PR FROM THE BEACH

Earthquake changes communications landscape

If there is an organisation left in New Zealand that has, post-February 22 - failed to appreciate the power and potential of online and social media then seriously - we need to talk.

The ferocity and scale of the second Christchurch earthquake meant that organisations were forced to leave 'old' communications processes behind and venture in to uncharted waters as the urgent need to communicate outweighed entrenched opinions of how 'communication' should be undertaken. 

I take my hat off to all those involved in the post-quake communication, many of whom were having to deal with both the professional and personal aftermath of the quake. 

For some, that meant learning to use 140 characters or less while under great stress, for others, it was simply about saying 'I don't know - but I'm finding out'. 

I would particularly salute Christchurch City Council's communications team and the many volunteer techies who built valuable and vital web platforms - sometimes in hours - so that people could access information that helped them towards the basic necessities of life.

Lots of people will, in the months to come, pontificate on what was good and what was bad, the lessons to be learned and so on.  As for me, I think that unless you have lived through such an experience, you can't legislate one way or another. Those involved have done the best possible job in extreme circumstances with what was to hand. 

Post-quake communications will continue to be vital for the Canterbury region for many years ahead, long after the world at large has switched its gaze elsewhere.  Christchurch communicators - and all of us involved  in this line of work - are in this for the long haul. So Kia kaha. And well done.

Google Wave Wipes Out

The news from Google this week that the Wave has crashed and burned was a bit of a shame.  I had high hopes for this development, but sadly, the platform was just too hard for people to get the hang of.

One of the reasons that the social web - particularly social networking and blogging - has done so well and grown so dramatically in the last five years is because it is easy to do. You don't require a high degree of technical skill, you can point and press and it takes moments to share stuff with others.

Despite the anticipation, the huge build up, the long wait for a Wave invite, once faced with their Waves, most people tended to look at it blankly, realise they had no idea where to start and quietly put it back in the box - a bit like an IKEA cabinet where you can see the screws are there but they are taped so tightly to the packaging you never get round to putting it together.

There were some excellent bits to Wave and I suspect that they will be used elsewhere - the rumoured 'Google Me' might pick up a few or perhaps they will build in some additions to the rather lame Buzz.

I am a big fan of Google's development processes and think they are to be applauded for continually exploring what else we can do (even though I have serious and long-term misgivings about the potential for misuse of power and information that exists around an organisation so large having so much information in its control).  What these clever folk need to always keep in mind is that for the web to work it has to be easy. Geek it up for mass use and you are on a hiding to nothing.

Given we are talking Waves here, Google - and others - need to remember that many on the web are paddlepusses, delighted to play in the shallows but not yet ready, willing or able to take on the big surf.

So perhaps the big lesson for Wave is make sure the box contains clear and simple instructions next time around. The failure was perhaps not so much the product itself, but the communication that surrounded it. Building the anticipation is fine to a degree, but if the why, how and what for is not clearly communicated then expectations are dashed and reputation suffers. Which, if I recall correctly, sits somewhere in Lesson 101 Communications Management...

Measuring up for a month

Been head down for the last few weeks designing and developing a PR Measurement and Evaluation training session for online access - which means that those who can't get to training sessions in the main centres can head online and spend a couple of hours developing a neat evaluation system for your organisation.

Few more days till it is live, but one of the questions that came up during the pre-test was how do practitioners create a measurement and evaluation system for little or no cost.  The simple answer is that unless you want to go out and buy in services, the main 'cost' to developing a system that works is your time and, quite frankly, developing and running robust evaluation and measurement procedures are as much part of our job as any other activity we might take part in.

It really is the old journey analogy - know where you are going, understand what you want to do when you get there, create signposts that allow you to stay on track and be prepared to adjust your journey if the signs indicate that another route will be better.

The Barcelona Principles were agreed in June and, while they are a good starting point and it is nice to have an agreement, there is still a lot of emphasis on the signposts rather than the destination.

So, now that's done, I can resume normal service - just need to redetermine what normal consists of these days!

 

 

Mind the GAP - Proof Positive of the need to measure public relations?

Findings from the latest GAP study have been doing the rounds over the last day or so, with commentary primarily centred on the use of social media. More interesting for me was the data they had pulled together on how communications professionals were dealing with measurement and evaluation. 

