To anyone dipping a toe in the blogosphere for the first time, the one thing I’d advise above anything is humility. Meaning what? If you’re not 100% sure what to expect but you’re keen to give it a go, lay down a massive caveat when you start. Something along the lines of: “I’m just getting started, I’m not sure what to expect, I might make mistakes, bear with me, please feel free to offer me some advice along the way.” You may still screw up here or there, but you’ll be forgiven.
Author: Steffen
The web raises the bar of what we realise our peers are capable of: that’s a big deal
The most valuable thing I learned at university? It wasn’t anything I picked up in a book, lecture or tutorial, although I had plenty of brilliant tutors. It was raising the bar of what I realised people my age were capable of. I discovered just how driven, smart, inventive and gutsy “people like me” could be. Although I was too busy having a good time to really appreciate it back then, it has stood me in good stead since. Whatever I’ve done, I’ve always assumed someone else could probably do it better, and have wanted to go one step further the next time.
Moral of the story? The web can have the same impact, but on a far grander scale. People are potentially exposed to far more people within their field of interest or expertise than ever before: it’s no longer just colleagues, sector specialists with a column in a trade publication, or someone you might hear or meet at an event. Now it’s an extended network you have access to on LinkedIn; it’s the bloggers or people active on Twitter providing content and engaging in conversations.
Result? Perhaps not just yet, but ultimately, it should make everything better, because all our frames of reference will have grown. The bar for what constitutes brilliant will have risen to the extent that we’ll need to push ourselves much farther to be considered smart or cutting-edge, because whoever is judging our work is not just comparing us to the ten others who constituted the network before, but to the hundred others who are just a click away on Google.
Will we need to work harder? Perhaps, but collectively, we should all benefit in time, so it’ll be worth the effort.
Challenging clients and integration: two telling quotes
Heard on the grapevine last week: “my CEO friend tells me he only works with a handful of consultants. They’re argumentative and critical but they’ve been working with him for years.” And a day later: “I used to be fed up of hearing all the talk about how the web was going to change the way we operate. But once it had been put into context, I agreed.”
They may be amongst the first things mentioned in any Consulting for Dummies type handbook, but it doesn’t hurt to repeat them.
First, you’re far more likely to succeed in the long-run if you challenge the brief. Again and again. Every consulting function that largely focuses on execution eventually becomes a commodity which someone else can do faster and cheaper. You’ll only stay in your client’s good books in the long run through added-value thinking, and that invariably means challenging the client. In short, don’t just agree then execute. Think creatively, challenge, and only then execute.
Second, there’s no point harping on about a channel like the web unless you’re putting it into context. That context should be what someone is doing already: so you’re not selling something new; but rather, you’re integrating a new set of tools and an existing client reality and making it better. In short, the web isn’t great because it’s yet another channel; and a new and shiny one at that. But it may be great for you if you can take what you’re doing already and further improve your reputation, reach, influence, sales (or whatever) through smart integration.
Policy blogging in Brussels: more of it please
I wrote a post on Fleishman-Hillard’s Public Affairs 2.0 blog last week on the shortage of policy-specific blogs in Brussels. My point in short was this: plenty of good quality blogs are being written about the EU at large which cover a wide array of issues and often result in decent conversations. Movers and shakers in Brussels read these blogs, and yet the scores of organisations present here whose remit is to engage with policy makers and other stakeholders on issues key to their sectors are virtually non-existent in the blogosphere. Why?! They’ll write position papers, engage in face-to-face meetings, develop alliances, work with the media, and yet they won’t blog. What a wasted opportunity to present their views in an ongoing narrative, engage with other stakeholders and build relationships, all while showcasing people in the most open and transparent medium imaginable rather than just presenting a faceless organisation through the same age-old tactics.
Anyway, no point in paraphrasing the post when you can read it here (note the good comments too.) Further comments very welcome (here or on PA 2.0.)
