Bluegrass Consulting: Blueblog

So it took a little while to sort out, but we now know, Labor lost the 2010 election (72 seats to 73) but pulled off a win in the post election negotiations. Despite the ‘win’, 5 months later, Labor still look like losers. And the now infamous ‘Real Julia’ moment, Gillard’s apparent rejection of spin and a risk adverse campaign model, is to blame.

It was a catastrophic and painfully uncomfortable election campaign for Labor, ‘worst in history’ according to prominent Labor identity Graham ‘Richo’ Richardson, with both he and National Secretary Karl Bitar agreeing ‘Real Julia’ was a grave strategic error, in the top three mistakes of the election.

“Labor ran the worst campaign in history. No doubt about that. When Julia Gillard said this was the real Julia, no, this wasn’t a slip of the tongue. It was planned; it was thought to be clever. It wasn’t. It was just plain dumb.” (Graham Richardson)

A founding rule of spin is don’t declare what you are not. Such as Nixon’s famous I’m not a crook. As everyone then thinks, that’s exactly what you are.  In the same way, saying I am the ‘real Julia’, leads everyone to believe you ‘aren’t', or if you are now, you weren’t then. As Bitar said, “(it) was not really about a real Julia and a fake Julia. Unfortunately, that’s the way it came across”.

Statements of this nature, also feed the media beast, providing great material for headlines and analysis.  Mostly sceptical and unfavourable - to be expected.  You don’t have to look further than Four Corners’ first program for 2011, “The Real Julia?”, and this introductory statement “…one of the most remarkable moments was watching Julia Gillard as Prime Minister in an election campaign struggling to explain who she was, having to reassure us she was real, not manufactured”; to see this political hangover continues to hurt.

As this blog goes on to describe, the explanation for why ‘Real Julia’ failed and the consequent lesson for political communicators, is: be careful of saying what you are and aren’t. If you do, make sure you have an agenda, ‘the filling’, action and conviction, not just an empty statement.

Words just words

The strategic error was when Julia stood up and said I am real, but then failed to explain who that was, and what she stood for. “When a leader stands up and says this is who I am, this is about my leadership, they need to follow it up with action,” says online political blog, Pollytics.

Pollytics research shows how former PM, Kevin Rudd’s leadership went up with the Grech affair, because Rudd stood and said, ‘this is about my leadership - this is bullshit’ and went for the jugular. The result, he “destroyed Malcolm Turnbull and was unassailable until he couldn’t get his governance together.”

In comparison, Gillard stood and said ‘this is about my leadership, and I have nothing really to say about it’, the result, an election which delivered a weak government and a hung parliament.

The conviction politician

Till this day we are still asking who is Julia? We know she’s a former lawyer, considered one of ‘Australia’s foremost Parliamentary debaters’, she cares about education and “came into politics predominantly to make a difference to opportunity questions“.

One ‘opportunity question’ is industrial relations, and her work in rolling back Work Choices was well executed; but she remains opposed to other ‘opportunity issues’ i.e. same sex marriage, preferring to sit on the fence, proving more ‘consummate politician’ then thinking, feeling, real. She believes in climate change, but established a “Citizen’s Assembly” to consider it, and she’s a republican but won’t lead on the issue.

In the end, much of this debate comes back to an already familiar political notion, that of the ‘conviction politician‘. John Howard is most famous for embodying this. How often did we hear everyday voters say, ‘even if you hated him, at least you knew what he stood for’.

Policy by polling

As outlined in post 1 of this series, the reliance and often incorrect reading of polling, is causing all sorts of problems for politicians, and has seen the apparent end of the conviction politican. As the article ‘Who are you Julia‘ says: “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that if Julia Gillard has an ideology, it comes from the Labor party’s market research company. The ambivalent feelings she publically presents….reflect the mixed feelings through the community”.

Surely, being the country’s ‘leader’ can’t simply mean ‘following’ the people. Conviction, real or fake, is essential for a politician.  As illustrated by an adviser’s comment to the former leader of the National Party New Zealand; “the secret to success is sincerity and conviction. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made”.

Summary - the future is Bligh

The first blog on this topic, written prior to the election, focussed on the need to evolve the art of spinning, believing it increasingly out of date, so much so it could lose Labor the election.  It looked at Gillard’s public rejection of this ‘traditional campaign model’ including ‘real Julia’, and posed whether this would work.

In finalising this series, we recognise attempts being made to evolve spinning techniques, to strive for honest communication, i.e. ‘Real Julia’. But when only half thoughts, lacking action and content (essential to effective political communication) they fail. Proving in the end, to still be spin. And worst still, ineffective spin which backfires.  Gillard need heed the advice of this cricket fan, “bowl straight at the wicket. Don’t try any fancy tricks.”

However, not all is lost! In recent weeks, we have witnessed political communication at its best. Some even call it a new template. It is indeed the evolution this blogger believes not only more integrious, and for those at-any-cost, hard head spinners, more effective.

According to David Penberthy, this new template is: “Based around honesty, decisiveness and plain speech. It’s been based around saying what government can do, and what it cannot do.” We speak of none other than Premier Anna Bligh, and her handling of the devastating floods in Queensland.

Social media was quickly followed by the mainstream in reporting the contrast between the two leaders in their ability to communicate appropriately throughout the disaster, boosting one’s leadership, and hurting another’s.

No prizes for picking the winner. Gillard, watch and learn. For ‘real’!

