PR FROM THE BEACH

Two degrees off integration

2degrees mobile ran its 'press launch' this morning, leaving me questioning why they couldn't tell us all at the same time. Why run a 'press launch', when you can tell me yourselves? After all - I am your potential customer and you already know I am listening.

At 9am, when the 'launch' ran, the 2degrees site and blog were not updated with the long anticipated pricing information. As one of 20,000 people the company says pre-registered, why didn't they email me with details instead of sending me a patronising and vague 'we'll send you your SIM sometime soon' message? They have my mobile number too, so text would have done the job. A neat, direct contact that would have had me waiting in line tomorrow morning to look at the phones on offer and become a happy customer. Indeed, had they done so, 2degrees and I would now be holding hands, smiling at each other and starting a lovely new relationship.

But no. Instead, the only information I got was via a brief Twitter stream, presumably from the media conference.

It is very good news that there will be a phone company operating in New Zealand offering us value for money and that the cell phone noose held tight by Vodafone and Telecom has been loosened but somehow the shiny, friendly launch was dulled by the lack of joined-up thinking on communication.

Companies and organisations need to realise that if they are using social media tools to engage with their communities - whether their aim is to generate a purchase or provide a service - they need to engage directly with those communities and not give precedence to old-school mainstream media techniques  mostly concerned with vanity coverage as opposed to real outcomes.

Which do you think is more powerful?  Direct communication with 20,000 engaged, potential customers who will not only spread your message by word of mouth wildfire and spend the cash necessary to support you or filtered communication with commercially-led mainstream media channels, which, if you check your research, will have dwindling influence among your potential and active communities?

For me, 2degrees demonstrated once again that many organisations do not yet understand that they are no longer simply providers of information, but publishers. And, if they start a dialogue with a group of people, they can't suddenly switch off, ignore the first group and pour their hearts out to someone they assume might be more interesting. A bit like those dreadful networking events were people start a conversation with you but look at their watch and turn away if they believe you are not useful enough.

Organisations today do not have to utilise filtered mainstream media unless that media is a target community of its own. Direct, honest communication with no separation at all between your organisation and your community is the way to go. 2degrees made much of NZ's population knowing someone who knew someone. They had a direct channel to a large group of people and blew their advantage. The effort organising the press launch would have been better directed getting the SIM cards delivered on time tomorrow, rather than telling us we might have to wait a week or so. That way, we would be loaded up with $20 top-ups and they would start to put money in the bank on day one. Instead, we will be twiddling our thumbs in indecision, unsure as to whether to wait for the SIM delivery, buy one or stuff the whole thing and sign up with Vodafone for an iPhone instead (I doubt anyone will look at Telecom as an option, but that's another story).

While two degrees can be a precise measurement, in navigational terms, being two degrees off can take you somewhere you really didn't want to go, leaving you lost or marooned. Let's hope 2degrees remembers who it needs to talk to, as I for one would like to see them give it a go.

Scaring us into recession

Wise words from Phil O’Reilly this morning on breakfast when he suggested that we might just be scaring ourselves into recession, with a lot of help from mainstream media.  The more people are told the sky is about to fall in, the more they will expect it to be so.  As a result, spending stops, demand falls and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Mainstream media has hyped a story that has been running since September 2007 (and a bit before that). A little less hysteria might be the best way forward. It will be interesting to see the results of the ‘jobs summit’ on Friday this week.

When the Celebrity CEO is the brand, the Celebrity CEO must communicate

It seems that the communicators at Apple are not being as switched on and savvy as their neat little gadgets. As I've mentioned before, I have been an Apple girl since the first ones appeared many years ago and while I am devoted to the kit, I have not always felt favourably towards the brand - or its often arrogant approach to its users.

Steve Jobs has made headlines this week because he will be - in the eyes of the users at least - AWOL at the next (and last) MacWorld gathering. Speculation is rife that this is due to the state of his health and pundits predict dire times ahead should he be found to be ill again. Over at the UK Telegraph, they estimate his worth to the brand at $20 billion.  A few bob in anyone's book.

Whether or not he is ill, whether or not he ever pops up again for a lively presentation, his team really should be sorting out the problem of the rumour mill, currently grinding up a crisis for the company ready to replace the issue at hand. For a company working in the technology sector and alive and kicking in the social web, Apple really haven't got to grips with the issue of transparency, trust, engagement and discussion. You and I might be able to take a few days off when we are under the weather, but we are not our organisation's brand-king. Like it or not, Steve Jobs is perceived as the man holding the Apple. He has let it go before and each time it has ended up bruised windfall at the bottom of the tree. So if the wind of change starts shaking the branches, all the stakeholders need to know whether they should be prepared to duck.

If you are going to create a celebrity CEO, give them fair warning. A celebrity CEO is no less at risk from the perils of any other type of celebrity. They are perhaps more so as they carry the responsibility of the business as well as the perception.