With 382 communication decision makers participating in this latest University of Southern California project, it was interesting to see that those who offered up their activities for scrutiny spent an average of just four to five percent of their total budget on formal evaluation. This makes for an interesting 'PS' to my last post, particularly as the study suggested that corporate participants felt that higher spend on measurement and evaluation meant higher standing with the CEO. 

As the GAP survey summary put it "In other words, the greater the investment in evaluation (as a percentage of the total PR/Communication budget), the greater the likelihood the CEO believes PR/Communication makes a bottom-line contribution."

I don't consider this to be a surprising finding. In fact, it teeters into the realm of Monty Python's 'bleeding obvious'. However, because there are seemingly still so few practitioners operating robust evaluation programmes, perhaps it will take more research findings like this to convince them to get on and do what they should have been doing all along.

I did find myself weeping into my afternoon tea when I read the 'top five metrics' revealed by the research as, still there at 'No.5',  was 'Total Number of Clips'.  Now who in their right mind would take that seriously as a measure of organisational performance, reputational health or relationship strength? 

Obviously, there is a huge business opportunity here for evaluation-savvy professionals to corner the market with great ethical practice, reported well and demonstrating the value of the work undertaken. As professionals, we know that the work we do has value, improves the organisation and its relationships and creates positive change.  So why are professionals so shy about demonstrating this through good research and reporting practices?  The old excuses of cost, fear and uncertainty as to what to do have no place in today's operating environment. 

GAP stands for Generally Accepted Practice and the research is published every two years. The final report from the 2009 study, which outlines best practice, will be released soon. From the reports so far, I fear that we are a long way from best practice in measurement and evaluation, even though it is entirely possible, affordable and achievable.

Measuring Public Relations

Last week saw the 2010 PRINZ Conference, Taming the Tiger, and delegates were lucky enough to have Jim Macnamara on hand to talk through his thinking on measurement and evaluation. It was great to see so many people taking diligent notes throughout his presentation and I hope that it encourages more people to make sure they have a robust and effective evaluation process in place for their programmes. His presentation concentrated primarily on media evaluation and measurement which is really only part of the work we undertake in public relations.  The main purpose of our work is to build and sustain relationships between organisations and communities, and media relations, especially old-school, mainstream media relations, is only one small part of that purpose.

I do find it truly bizarre that the nonsense that is AVE persists as well as the measurement of website 'hits' - I can't wait for the day when both disappear into the ether. Jim Macnamara spent a lot of time debunking both, although some of the research he quoted I personally believe only serves to support the myth that either of those two activities are remotely useful.

While tweeting about Jim's presentation I was sent a message asking what to use instead of AVE and so there are a few simple responses to this below - it is what I've been doing for more years than I care to measure and although simple, it is an approach that provides accurate reporting on the success of programmes.  

• Set your outcomes and measure to those. If you are looking for an improved relationship, then benchmark your existing relationship with research before commencing your programme, monitoring how each phase of activity moves you nearer - or further away - from your desired outcome. 
• Set precise objectives for each phase of your programme and evaluate whether or not they have been achieved. 
• Make sure that each objective contributes to the over-arching outcomes you are working towards.
• Use qualitative and quantitative analysis in your reporting.  There are many tools and techniques out there that will produce the data you need to track your programme and its effectiveness.
• If you are working online, again - know what you want to achieve and why. Don't just throw Facebook pages at it and hope that will do the trick.
• Understand and identify the communities with whom you hope to build and sustain relationships
• Understand and identify where, when and how they get their information. Don't expect them to come to you - you need to go to them.
• Keep your focus. Don't get too distracted with peripheral activities or groups that do not form part of your objectives and outcomes.  Be watchful, mindful and concerned, but stay on track.
• Remember that research, planning and evaluation are a continuous process and need to be looked at holistically, rather than as siloed activities. Each stage informs the next.

Measurement and evaluation is not hard. It is an essential part of what we do and any practitioner worth their salt should make sure that they build a system that allows them to track and report with ease. If you are unsure what to do and are in New Zealand, then come along to one of the PRINZ sessions (that have been running for years now) that will help you create a system that works for your organisation and if you want some help with where to start measuring online activity, here's a paper I put together a while ago that might be a useful starting point. Download Measuring_the_social_web 

The bitter taste of chocolate coated influence

This is not a whine brought on by lack of chocolate. But it is a worry about the way 'influence' is being trumpeted and overly paraded in the social media sphere to the extent I am once again reminded of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Earlier this week, in a bad mood caused by other matters, I grumbled when I read a tweet from the local branch of a global confectioner on Twitter to a blogger who had benefited from some free chocolate, apparently sent following her commentary on the palm oil debacle and the company's subsequent 'recovery' in social media channels. I was delighted for her that she had received the chocolate and hope much 'nom. nom, noming' was going on at her base. I would also add that she conveyed surprise in her blog at the arrival of the goodies. I was, however, intrigued.