Part 3 of a 4 part series which uses Julia Gillard and the recent Federal Election to examine whether spin techniques developed for the 20^th century media model are now outdated and ineffective in the 21^st century.

This post picks up from previous discussions on how a lack of trust virtually makes political communication ineffective. It examines how ‘controlling the message’ is the essence of 20th century spin and the big mistake being made by communicators is thinking this remains the core of 21st century spinning.

Could social media help build trust?

Old spin controlled the government-citizen relationship by managing what went into the media, thus shaping the environment in which people made political choices.

The new media landscape, however, provides government the opportunity to cut out the media and talk to the citizen directly. This ‘voter-centred social networking’ was fundamental to Obama’s ability to win office.

The ‘corruption of communication’ encouraged these new forms of communication. Social media is defined as ‘media for social interaction’ and sees the creation and exchange of user-generated content, allowing citizen voices to be heard. By its very nature, it represents a greater equality in communication mediums, as opposed to mainstream media.

By choosing to engage in this space, government can be seen to be respecting the nature of the space, that every voice can be heard, and most definitively, that you don’t control it.  This inspires an authenticity that can also inspire trust.

From a purely strategic perspective, spinners should at least understand that social media offers a very effective way of more directly connecting with and influencing the constituency as well as building consensus through government-to-people, people-to-government and even people-to-people communication.

It may just be that a side effect to this 21^st century campaigning is that it also provides an opportunity for politicians to gain back the most valuable of political capital, trust. And, perhaps success in the new media space, may encourage new success as well as rejuvenated techniques in the traditional media space.

Social media in the 21^st century - what spin was for the 20^th century

Using social media in political campaigning is the most obvious sign spin is evolving to fit the media market of the 21^st century. Obama used these tools to help him win office, Clinton didn’t and lost.

Having taken that on board the Secretary of State is now such an advocate she is referred to as the “godmother of 21^st century statecraft”, the program at the forefront of the Administration’s moves to experiment with and adopt new ways to interact with the public including YouTube and text messaging.

See the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking about 21st century statecraft on YouTube here.

Gaining control means losing control

Maybe the ‘real Julia’ gets it, through her apparent rejection of the “very risk averse standard campaign model” in the midst of the recent election and her acknowledgment then, that “…people are right to worry that modern campaigning is too managed and too tightly scripted”.

Perhaps she also understands “the 21^st century is a really terrible time to be a control freak”, wise words spoken by Jared Cohen in the NY Times article Digital Diplomacy. Cohen along with Alec Ross heads up 21^st century statecraft.

Finally, I’ll finish with these wise words in the same NY Times article, where Clay Shirky, a New York University professor says on the issue of whether or not politicians should engage in social media: “the loss of control you fear is already in the past. You do not actually control the message, and if you believe you control the message, it merely means you no longer understand what is going on.”

The final and fourth post will examine Ms Gillard’s apparent rejection of the “very risk adverse standard campaign model” in the context of the election result.

Ruci Fixter

Many people consider that online communication platforms such as YouTube and Facebook provide a light-hearted medium which has little or no legal risks or consequences. This, however, is not the case and if you are a communication professional using these social media platforms to promote a product or issue you need to know about consumer protection laws.

If you aren’t familiar with the relevant laws and you are not compliant (or where you are familiar with those laws and are still not compliant), you may not only find yourself in hot judicial waters, but you are also risking the integrity of your brand, corporate image and your own individual reputation, not to mention the wrath of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), the supervising regulator.

Don’t let PR be misleading or deceptive

Sue Gilchrist, Partner, Freehills, told Frocomm’s 2010 New Media Summit that all online communication amounts to a representation subject to Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) to the same extent as extent as in traditional media:

A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

Sue urged communication professionals to remember your (or your client’s or employer’s) “intention is irrelevant”. Although it may seem obvious to you that it is a PR-generated testimonial, or that a blog contains somebody’s personal opinion, “not everyone is savvy” and you could be engaging in a misleading or deceptive communication.

Sue told the conference that if a case does proceed to court, there are a few things the court will consider in determining whether there has been misleading or deceptive conduct, including:

• the class of persons likely to be misled
• the standard of intelligence, astuteness or gullibility of this class, otherwise known as the ‘the reasonable person test’.

New media platforms and section 52

The court will also take into account other relevant factors, including the nature of new media formats and their potential audiences. For example, platforms such as YouTube are accessible by a very wide range of people which means that the class of persons who must be misled in relation to activities on such platforms is likely to include people of very different levels of astuteness or gullibility.

Since the court is likely to consider the position of the least astute and most gullible members of this class when determining whether consumers will be or are likely to be misled, activities in new media carry a particular risk of misleading at least some consumers.

It is therefore important to consider the full range of consumers who are likely to come into contact with your new media activities.

However, this is not to say that the emergence of new media has made it more difficult for communication professionals to adhere to section 52. The important thing to remember is that the same consumer protection rules apply to new media as they do to more traditional media. So communication professionals should take the same precautions to avoid misleading consumers in new media.

Indeed, activities on new media platforms may be comparable to national newspaper or TVC campaign in terms of their reach, scope and exposure to consumers of varying levels of astuteness.

Although some communication professionals may see section 52 as an obstacle to their creativity, it is important to remember that section 52 plays an important role in protecting consumers by helping to ensure that consumer-facing activities are not misleading or deceptive. Compliance with this principle will also help build consumer trust in a brand or its products. Your creative talent will be engaged even more in ensuring creativity and compliance.