In today's business world, if a company opts to tie its brand to the chief, the chief has to fulfill customer expectations and in Apple's case, that means being accessible to the people who engage with the company.  Sadly, this means that even a dose of flu needs to be dealt with publicly and honestly. Unfortunately, Apple has a pretty poor record on this score, being great with successess, but not so good with the tough stuff.

Apple's current situation is a good lesson for any practitioner. Make sure you - and your CEO - understand your communities. Developing understanding and trust is two-way - remember to learn to trust your stakeholders enough to be honest with them (and be brave enough to see this through - it takes courage and commitment). Be clear about your approach and what you will do to ensure safe succession, stakeholder alignment and clear communication - all of which will help both the CEO, should difficult times be ahead, and the community the organisation serves.

Never proof what you don't understand - Welsh road sign points the way

My favourite story of the week (so far) and a blissful relief from New Zealand and US election news comes from Wales. It highlights proof-reading perils for anyone involved with printing of any kind. It is the tale of a road sign, a translation and how both were doomed by someone's automatic email responder.

Financial crisis latest: New Zealand to run out of 'experts'?

It would seem things have got really serious.  Anyone watching Kiwi mainstream media in the last few months may, like me, have begun to conclude that the first visible impact of the global financial crisis here is a total lack of experts in the field.  The  main 'financial' pundit we are faced with day after day at the moment is Bernard Hickey.  He seems to have been elevated to the role of chief national commentator. He is in fact, a career journalist and the editor-in-chief of a financial website. The ubiquitous - and I must say very personable and charming - Bernard can be found speaking at conferences, interviewed on Close Up or Campbell Live, adding his tuppence-happeny on the news or the latest doco-style coverage. And not just on the financials either - Bernard is called upon to comment on everything from stock dives to the latest technology. I think he may have even popped up during fashion week. And good on him for stepping into the breach at such a crisis point in world history and being concerned enough to selflessly make himself endlessly available to guide us through all this with his personal thoughts. When I read his latest article in the Herald today, I found myself wondering if, in truth, he would end up being elected Prime Minister in our forthcoming election as he would appear to have far more air and editorial time than the current crop of candidates. It is just possible that he is even outdoing the coverage given to Barack Obama and John McCain, which appears to outstrip our own domestic election discussions.

So good for Bernard - but what a sad indictment of mainstream media that they can't be bothered to do some decent research and unearth some other 'experts' in the field, rather than just commentators or fellow journalists.

This trend is not limited to New Zealand - all around the world mainstream media opt to talk to other journalists and commentators rather than the people at the centre of a situation. Is this because it is easier or because they then don't have to ask any tough questions? Or is it because their chosen commentator will reflect the editorial stance of the media outlet concerned?  Or is it, as I suspect, just lazy journalism brought on by staff shortages and other drivers?

If mainstream media has a role to play in this current crisis (other than hype and hysteria), surely that role should be to accurately reflect and record what is happening and provide their audiences with as wide a perspective as possible, rather than just a narrow view?  Analyse the online search results and you will see that people are searching for answers to questions that are not being responded to in mainstream media. Something which I take as a serious indication that mainstream - or traditional media - is seriously out of touch when it comes to understanding what we want and need to know.  Perhaps they should be asking Bernard what to do next - otherwise their circulation, viewer and listener figures will start to dive alongside the financials.

Has US medal mania surplanted good sportsmanship?

Like many millions, I have been watching the Olympics at a distance, full of admiration for those who simply compete as well as those who win. Those dedicated individuals who have trained, worked and sweated their way to be there, often overcoming considerable obstacles in the process. The discussions around the opening ceremony where the singing child was reportedly replaced by a 'prettier' version were not surprising, nor the digital enhancement of the fireworks - such things were always to be expected.

However, I have been both mildly amused and very disappointed by the manipulation of the medal tables by the USA. A recent Guardian blog post showed how USA media is manipulating the medal figures so that it looks like the States are 'in the lead' over China. How silly. Perhaps it is due to my British upbringing, but 'fair play' and 'being a sporting loser' were given as much emphasis as the winning itself.

People often, in my experience, manipulate reporting mechanisms to create favourable perceptions, rather accept and learn from the reality of a situation. As an individual, does it matter to me that China has more golds than the USA? Of course not - I simply admire each of the individual athletes and competitors who have done so well and think all this table manipulation makes those undertaking it look like complete losers.

I heard of another 'table' via a friend - although I can't track down the link - that ranks medal winners proportionately depending on the population size. Slovenia wins on that one, with my adopted homeland, New Zealand, coming a close second. Apparently, per person, the UK would have to win something like 126 medals to equal the NZ achievement. I don't know how true this all is and personally, I take it with a large pinch of salt. But one thing I do believe to be true is that media commentators - and the media moguls who control them - should think carefully before they get into the type of manipulation and misrepresentation visible on the 'tables' they put before their audiences.

Ultimately, they damage their country's reputation, demonstrating only a petty, small-mindedness, just when their talented citizens have achieved so much for the nations they represent.