respite in what have been some tough times. Hopefully the upcoming rugby world cup can give us all another infusion of good cheer and tweeting on the back of a fairy tale outcome.

4. Inclusive politics … your local Tui billboard has the answer

   Published on Thursday, August 26th, 2010
   

   Australia's version of the psychic "Paul" the World Cup Octopus

   As Australia inches forward to deciding who won last Saturday’s election, for diversion media commentators across the ditch are pouring over the tea leaves trying to analyse why the electorate voted the way it did.

   One recurring theme is ‘the electorate is sick and tired of the adversarial politics served up by the two main parties’. The claim is voters either deliberately spoilt their compulsory vote (put at some 6 percent) or voted for anyone but the Labour or Coalition candidate.

   Given Australia’s complex voting system (our perception) this results in laborious recounts before a winner is eventually declared.

   Another intriguing outcome is that regardless of the outcome in Australia, it will almost certainly mean three of the world’s leading proponents of Westminster style government (Britain, Australia and New Zealand) being governed by coalitions, even though all three countries use different voting systems.

   In railing against adversarial politics, what we shouldn’t lose sight of is Westminster style government (and each of our legal systems) is designed to be adversarial.

   If you ever want an example of it at its ‘best’, listen to the exchanges between Annette King and Stephen Joyce on Mike Hosking’s breakfast radio show on a Wednesday morning. It’s a brawl from start to finish, with the rules being: never concede, score points, undermine, talk over the top and always have the last word.

   Each country has always practiced this form of brutal politics (and law), even if each side keeps quiet while the other has a go. The difference between now and yesteryear is that modern communications – electronic and social media – makes us more aware of what takes place.

   At the same time society has become more cosmopolitan, better educated, more opinionated, and we too through social media have the ability to share our views with a wide audience.

   Immediately after the elections in Australia and Britain the politicians promised a more inclusive form of government. I seem to remember similar promises being made when National came to power in New Zealand.

   Will it happen? For an answer refer to a Tui billboard near you.

5. Should governments have the right to censor Facebook?

   Published on Thursday, July 22nd, 2010
   Major tragedies are usually followed by a host of different reactions and responses. These are frequently played out in public as individuals try to connect with other like-minded people to affirm their own reaction to a situation. Naturally the online world offers many forums in which to do this.

   Most recently, British PM David Cameron came under fire for demanding a Facebook tribute page in memory of gunman Raoul Moat, named “RIP Raoul Moat you legend”, be taken down. The creator claimed the page was not to “condone what he did, as what he did was wrong. [I] Feel sorry for the families, but he was still a human being at the end of the day. He had problems and he didn’t get any help.”

   Despite this explanation, David Cameron condemned the page, categorically stating that he could not understand any sympathy towards this man. The UK government directly contacted Facebook and its creator, Mark Zuckerberg, asking that the page be taken down. 

   Facebook’s initial respone was that it is a “place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way …as such there were times when people discussed topics others sometimes found distasteful. However, this is not a reason in itself to stop a debate from happening.”  So long as Facebook’s terms and conditions were not violated, the social media giant felt there was no case to answer to.

   Eventually the creator herself backed down, presumably in light of the outrage across the UK, and taking down the page earlier this week. 

   On one level, it seemed to me that David Cameron is possibly naïve in his belief that a government has the right to censor public opinion, and to do so in such a public way potentially has future ramifications. On the other they are representing the interests of their people, and when the brutal actions of one person look as though they are being celebrated, surely they can and should look to shut down that particular discussion.

   But Facebook also has a point. There are any number of distasteful and immoral topics being discussed on the internet and through social media even as you read this. Where is the line to be drawn? What if a corporation’s facebook page had negative messages written on it? Does the fact they have a Facebook page mean they are open to comments and criticism, or should they have the option to decide what is posted on their ‘wall’?

   How do we protect people’s right to free speech while ensuring it doesn’t result in the unreasonable victimisation or stigamitisation of others – be it an individual, brand, or an organisation?

6. Can Social Media Turn the Tide for the Obama Administration?

   Published on Thursday, June 17th, 2010
   Ariana Huffington, Editor in Chief and Co-Founder of the self-named Huffington Post, wrote an interesting piece last week on how the US government is looking to develop social media channels to enable the public to be more closely involved in the decision-making processes of government. 

   Possibly it’s part of the Obama Adminstration’ s move to address concerns that Pres. Obama is not hearing what the people want. But it is also a sign of their very real understanding of the need to integrate modern communication mechanisms into the traditional communications mix.  
    
   The Obama administration’s appointment of the first ever Chief Information Officer demonstrates its awareness that this space should be developed, managed and protected, just as any other major piece of the nations infrastructure needs to be handled. So perhaps this next move will in fact highlight some of the underlying traps that businesses currently face.

   Presumably with access to the best tech brains in the US to help refine and fashion social media as an effective communication channel, the outcomes should be very interesting.
    