Supply of freebies in the blogosphere is dependent on the supplier's perception of the recipient's 'influence'.  In the US, restrictions have now been placed on bob-a-blogs, elsewhere I suspect they may materialise soon.  But what I find interesting is not the supply of freebies, but the perception of influence. You see, in my house, I am the primary chocolate buyer. The filler of supermarket trollies who lumps in those palm-oiled bars for my confectionery-loving crew. I also have an extensive network - not on Twitter - of fellow trolley-fillers, who in turn perform outreach 'within a tightly formulated purchasing tribe' (to add the sparkle of some current corporate blather-speak).  But which do you think is potentially of greatest influence? A person who blogs about how well a company has done in the social media sphere or a person who actually buys the products? 

At this end of the week (having cheered myself up with some purchased chocolate) I have been playing with Klout, another Twitter analytics tool that, along with many others, advises users as to their influence on the network. Apart from the fact it doesn't seem terribly accurate and doesn't correlate terribly well with other similar analytics tools, it makes great play of the 'influencer' numbers, telling you how you should try harder, do this, retweet that, ask this question and so on.  A couple of weeks ago I was playing with Twitter lists - a seemingly benign mechanism for organising groups of people - that was almost immediately tainted by a feverish outbreak of a seemingly high school mentality of popularity.

I know that many of those 'influencers' in the social media sphere will probably baulk at this, but my worry is that all this talk of influence takes social media down a wrong turning and into a dark alley.  The biggest bonus awarded to us all by online interaction was the removal of filtered communication. We had been stuck with commercial mainstream media models - well, for centuries  - and over the last fifteen years we have seen the gradual erosion of their control. (Which is one of the reasons Rupert Murdoch is so mad, but that's another post entirely).  There is a real and present danger that the benefits of social media, the open channels, the acceptance of newcomers and the willingness to actually listen to someone else (and I mean properly listen) will diminish and content, instead of having the power to change things will become another platform for marketing spam.

Statistics show us the millions of people who are engaged online, using all sorts of tools to connect with each other but there are still millions more who have no access to the tools, technology or concerns of those intent on filtering who says what to whom and when, but who may well end up permanently out of the loop.

I've been working in this space for many years now (despite Klout's assessment of me!) and I know that if your intention is to genuinely build community, you don't put barriers in front of people - you make them welcome. You make them feel they are part of the team, rather than the one who never gets picked. 

Introducing pop charts, lists, influencer ratings, most popular this, most fantastic that simply replaces the old filters with new ones, removing individuals from the conversation. Voices that should be heard won't be heard - or considered important - because they haven't made this week's list or carry last week's Klout.

Much is going on online to make people feel unwelcome, unwanted and unnecessary, which is very sad indeed. If it continues as it is at present then countries who do much to block internet access and content won't have too much to worry about as the egos, seekers-of-influence and experts will put sizeable numbers off joining in in the first place.

Influence is subjective. A relationship has action. Build a real relationship with real people that have real 'reach' in the real world. That'll build the chocolate sales and keep the jobs alive far more effectively than seeking social media plaudits.

Applaud Obama for sure. But the Nobel Peace Prize? Premature I'd say.

Barack Obama appears to have achieved a great deal on the 'home front' in a relatively short time but the announcement that he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize took me completely by surprise  because I was unaware he had made any significant contribution to 'World Peace'.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the US is still at war in Afghanistan? Troops are still in Iraq are they not? Sabre rattling continues towards Iran and North Korea. There is still chaos in the Middle East? Or did I miss something?

Obama has been concentrating on domestic issues since his inauguration. He has given many hopeful speeches, visited a number of countries and even found time to pop to Europe and give his support for an Olympic bid. Hard-working as he is, and even though his speeches inspire hope in many people around the world, my understanding has always been that a Nobel Prize has always been a mark of great contribution in a particular sphere. For actions - not just words.

As far as I am aware there isn't a Nobel Prize for Hope (although perhaps there should be). In the absence of such an award, I think those who decide these matters have opted to give him the Peace Prize as the next best thing. Trouble is, it puts enormous pressure on one man to achieve 'greatness'. He is actually going to have to do something now, other than just deliver a cool speech.