Alive and well
My longest blogging hiatus yet. Any particular reason? Yes, even fairly sporadic blogging like mine takes some “framing” i.e. something happens or you read something that gives you an idea for a post; you then think to yourself, how do I condense the broad idea with multiple potential components into a single post i.e. how do I frame it so that it is concise and relevant.
And? I’ve started a new job (at Fleishman-Hillard as a “Digital Strategist”) so there are lots of things going on, and lots of new things to learn. I’m in an “absorption” phase which will hopefully precede some more framing (my admiration for people who blog every day – through job changes, holidays, weddings etc. – has increased no end.)
Anyway. Watch this space. Or the Fleishman blog which I’ll be contributing to as well.
Steffen
Your first priority online: become a resource
In PR/PA anno 2010, the web is acknowledged as being an absolutely integral part of the communications mix, but quite often for the wrong reasons. PR professionals who view their job through the prism of media relations have transferred their thinking to the web, but replacing journalists with bloggers and the like. They view the opportunity purely in having more influencers to tell a story to; they’ll even ignore the web entirely if they find there aren’t high-profile bloggers interested in their issue.
To be honest, it’d be tricky to run a blogger relations campaign or build community on most issues. Sorry, but there just isn’t enough critical mass yet. That doesn’t mean the web has no value in these instances though! We’re moving from a world of push to one of pull. People’s first point of call? Google. So when they do search, you need to have a presence: and an impressive one at that. So forget about the external influencers for just a second and start thinking of yourself as one instead. You reach the end-user DIRECT through search. Grasp the opportunity.
p.s. and even if your issue could warrant a blogger relations campaign or a community-building approach you STILL need to build a great presence before engaging, or you won’t be taken seriously (the four pillars of online engagement maps out the steps in a little more detail.)
Overused words #1: “strategy”
Strategy, strategy, strategy. Everyone’s a strategist. Everything requires a strategy. They’re all at it: comms people are constantly meeting to strategise. In actual fact, they’re usually talking about a single element of a strategy. And there often isn’t even a strategy to begin with as everyone’s too busy obsessing over isolated tactics within their remit. So they’re actually talking about elements of a non-existent strategy. They’re being non-strategic in their efforts to strategise.
A strategy is the overarching framework you apply to your issue or campaign. It’s the bit where you go from steps 1-10 to figure out where you are and where you need to go, and all the bits in between. After that, everything else should be about filling in the blanks. Doing things in order to match what you laid out in your strategy.
It’s all very well to meet and chat about stuff or to plan things. Just don’t call it strategy.
Diagrams: Brussels PA-Corp Comms channel splits
How do most organisations operating in the Brussels PA-Corp Comms space approach their work? By and large, via channels operating in splendid isolation: lots of focus on advocacy (yes, I’m calling it a channel), a fair bit on media, and a tiny bit on web communication. Lots of it may be very good, but it’s poorly integrated.
How would I like to see them operate? With all channels neatly placed within the same circle, treated as part of the same larger “comms” framework on any given issue.
p.s. the web circle is not bigger than the media and advocacy circles because it’s more important, but because the web acts as the integrator that brings the rest together, beyond its own individual benefits as a channel. Whenever you engage in the media or through advocacy, it should be supported and channelled via the web also.
PA/PR in a complex age: what you say vs. how and where you say it
PR used to just be largely about what you said. Knowing the subject matter, crafting a storyline, being a resource for the media through your expertise. A competent PR professional knew their stuff inside out; they mastered the art of messaging and maintaining (a few) key relationships.
This certainly remains the case, but how and where you say your stuff is now arguably as complex because of the intricacy and multitude of channels and greater number of active stakeholders on any given issue. Before, you may have been OK maintaining 10 key contacts on an issue and sticking to your message. These 10 contacts remain as important as ever, but you may have another 100 to think about now. They might be on 10 different channels; and they might expect very different things from you so you can’t get away with the same one-track approach with all of them.