The courts will generally allow a certain amount of “puffery” and creativity in communication designed to sell a product or promote a brand. Section 52 does not prevent communication professionals focussing on the positives of their brand or product.

What section 52 will do, however, is require that communications are balanced and, so, where communication focus so heavily on the positives that it risks misrepresenting the product and/or creating an overall impression that is potentially misleading, those positives may need to be limited and the negatives specifically disclosed.

What can communication professionals learn from Ian Turpie?

An example of a case which came to the attention of the ACCC was TV personality Ian Turpie’s spruiking of nasal spray for erectile dysfunction for the Advanced Medical Institute (AMI) back in 2004, despite him not suffering from this condition.

In addition to pursuing AMI and Mr Turpie, the ACCC can and will pursue individuals who have knowingly been involved and in this case also pursued the AMI advertising agent that drafted the advertisement. The Court held AMI, Mr Turpie and the advertising agent to have contravened the Trade Practices Act (and awarded costs against both AMI and the agent). The ACCC used this “decision as a warning to advertising agents who play an important role in the preparation and/or publication of advertisements on behalf of their clients.”

Misleading the public can damage your brand and your own reputation

Even if misleading and deceptive conduct does not result in legal action, misleading consumers can damage your brand and your own organisation. An example more specific to new media was the YouTube video of a girl’s romantic quest to find her “man in the jacket”, which turned out to be a company generated video used to promote Witchery’s new men’s line.

This was a campaign that was heavily criticised by the media, which were more than a little annoyed for taking the bait: “If the CEOs of Naked Communications and Witchery think that the media will forgive and forget being lied to, then the biggest joke is on them.”

The public also didn’t seem that impressed with being fooled by a girl whose apparent search for love took her all the way to The Today Show, the hosts asked her if it was a hoax, which she denied.

Witchery and Naked Communications, the agency responsible, are not the first or last to use social media in this way. But the commentary around the issue focused on the lack of remorse, and indeed arrogance, from Witchery and Naked once the deception came to light and this may have contributed to the campaign being received so negatively.

ACCC vs. Google - a world first

The ACCC is currently taking action in what is a world-first against Google Inc for allegedly deceptive conduct related to sponsored links on its websites. The ACCC says that Google claims to rank search results by relevance, but it actually engages in deceptive conduct by selling off the top positions to commercial partners. This case is currently being played out in the Federal Court.

What you need to know to stay out of trouble

In summary, if you want to achieve effective online communication, it pays to follow these basic rules as outlined by Sue:

• Where a communication is an advertisement, ensure clear disclosure that is it advertising
• Claims must be based on reliable and current information
• Take care that the overall impression is not misleading
• If engaging in comparative advertising:
  • identify the scope and comparison
  • undertake due diligence on the competitors product
  • make sure relevant brands are protected.

Good luck! (And watch your back…)

So, the big question, dear reader, is have YOU been busted for being a naughty PR/public affairs pro? Please, do tell? Or do you have any tales of woe and warning to share? Don’t be shy, we won’t sue!

Ruci Fixter

A full report on Frocomm’s 2010 New Media Summit, featuring leading Australian marketing, PR and social media pros and can be downloaded at Public relations and managing reputation).

Julia Gillard’s political woes shine the light on the failure of modern day spinners clinging desperately to a political communication technique invented for the 20^th century model of mass media. In the 21^st century, these techniques are proving increasingly out of date and so dangerously ineffective it could lose Labor an election when spin, ironically, should be key to winning elections…

Standard and well known spin techniques such as the ’seven second grab’, key messages, catchy slogans and carefully controlled media management have all backfired spectacularly for Ms Gillard. All of a sudden, these tricks look very dated prompting her to publicly reject this “very risk averse standard campaign model” and re-introduce herself as the “real Julia” in a desperate search for authenticity.

This move was a somewhat startling acknowledgment that the usual spin simply wasn’t ‘cutting through’. Techniques designed to win were, in fact, conspiring towards losing Labor the election.

Focus groups - unfairly dumping leaders for false infidelity?

So how is it the ALP’s crack campaign team, seasoned professionals whose job it is to know the business inside out, couldn’t predict that this ‘old spin’, on its own, wouldn’t work? They should have been even more aware of the dangers, given the current levels of cynicism around how Julia assumed office.

In fact, one almost wonders if there was even a communication strategy in place to deal with how the electorate may have responded to Rudd’s unprecedented and brutal assassination. Or was it so clever we almost missed it…?

Many people place the bulk of the blame for the campaign’s rocky ride at the feet of NSW Right leader Mark Arbib, who both secured and destroyed Rudd’s leadership. It is not only the role he is believed to have played in convincing Rudd to dump the ETS, a turning point for voters, but the risk averse, poll-centric, NSW Labor Right strategy, that he along with long term friend and campaign director Karl Bitar have continued to push as the best campaign model.

But it appears that the result has been panicky politics driven by focus group research, which has seen leaders dumped like 20-somethings dump lovers over false infidelities. Many argue their use of the focus group results is not accurate or effective.

Former staffer in the Carr and Iemma Governments, Mark Aarons, explains their technique involves targeting the least politically committed voters in marginal seats. Their theory is that “…these people determine who win government and their views should therefore predominate in policy-setting. In a bizarre reversal of conventional political wisdom, leadership is redefined as following such people by pandering to them.”

Aarons’ experience was that this strategy “led the (Iemma) government up a blind alley”, not reflecting mainstream voters who hated the policy idea” (in this instance the Kurnell desalination plant).