As Shakespeare once wrote: 'Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them'. My concern for Obama is that in having greatness thrust upon him in this way he will mistakenly present himself cross-gartered to the world and end up as foolish as Malvolio.

Another Tsunami warning and NZ Civil Defence communication still looks scarily inept

As I write, we are on another tsunami advisory following three more Pacific earthquakes, this time around Vanuatu. Whether the island will suffer the same terrible devastation and loss as Samoa and parts of Tonga we don't yet know - we can only hope that all are safe and that no lives are lost.

Here in New Zealand, I have been watching the Civil Defence communications with keen interest - more so than usual following recent events. I am flabbergasted that they are still relying on static web updates to communicate urgent information. Surely all major organisations must be aware that in today's communications environment if they don't fill the information void themselves, then someone else will - and in a crisis situation this in itself will add to misunderstanding, miscommunication and life-threatening mistakes.

Ironically, next week is Disaster Awareness Week, when we are all supposed to knuckle down and make sure we are prepared for the kind of natural disasters we have seen so frequently in recent months. Part of the Civil Defence advance promotion package includes a 'media kit' for participating organisations designed to help them disseminate 'key messages'. All the advice is centred entirely on old-school traditional mainstream media without the slightest acknowledgment that other forms of communication exist. The advice is also expensive as it suggests local media advertising as a major tactic. Will such a tactic add to a local programme given the extensive advertising campaign already running on national television? I don't think so.

If I was to name one single benefit of the online environment, it would be the ability to harness the power of social media tools in crisis communication. Sadly, the Civil Defence department doesn't seem to have grasped this, even though other emergency services around the world have seen, experienced and utilised the power of digital communication. Come on guys - at least tweet your updates. You have my phone number because as a conscientious citizen I registered to be part of the 'early warning system' (which didn't happen by the way) - send me a text to say 'Stay off the beach' or 'Grab your emergency kit, it's incoming' or even a reassuring 'All's well'.  Simple really - and achievable at a fraction of the cost of the advertising currently recommended.

When infrastructure is wiped out as a result of a disaster - natural or otherwise - then we would have to work with whatever is left - sounding a drum, banging the rocks or tapping out Morse code. But for advanced warning - while we are all still switched on, plugged in and open to send and receive facts - using digital engagement to communicate could save thousands of lives. Simply hoping someone might pass by an old-school web site and pick up infrequent updates will leave us all sinking in a sea of inertia.

John and Letterman simply Off-Key

I've tried really hard to find something positive about John Key's appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman but, despite my best efforts, I have failed to find one single thing. 

Rubbing shoulders with Obama at the UN - fine. Sharing the Australian PM's bathroom facilities - ok. Announcing plans at the UN - great. Being made to look a complete dork by a two-bit talk show host - fail.

Who on earth suggested that he appeared on this show?  He may be Tourism Minister as well as PM, but I cannot see one scrap of evidence that would lead me to believe his inclusion would boost tourism in any shape or form.  The Herald today suggests that Key considers it a job well done because someone from Montenegro thought it was good. Montenegro? Sorry, but I doubt they will be visiting NZ in their millions.

The 'interview' simply made John Key look daft and I found myself writhing in embarrassment. The same sort of stomach churning discomfort one might feel when a cheery uncle makes a complete show of himself at a family wedding.  Why would someone put the Prime Minister in such a position?

Obama goes on Letterman because he is the US President and it 'puts him in touch' with the voters, particularly when he is campaigning for health care reform in the country. When Obama appears, he is jovial but still retains an air of authority. He is even allowed to sit down by Letterman who, when interviewing his President, shows at least some respect. But our John? Not a bit of it. Key became Letterman's Aunt Sally and whoever 'wrote' those appalling answers for him needs some urgent help and guidance and a real telling-off.

Dreadful misalignment occurred here and even though the interview is being 'talked up', the whole episode did nothing for NZ's credibility and certainly undermined our Prime Minister. Letterman's brand of tacky TV is about entertainment and commercial viewing figures, not leadership. Unfortunately, this meant John Key was made to look a complete clown instead of a thoughtful statesman. Shame on those who thought a TV trivia moment would increase his profile or improve his standing. All it did was undermine what would otherwise have been a reasonable trip.

Treated like a dork - John Key

Treated like a guest - Barack Obama

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.