A problem inherent in PR/PA today? Many are good at the what while others know the how and where. But sometimes they don’t talk to each other; other times they even mock each other. Those who do both the what and the how and where really well? Few and far between.
Online engagement: Brussels audiences’ five standard questions
Here are five questions which I’m invariably asked when organisations are thinking about exploring online engagement but aren’t quite sure what they’re getting themselves into. They’re not the most interesting or strategic questions, but are understandable stumbling blocks which hold organisations back and need to be answered. Here goes.
1. Won’t we get attacked by the other side? What if they say things we really don’t want anyone to hear?
Maybe, but in any case, you can moderate, so if there’s something you really don’t want to expose, you don’t have to (read a recent post about angry commenting trolls here.) Having said that, don’t moderate too much. If you remove everything that isn’t rose-tinted, what’s the point of engaging? View it as an opportunity. There are people out there who dislike you no matter what. There are others who aren’t so sure about you, but if you actually respond to their concerns, you might even win them over.
2. OK so we can moderate, but aren’t we going to get inundated by thousands of hateful attacks every day? So much so that we’ll end up spending all our time moderating?
In my experience, nobody has ever been attacked in this way (don’t flatter yourselves: people have better ways of spending their time!) I’ve heard of instances of automated responses by angry pressure groups, but have never experienced it myself. In any case, these people had your email addresses before: were you “attacked” then?
3. We’re only a small team with a small budget: do we really have the resources to do this properly?
Sure, proper online engagement is time intensive, but so are conf calls, meetings and writing reports no one reads. View it as an opportunity, not something you could do on top of all your – supposedly – far more important tasks. This might actually be the most important thing you do (although this depends on the nature of your sector or organisation.) In any case, if you plan properly, it needn’t take up too much time. Have an editorial plan in place so you organise publication properly, and give yourself a timeslot for the actual work like you would for a regular meeting or whatever else, and you will find it just becomes part of your working day.
4. How do we target people in multiple languages?
The perennial comms nightmare in Europe. It depends on the nature of the organisation in question and what you’re trying to do. If your key target audience is French-speaking but your organisation primarily operates in English, it’d be hard to recommend against trying to communicate in both languages. As a starting point, I’d certainly recommend against overstretching i.e. trying to engage in multiple languages; but to what extent this is the case really depends. Conversations shouldn’t be translated, so I wouldn’t ever translate blog posts, tweets, forum entries and the like; but I would not recommend against a mixed basket approach where a few languages are in use on the same platforms (but not more than three….) For instance, a blog could have posts in different languages, each tagged by the language in question so that a user can select to view all posts written in any given language in one list. Again though, this is complex issue and there’s no right or wrong answer apart from don’t overstretch…!
5. How do we know if engagement works? How do we measure success?
Another perennial question, and one which I’d (controversially) say is relatively easy to answer, even though ROI calculations for engagement (and comms in general) are notoriously contentious. I’m not saying that it’s easy to guarantee success or that it’s easy to define very clear ROI measurements – it’s not at all – but there are so many things you can measure in quantitative terms online, that you can develop a very substantial set of KPIs which you can follow and improve on an ongoing basis. So when the question arises, your response can be: with press releases, you get clippings; online, you get viewing numbers, behavioural and trending figures, you’ll know who said what, when and where; and you’ll know how many of your key targets viewed your content. Plus you’ll have qualitative input which you’d ordinarily have needed polling to assess because you can measure word of mouse (as opposed to traditional word of mouth…) i.e. you’ll know what people think because they may comment about it. The bottom line of the sell is this: my professional opinion is that this will work, but don’t just take my word for it; with you, the client, we’ll develop a very detailed set of KPIs which will be exact indicators of success. Given that they’re so substantial, you’ll know very clearly whether the programme is a success or not; far more clearly that any of the other communications channels you use.
Are people totally won over? No, the novelty of engagement and the “loss of control” it entails is still a big leap; but at this point people tend to be willing to take their first baby steps.
Steffen Moller 