However, most say there is little wonder the Arbib-Bitar partnership believe in this model. Arguably it has won them office in NSW since 1995 and, maybe, even the Kevin 07 election. Why fix it if it ain’t broke? But election 2010 seems to have broken the mould. Time will ultimately tell.

Old spin doesn’t work for ‘real Julia’

These campaigns have been largely stage managed spin-fuelled fiestas, and none more than Kevin 07. And as Michael Gawenda points out in Business Spectator, Gillard 2010 is in many ways no more or no less stage managed than Kevin 07 was.

However, what is different is that she has only been PM for six weeks and the way in which Rudd was deposed. Going to the polls seems rushed…standard NSW campaigning?

What is interesting and maybe very clever spin, is this point made by Gawenda:

“Gillard had two major problems coming into this campaign: she had been involved in the assassination of Rudd and she was a woman. Gillard and her advisors, it seems, decided that any sign of aggression, of passion or even vision, would be turned against her - she would be seen as an angry, pitiless, female, political executioner. So for the first two weeks of the campaign she behaved as if she was on Prozac.”

So maybe this strategy was deliberate all along.

Play the standard orchestrated campaign cardboard cut-out; let it look like you are being played by the ‘faceless men’, because anything else would make you look like “an angry, pitiless, female, political executioner”.

And then announce the arrival of ‘real Julia’, who it now looks like has been brave enough to stand up to said men, and indulge the electorate with a soft, approachable and benevolent female leader.

Maybe sexist attitudes towards women in power have been grossly overlooked in how this campaign could and needed to be played.

It might actually be very clever indeed - an all together cleverer ‘new’ spin, a planned emergence of the real Julia as a natural evolution of the Gillard personality.

But then, the long term damage to the Labor party, brought about by the scary power of the faceless men, now emblazoned in the psyche of the electorate, still seems a high price to pay for this approach.

Using Julia Gillard and the current Federal Election as a case study, this is the first in a 4 part series examining whether spin techniques effectively developed for the 20^th century media model  are  now outdated and ineffective in the 21^st century. Post 2 looks at the ineffectiveness of ‘old spin’, the role of the media, and the trust deficit. Post 3 examines whether social media can help build trust and how the future of spinning lies in losing control. The final and fourth post will examine Ms Gillard’s apparent rejection of the “very risk averse standard campaign model” in the context of the election result.

Crowdsourcing is, alternatively, a ’super charged suggestion box’ or a ‘cheap way of ripping off ideas’. But however it is described, it can help integrate audiences and business processes, deliver tangible business outcomes and engage with stakeholders in a meaningful way, claimed Dan Young, Director - Digital, Burson-Marsteller at Frocomm’s 2010 New Media Summit.

The power of crowds was an overarching theme of 2010’s New Media Summit, which is not surprising given social media’s comms cred. Though one sometimes wonders if the ultimate professional communication is an each-way bet:

• Personalisation/niche vs. attempts to reach millions/billions of eyeballs
• Word of mouth (a la real mouths - i.e. old school) vs. Online viral (new school WOM)
• Doing ‘it’ to keep up with the comms Joneses vs. actually being skilled enough to deliver results.

Nick Holmes a Court, Executive Director of BuzzNumbers, also had crowds on his mind when speaking at the summit. He spoke about analysing online crowds and utilising their power to help drive communication programs forward. Nick (@nickhac) referred to Dunbar’s number: “150…the cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.”

The logical corollary to this is that if organisations think they can control large numbers of people based on the assumption that they have a reliable, solid relationship with them - think again!

Trust in crowds, organisations and public relations

Nick’s presentation was relevant to all topics at the conference as he referred to the trust consumers have in different modes of communication, the utility of digital communication, analysing crowds and making a success of online communication. It will come as no surprise to learn recommendations from people you know are the most influential form of ‘advertising’, but one stat from Nick’s source jumped out:

• Consumer opinions posted online and brand websites generate an equally high degree of trust (70%).

Now figure that one out. It supports the argument, and seems counter to propositions advocated by the likes of Fleischman-Hillard’s Napoleon Biggs (at this very summit) that social media has significantly more influence than corporate websites. David Meerman Scott has argued for the corporate website side of the debate and I have also asked is PR missing the main digital game by focusing too much on social media at the expense of corporate website content?

Crowds, though…can they be trusted? Well, Nick said they have transient memberships and there is a low risk to being a member of an online crowd. So their devotion and loyalty seems a questionable and unreliable quantity.

However, due to the ease with which one can join an online crowd, the many means of discovering this crowd (not to mention the many means through which one can exhibit behaviour in the online environment) and the compounding interest and impact a crowd can have…can organisations afford to miss leveraging the crowd wherever possible? Nick certainly discussed some powerful cases studies to support his assertion that, in many cases, the answer is no.

But perhaps the punch line is this: the internet is the 2^nd most influential source (after TV) of information - and TV is in its sights. That, and his comment that consumers are becoming advocates in the new social media-enabled world, should give organisations a wake up call if they are not already engaged with the digital reality.

Dan Young

The heart of the crowds

“Engagement between a brand and its customers can take many forms,” said Dan Young (@danieljohnyoung). “It can be as simple as talking. It can mean engagement through advocates. And it can relate to support.

“But the richest form of engagement is embracing. In this area, brands are involving all customers. Most commonly, this takes the form of audience integration with business processes.”

In essence, Dan said, this is crowdsourcing.