   While the premise of public input into law making via the news channels is  refreshing, almost inevitably there is a high risk of issues being captured by lobby groups who may use such  anonymous forums as a way of promoting their version of what  real Jo Public thinks  – which may not be correct. On the other hand, any such attempts at manipulation may be so obvious as to not be an issue, and the forum will prove to be a more modern means of truly allowing public participation in government. 
    
   Delivery of, and access to information through technology is an area that potentially requires a whole new set of guidelines, regulations and laws. Undoubtedly they will come and offset the wild-west dimension to what some people continue say and do in the new media. Examples abound of rogue sites, blogs and facebook postings. Here’s hoping that an initiative by a really tech savvy government will create some outcomes that will prove beneficial for the rest of the world.

7. Rewriting the crisis management template

   Published on Friday, April 30th, 2010
   Corporations not convinced of the role that social media can play in crisis or issues management communication need only study its role during the recent Iceland volcanic eruption to change their position totally.

   As you read this, the template for managing a crisis is being rewritten.

   In the recent airline crisis, experienced as a result of the Icelandic volcano eruption, twitter proved itself a frontline communication tool, sitting alongside the more traditional first responses such as call centres, hotlines and websites.

   According to Mashable, The Social Media Guide, the use of twitter during the crisis started as a self help tool among stranded travellers.

   Also immediately, airline communicators picked up on what was happening, and started to update flight status and provide service information on twitter through hashtags (devices for tracking specific topics). This initiative alone was credited with taking a significant level of pressure off call centres that were close to being overwhelmed.

   The more innovative airlines extended their initiatives down into their Facebook pages, providing general information and also engaging in one-on-one real-time conversations with customers, including seeking to re-book stranded passengers on alternative flights.

   Meanwhile, back on twitter the public started to lend a hand to stranded travellers – offering rides, places to stay and food.

   If you want a more detailed overview of social media’s role in the crisis please click here.

   The key learning to emerge from this for those involved in crisis management is the need to include in the management plan an important role for social media.

   A significant proportion of the public instinctively look to twitter and Facebook for information, and as communicators we need to reach out to our audiences, rather than require them to come to us.

8. A happy slip of the tongue

   Published on Thursday, September 17th, 2009
   Let me get one thing off my chest, whether it was on the record, off the record, a throwaway comment, a personal observation or an official declaration, fortunately for President Obama he was right on the money. Kayne West is a jackass.

   The golden boy rapper’s churlish treatment of country singer Taylor Swift at the MTV awards was pure-fool, and he may never live the moment down.

   In the aftermath, ABC News employees overheard a conversation between the President and CNBC’s John Harwood on the matter, where Obama called West a “jackass”.

   The comment was recorded, tweeted and lit up the internet.

   The television network has since apologised and said that it was wrong for its employees to tweet the comment, but they didn’t realise it was considered off the record.  But was it?

   Obama is the President of the United States, and his words, every one of them is newsworthy. He’s gained much of his popularity because he’s used online social networks with real savvy, and this time it’s no different, because unlike many nasty asides that have been recorded during on-mic mishaps, Obama got it so right.

   As one web commentator put it, “just when I thought I couldn’t love Barack anymore!”

   Another world leader making headlines is French president Nicolas Sarkozy. He’s said that gross domestic product, inflation, and unemployment are all old-fashioned, Anglo-Saxon indicators of national wellbeing, and from now on, the country’s economic progress will be measured in terms of happiness – bonheur.

   The French president has some heavyweights to help him back up this new measure, Nobel Prize-winning economists, the American Joseph Stiglitz, and India’s Amartya Sen, who have concluded that new indexes are needed to measure wellbeing and environmental sustainability.

   Surely he’s hit the nail on the head, as isn’t this what corporate social responsibility programmes should be all about, creating bonheur for all?

9. Consumers show their muscle and Cadbury fesses up to mistake

   Published on Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
   

   A few short months ago Readers Digest declared Cadbury the No 1 trusted New Zealand brand.  The coverage was extensive…accolades galore for the “iconic Kiwi brand”.

   Before the chocolate was set on that announcement, we learned that Cadbury had re-sized its chocolate blocks and substituted palm oil for cocoa butter. Apparently this was all for our own good, that is the continued affordability of Cadbury’s chocolate.

   The initial protests to these developments seemed quite muted and even confused, perhaps because a competitor attempted to stir the chocolate.  When that intervention was over, chocolate lovers really got to work via Facebook, Twitter and old-fashioned email.

   We’ve now seen the results, an apology from Cadbury NZ managing director: we got it wrong.

   You have to expect that a brand like Cadbury would have done a crisis assessment before embarking on its product changes, no matter how seemingly sensible.

   In the event, once on the back foot, its messages became too complex to articulate and consumers were not interested in listening.  Perhaps another factor in this issue has the determination of consumers to remind Cadbury exactly who determines brand leadership. Consumers create brands, companies are the guardians.

   This has been a hard-earned lesson for the chocolate maker, but one that every FMCG company should have ears for.

10. 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.”