Author: Steffen

Ignore the idiots with placards

Idiots with placards are given too much visibility. Every time some contentious issue makes the headlines there’ll be 20 of them holding up home-made signs bemoaning a loss of morals, demanding that someone be banished from somewhere, or proclaiming the apocalypse. And rather than be ignored, they’ll feature prominently in reporting of whatever event they crashed, and somehow be declared the face of public opinion.

Same thing online. Anything written in a prominent blog will undoubtedly attract scores of nut-jobs declaring that the author is an evil, brainless heathen whose opinions would spell the end of humanity as we know it; and yet normal people respond to these morons and even often refer to them in follow-up content as the face of public opinion. In my line of work it equates to clients saying: they all hate us, just look at the 20 critical tweets and blog comments.

It’s too easy to make a lot of noise and somehow become the face of an issue. A plea: ignore the nut-jobs, or we end up giving them credibility and lure more nut-jobs into the public space (think the fringes of the Tea-Party in the US.) Let them have their say, but let’s please not forget most people are moderate and sensible. What’s real public opinion? A million people on the streets of London to protest against an impending war. Even better, results of surveys where a proper cross-section of people are polled.

Image source

Engaging with bloggers: start with a humble caveat

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.

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.