Or, more fully: “Crowdsourcing provides opportunities for brands or government agencies to tap into the creativity, experience and wisdom of a mass group of people. It provides a tool for understanding what stakeholders really want.”

It provides a fantastic opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of these communities. And by involving the crowd in a meaningful project, brands can engage and embrace these audience groups.  So it all has an holistic, integrated and ‘full-circle’ dimension.

Arguably the greatest value of crowdsourcing is that it provides an opportunity for an organisation to learn about it stakeholders’ preferences and positions on issues, then work in a collaborative manner to adapt its processes, products and behaviour to better meet their needs. Sounds like close to a perfect manifestation of Web 2.0’s potential.

Jeff Howe of Wired Magazine, who coined the crowdsourcing term, said it, “forces companies to approach us as potential partners”, and that organisational stakeholders, “get to participate meaningfully in the process”. It is changing the nature of the basic business model, he argues in this presentation.

Dan persuasively discussed a number of very successful crowdsourcing campaigns by the likes of Ford, Threadless, Dell, New Zealand Police and more. But perhaps the most significant example was The Guardian’s use of crowdsourcing to help it evaluate and prioritise a range of documents relevant to British MPs rorting their expense accounts.

• Readers reviewed more than 170,000 expense documents in the first 80 hours
• About 27,000 readers reviewed more than 220,000 pages of submissions
• It created a wealth of exclusive leads and copy for the paper and, in the process, enriched its relationship with, and advocacy from, its readers to a significant degree.

The crowdsourcing take-away

Dan’s final tips on the specifics of crowdsourcing were to bear some key dimensions in mind:

1.       Don’t ask your stakeholders to do too much - you need to ask them to invest a reasonable amount of time and make it easy for them to participate

2.       You’ll need to put very clear guidelines in place about how your customers can interact with the crowdsourcing program

3.       But you also need to be prepared to lose control - like a good brainstorm.  Many wrong answers may eventually lead to the right answer

4.       Play to the sense of community but also recognise individual contributions - this will provide people with the incentive to participate and share

5.       Finally, and most importantly, don’t make the mistake that Kraft made with iSnack 2.0 - allow the community to determine success.  This indicates respect for their perspective and insights and will deliver value to your organisation in the long run.

As an added bonus, ICT and PR professional Jan Willem Alphenaar has put together a useful and interesting presentation on crowdsourcing that is well worth checking as well.

“Search is the reputation gateway,” said Napoleon Biggs, VP Digital Fleischmann-Hillard Asia at Frocomm’s 2010 New Media Summit. And whilst this claim seems accurate in our web-wound up world, his claims that social media will soon be the primary source of information on organisations, rather than the latter’s corporate site, is not aligned with the views of commentators such as David Meerman Scott.

Yet, as Facebook now ranks as the number one go-to website over Google in the US, there is evidence to suggest Napoleon is on the money. It seems a fair assumption that many of the visits to Facebook will be to seek information (in a social sort of way, of course) on organisations, products and services.

Napoleon (@webwednesday) mentioned the rather scary notion of 440 million people around the world sharing their opinions on Facebook alone. You can’t blame organisations and brands for quaking a little in their gumboots just a little - all that control they used to have…gone in the click of a mouse!

Communication, engagement…or a ‘listening brief’?

So what should organisations do about this? Engage? Or continue the command-and-control paradigm (or, in the communication context, the broadcast rather than engage model) that may have served them quite well in the past? Or are there alternatives to the reductive black and white scenario?

As much as the contemporary communicator is schooled in the notion of dialogue and engagement above all else, even James Grunig said there is a time and a place for two-way asymmetrical communication (i.e. communication taking place that maintains an organisation’s ‘power’ over its stakeholders or, to put it another way, not communicating, not engaging and probably just listening).

And it may simply be because of the nature of the organisation, or the nature of the issue, that a bunkering down approach is taken. It doesn’t necessarily mean an organisation is seeking to maintain any sort of Machiavellian control.

The march towards dialogue also has ramifications for the marketing element of professional communication. All this talk of engagement has changed the language of marketing, but I doubt very much whether it has changed its essential behaviour or processes.

Marketing is still there to identify a need, turn it into a want and sell the living daylights out of it. Just because there is a conversation around the process doesn’t change its essential intent or objective.

Approaches to professional digital communication

Napoleon’s presentation had a strong focus on China, with an underlying key message being that, as always, professional communicators need to:

• customise content and messages for different stakeholders or target audiences
• utilise the communication mechanisms that are most salient for an organisation’s target audiences.

His tips on utilising social media?

• Digital is raw, live: don’t stand back and vacillate. Get in there and get active
• Don’t try to fake it - online is a unique environment where mistakes are amplified and permanent
• Strategic and proactive offence (i.e. communication) is the best defence for an organisation’s reputation…so build relationships by engaging with organisational advocates AND naysayers.

When in a crisis situation, Napoleon said social media needs to be monitored to determine:

• what/who are the conversation/information sources and how is it spreading?
• who are the influencers?
• what is the emotional context?
• what actions are crisis participants taking?

This information is vital in determining what crisis management responses organisations should take. Fundamentally, however, you should have a game plan prepared, advised Napoleon. And one of the key strategic elements of this game plan is no doubt being flexible.

The online environment is not stable. Left-field is where you can expect your next challenge to come from!

Corporate websites: the digital sanctuary?

One of the interesting elements of what is not being spoken about terribly much in public relations circles (and did not seem to be flagged at all during the New Media Summit - not ‘new’ enough?!) is ‘content’.

Now, the content of an organisation’s website is potentially the element that will attract the most possible eyeballs. And lead to the greatest amount of engagement.

So why aren’t PR pros talking about this? Why aren’t they pitching it to potential clients? What focus is occurring here regarding the strategy and tactical/technical skills to make a difference to organisations and their stakeholders?

This is especially important when Napoleon makes the point that people are using the web for purchasing advice. Don’t organisations want to get in on the action of leveraging, highlighting and/or influencing the advice that is given?

Sure, there will be hesitation and scepticism from many in utilising content provided by organisations, but with the power of SEO and the resources that organisations have at their disposal, it would seem a potent opportunity they have at their fingertips.

And are consumers really so gullible to think that organisation-initiated, sponsored, moderated and, yes, even involved or monitored social media dialogues are completely free of an organisation’s grip?

As the web is a fractured environment full of dissenting voices, most of them small in stature and characterised by inconsistency and a lack of evidence for their assertions, organisational websites are almost like the calm amongst the storm: a digital sanctuary.

Also, organisations should be employing strategic communication approaches such as strategic alliances and thought leadership. Using such approaches gives the organisation 3^rd party credibility and content that their stakeholders will value.

This, then, supports their attempts to have their websites (and, by extension, themselves) perceived as being credible.

Corporate websites or social media as an organisation’s communication/engagement hub? Either/or? Is there another paradigm? Command and control…or a blend? Another paradigm? What do you think about Napoleon’s points and this discussion?

A full and comprehensive report on Frocomm’s 2010 New Media Summit, featuring leading Australian marketing, PR and social media pros and can be downloaded at Public relations and managing reputation). The report captures key points made at the summit, provides additional perspectives from the speakers and analyses their thoughts.

Craig Pearce

Related posts

• Free report: PR at war – opinion explosion at social media summit
• Strategic communication with Facebook
• Social media communication generating trust

The value, and key, to utilising the world’s social media darling to its full extent lies in comprehensive targeting, compelling advertising, putting product in users’ hands and continuing the relationship with communication that truly engages with, and provides value to, target audiences…said Paul Borrud, General Manager, Facebook Australia, at Frocomm’s 2010 New Media Summit (a full report on the summit, featuring leading Australian marketing, PR and social media pros and can be downloaded at Public relations and managing reputation).

Paul’s presentation was timely. Facebook is everywhere. In 2010 it has gone ballistic in the virtual sense. If there is one social media brand to have your hands all over right now, Facebook is it.

It is the most visited website in the US, outranking even Google, though it still doesn’t have Google’s reach.  And Facebook is the most searched term across search engines.

This raises important issues for communicators:

• Is social media (or more specifically, Facebook!) where greater resources should be directed rather than Google Adwords, corporate websites, SEO etc (in both the digital and overarching comms mix)?
• Is social media (or, once again, just Facebook) where searches for information are, or will primarily, take place for information?
• Is the sort of information and the type of communication that occurs within Facebook something that public relations professionals are able to control?

Other facts to raise the communicator’s eyebrow include:

• Over seven million Australians are ‘active’ Facebook users
• Globally, it has over 400 million active users
• In Australia, over 35s is the fastest growing sector
• 18-24 year olds are the core group of users, with 79% of those engaged using it more than email, 38% more than mobile phones and 35% more than any other ‘communication device’
• Facebook operates in 75 languages
• Three billion+ photos are uploaded on to Facebook each month (and this is not a ‘photo site’)
• 20 million users become fans of pages each day.

Thoughts on communication strategy

From a strategic communication perspective, Paul advocated integrating all brand extensions into the same fan page, rather than running a different fan page for each product. Over time, there can be a focus on different products (or services) at different times.

Certainly, this solves one of professional communicators’ greatest dilemmas, that of consistently generating quality content of interest to target audiences.

On the other hand, however, who is to say the brand of one product, despite being the property of a single organisation, will suit the tastes/aspirations/etc of another brand/product? Will it lead to a weakening of individual brands’ equity? Classic marketing thinking would seem to suggest so.

Paul defined his approach to communication into three phases:

• Build a fan base
• Use fans as a focus group
• Launch new product.

As with any form of social media, Paul said a basic premise of using Facebook for commercial purposes is to provide value to your network (or fans).

Somewhat conversely, Paul said to apply the 70/30 rule (i.e. get your network to provide 70% of the content and you just provide 30% - great thought! Easier said than done, though no doubt the clever strategist will come up with solutions to this formidable challenge.)

The notion of authenticity is social media 101, of course. In fact, it should be strategic public relations 101, but that’s another story. A manifestation of this in a commercial sense is, as Paul said, “Asking for forgiveness, not permission.” This has at least two implications:

• Get stuck into social media. Don’t hang around waiting and watching. The only way to leverage is to participate
• Whilst being sensitive to the needs of your stakeholders is of course important, so is realising that mistakes are made. Social media is a new field. It’s okay to step out of line if your intentions are good (if they aren’t, go back to PR school), so say you’re sorry and you’ll try harder to get it right next time: but don’t hang around waiting for someone to say, ‘yes, you may give this a try now’.

As Paul said after the summit, “Conversations about brands are happening regardless of whether or not the brands want to take part. They can be a passive observer or an active participant. When you’re active you can shape your brand in front of a large audience, which will pay dividends.”

There are doubtless some nuances to Paul’s claim that organisations can shape their brand. Plenty of pundits have espoused that it is not organisations that shape brands, it is those who use them. Social media has accelerated this ability of brand ‘users’ to shape what constitutes a brand (i.e. what it represents).

So the notion of who is controlling or shaping a brand is a field ripe for debate and further insight.

Facebook outranking market research?

The issue of using fans as a focus group is a particularly interesting application of a social network. On the one hand it is engaging with target audiences so an organisation can adapt a product and adapt its communication to suit the needs and preferences of those it is seeking to sell to.

But on the other hand this is using two-way symmetrical communication purely to sell a product, rather than do the target audience any big favours. It is marketing adopting a best practice public relations methodology to dress up its profit-making objective.  But it is doing so in a very transparent manner, so it is hard to argue that everyone isn’t a winner through this process.

Another interesting dimension of using social media for research is whether social media:

• will overtake formal market research as a means to determine target audience needs and wants
• become a standard means through which to test potential products’ and services’ market potential and effectiveness
• develop methodologies for communication metrics to be developed that clearly elucidate the effectiveness of professional communication to achieve business-relevant results.

Social media conversations: who if profiting?

Paul was adamant that social media is about relationships, not marketing. Yet Facebook (like many other forms of social media), is a mechanism that exists, at least partially, for advertisers, marketers and public relations professionals to help organisations achieve their business objectives.

So the mentality that says ’social media is about relationships, not marketing’ is either specious or, in fact, social media is facilitating a new way to do business, a new way for organisations to think. This is an approach that has been articulated before, but it is worth reiterating:

• The dialogic characteristics of social media are forcing organisations to talk more with their target audiences and stakeholders than they might have pre-social media
• It seems logical to hypothesise that increased dialogue leads to increased understanding which, finally, leads to organisations actually wanting to change their behaviour as a whole (not just in the context of communication)
• The rationale underpinning this is that if an increased number of conversations occur between an organisation and its stakeholders, then unless the needs and preferences of those stakeholders impact on the way an organisation behaves, then those conversations will eventually be seen by stakeholders as meaningless. This, in turn, is liable to lead to compromised relationships, a less favourable organisational reputation and, ultimately, a failure to meet business objectives.

The critical upshot question for Facebook

Is there a risk that its seeming increasing use by marketers will devalue the Facebook brand, one founded on the notion of sharing personal information and networking with friends?

Commerce is everywhere these days (McDonald’s provides encouragement awards/meal vouchers to my son’s soccer and Nippers clubs - much to my chagrin) and people seem very open to commercial intrusion into their lives. So maybe it’s a null and void question/argument.

Certainly, the internet is a pretty social and open environment, so it’s hard to argue that its mechanical communication devices should be devoid of commercial trappings. But there does seem something paradoxical about the notion of personal networking and the commercialism that Facebook’s business model seems predicated on.

It’s unlikely, however, that this will impact on Facebook’s utility as both a social networking tool and a means for professional communicators to facilitate engagement between an organisation/brand and its stakeholders.

Focusing on Facebook results

Paul concluded his presentation by reminding attendees of what to focus on:

• Leveraging the social graph
• Building your brand and shaping it
• Get started and iterate
• Develop a conversational calendar.

A full report on Frocomm’s 2010 New Media Summit, featuring leading Australian marketing, PR and social media pros and can be downloaded at Public relations and managing reputation).

Craig Pearce

This is a summary of a post more fully explored at Public relations and managing reputation.

Social media is a double-edged sword for crisis communication. On the one hand, it allows issues to be identified, monitored and managed extremely quickly. It also allows for real-time interaction with stakeholders, providing a mechanism through which disinformation ’spot fires’ can be put out before they turn into raging bushfires.

But that’s the good news! The flip side is that, as Laurel Papworth has observed, social media has a ripple effect. It allows for news to spread - yes, that burning metaphor again - like wildfire. And nothing sells quite like bad news.

These fiery themes were all-pervasive at a Frocomm crisis communication and social media summit. Other key take-outs included:

• having social media guidelines in place before engaging fully through social media and, as per any crisis situation, being as prepared as possible
• knowing who the influencers on opinion are likely to be and proactively forming positive relationships with them (as they might assist in facilitating and optimising message clarity through the stress and disinformation of a crisis ‘bushfire’)
• not necessarily immediately jumping in to a situation that looks like a crisis: use social media tools to monitor and assess the situation’s genesis and then determine an appropriate response
• that the first six hours of the ’situation’ are critical in determining what the best response will be.

Further salient points that the range of articulate and well qualified speakers made included:

• Social media is a part of communication, not separate from it, so tactics such as traditional media and direct stakeholder communication need to be integrated with the social media dimension
• A crisis is no place to learn about social media;
• The importance of discipline.

Leadership

Leadership was a sub-text of many aspects of the summit.

It was apparent in the mere fact that a relatively recent (but now pretty much accepted part of the professional communication tool box) phenomena such as social media was being discussed as a vital part of such a sensitive process as crisis communication.

It was apparent in the assertion that engaging with stakeholders takes fortitude and strong leadership.

And it was apparent in the notion that by standing tall and taking responsibility for an organisation’s actions (and that includes failings and faults) takes leadership and vision, as a short-term crisis may in fact galvanise an organisation to transform itself into an entity more in line with stakeholder expectations. This, as I constantly reiterate, is likely to help an organisation and its stakeholders form more mutually beneficial, and hence sustainable, long term relationships.

So, what are your thoughts on information in this post? Is social media being used actively enough by business to manage a crisis? Can you give some good and bad examples?

Craig Pearce

The defining theme that, arguably, characterises the world’s leading authority on public relations, Professor James Grunig, extensive, career-long discussion of public relations is this: organisations that proactively create mutually meaningful and mutually beneficial relationships with their stakeholders, including anticipating issues and actively communicating with them during crises:

“…should be more likely to develop relationships with their publics that make it possible to achieve organisational objectives, develop a positive reputation, and reduce the consequences of poor relationships on the implementation of management decisions.”*

“In some ways,” Grunig says, “Public relations has not been changed by the revolution in digital media.” The illusion of stakeholders being controlled existed before and it still exists now. Stakeholders create their own reality. The only way to impact on this reality is to engage and share information, to evolve based on this sharing and to enhance the meaning that relationships bring.

He made this comment in his recently published article, Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation (Praxis, a digital PR resource centre.) The article had as its central point the potential that social media has to, “truly revolutionalise public relations - but only if a paradigm shift in the thinking of many practitioners and scholars takes place.”

A full discussion of this article has appeared in a number of posts on Public relations and managing reputation and the PR Warrior.

Global public relations in an age of digitalisation: the story so far

The posts explored:

• how social media has complicated stakeholder targeting and communication
• the notion of ‘giving’ that characterises both public relations and social media
• the lack of control that organisations have over their stakeholders
• the participation required to utilise social media to its full effect
• the dialectic between reputation and engagement for organisational stakeholders
• social media as an issues management activity.

What social media can do for public relations

Social media, Grunig says, has “the potential to make the profession more global, strategic, two-way and interactive, symmetrical or dialogical, and socially responsible.” This will not occur, he warns, if PR pros use it as a means of “dumping messages”,

Social media, if not the ideal way to create this meaning (surely it is direct, interpersonal, face-to-face interaction which still rules here), is clearly becoming more and more influential in this regard.

Human beings are increasingly relying on these forms of communication. For some, social media/digital communication dominates their reality. And, certainly, the information they receive through these mediums, has a considerable degree of credibility. It has been argued that this is due to much of this information coming from individuals, rather than organisations.

Social media is providing public relations with an opportunity to reinforce its importance to business and society. The profession is, in many cases, trying to take advantage of this opportunity. The question is, will it succeed?

The answer, according to Grunig, is only if we institutionalise public relations as a strategic management discipline, one that provides a vitally important element to business strategy and organisational culture.

What are your thoughts on Grunig’s thoughts and on this series of posts? Did you find them of value? Were there any aspects, arguments or thoughts you disagreed with? How can public relations enhance its professional standing and achieve its potential? What role or opportunity does social media have to play in this?

Craig Pearce

This could be a little weird to read in a blog… but I was watching an episode of ‘Californication’ the other day - and I stumbled across this fantastic quote…
For those who don’t know the show - this extract is a quote from an author speaking on a radio about his new job as a ‘blog writer’. He says:

“People… they don’t write anymore - they blog. Instead of talking, they text, no punctuation, no grammar: LOL this and LMFAO that. You know, it just seems to me it’s just a bunch of stupid people pseudo-communicating with a bunch of other stupid people in a proto-language that resembles more what cavemen used to speak than the King’s English.”

Now I have to agree. There are some people out there who think that by smashing a few thoughts or ideas on a keyboard and posting it on the web - they are indeed opening the lines of communication in a significantly more profound and diverse way the oldies of the previous generations would ever have dreamed they would be able to do.

I guess this school of thought is somewhat true. Instead of the good old telegram, telex, letter, telephone call, or chit-chat over coffee or lunch - all of which (except the telephone) take at least a marginal amount of effort, thought or forward planning to get going… - Today - we can simply text, blog, chat, tweet and status update all day to our hearts content, and we don’t even really need to think about it. I guess it also effectively gets the message (whatever it may be) out there and across for the all of your mates to see!

But - in doing this, what are we actually doing for the English language, or indeed for our refined and defined (…some more than others) interpersonal communication skills?

Another question: How long has it been since you pulled out a blank piece of paper and wrote a letter to someone, using correct language, diction, grammar and spelling? No spell-check or “fragment consider revising”?

Now, I’m not judging anyone - nor am I saying that it really matters when the last time you partook in this archaic method of communication actually was… but for many, many, many years this was the ultimate method of communication.

Even when the Fax machine was born… you still needed something written on paper in order for the ’state-of-the-art’ facsimile technology to do its bit.

If the technological means of communication today, namely email, blogging and tweeting simply enhance our ability to “traditionally” interact and communicate… I say bring it on! - It opens up the doors and multiplies the contact points one thousand fold and allows all of us to refine our command and mastering of the English language!

However, if we are indeed destroying the traditional means of interaction and communication by sitting at a desk, on a train or in a car “updating” the world through LOL, BRB, LMFAO, ROFL, and whatever other acronyms there are out there, through blogs and quirky-funny one liners, never actually having to spell a word, or for that matter know how to use that little thing you need to use when making one of those little smiling faces,  I ask you world… what is happening to the skills the ancients once mastered?

I guess more importantly I ask - do they in fact matter anymore?

Do we need to know how to write, to spell or to punctuate?

(NOTE: Any pedantic, high-school English teacher out there that notices any spelling, grammatical, punctuation or factual errors in this piece of literature - are to be reminded that this is in fact a blog… and is thus exempt from English language usage rules and regulations)

Semicolon, dash, close-parenthesis…
Nathan.

PS. If you ever get stuck understanding the new world lingo - check this out… it may help!