Author: Steffen

The bane of the online communications consultant

It’s fun, it’s effective, it’s multifaceted and it’s on a steep upward trajectory. All in all, in Brussels and elsewhere, helping clients navigate the online space is a pretty good thing to be doing right now. But it’s a double-edged sword in some ways:

  • The implementation part has so many variables that it’s easy to get bogged down in dull, irrelevant nitty-gritty and lose track of your true objectives. Sure, you need to get things right, but often, strategic communications veers too far into sheer project management. The key here is to keep the role of the strategist and the project manager separate, and for the strategist to have more visibility.
  • One of the keys to a successful communications programme is integration. What you do online and offline should be closely aligned, but it’s often hard to get right because of the way communications teams are structured. Web, regulatory and media people are all kept separate, and as hard as you may try to put everyone around the same table, it often doesn’t happen. On the consultant side, discipline is also important here. You may understand the web inside out and be tempted to overlook the other stuff. Don’t do it.
  • Closely aligned to this is appreciation of the web consultant as a communications professional (my pride takes quite a hit sometimes on this…!) With some clients, it’s an ongoing struggle to remind them that online communications is primarily a strategic exercise, not a technical one. You have more in common with the business, regulatory, marketing and communications people than IT. All credit to IT, but they do something entirely different.
  • Then there’s the web doubters on the client side; people who aren’t quite sure of the value of online communications. Advocacy and media work have worked for years and are still relevant today, so why fix it if it ain’t broke? The fact is that the model is, if not broken, in need of an upgrade: old-school tactics are still relevant, but they need to be backed up. People are a lot more cynical, opinionated and engaged than ever before, and a well-executed online programme will help you cater to this part of the equation and in turn make your media work and advocacy more effective. As a consultant, what do you do about the doubters? You treat the sell as ongoing: you constantly have to re-explain the concepts, what you’re doing and why it will work. And most importantly, you need to identify your eChampions on the client side who strongly support what you’re trying to do and will mobilise on your behalf and join the challenge to win over the naysayers.
  • There’s the web doubters, but there’s also two types of know-it-alls that often present a challenge. First, the old-school communicators who treat the web as just another channel and simply transfer their understanding of the offline world to it. They think a website should look like a brochure; that a blog entry should be structured like a press release; or they’ll struggle with two-way nature of the web and simply use it as they would a megaphone. Second, there’s the (usually, but not always) junior communicator who has been handed responsibility for online comms because they like technology and are comfortable with it. What often arises in these cases is that they act as if they’ve got a new toy and spend lots of time setting up Facebook fan pages and tweaking things in Photoshop, but they’ll do nothing to help you reach your communications objectives. In fact, they may even be detrimental in that respect. What to do? As in the point above, the ongoing sell – or ongoing education even – becomes essential.

And a final point. The web is big and complex; it’s all happening so FAST; you need to keep track of the other channels AND try to keep up to date with the issues; and you need to deal with the points cited above – in particular the ongoing sell. To get it all right requires a lot of patience; and you’ll need to read a lot every day to stay on track. But it’s worth it in the end.

Thou shalt not speak funny

I don’t know about you, but when someone speaks to me in an over-the-top, pompous, formulaic manner, I find it off-putting. Why is it then that old-school communicators insist on their organisation’s output being framed in exactly this sort of way? We are delighted to announce… we are absolutely and whole-heartedly committed to… our Chairman, Mr X, has repeatedly stated that… and so on and so on.

This sort of gibberish is especially off-putting online, where hierarchies are being eradicated and the order of the day is to communicate at level pegging, de-formalise, and be as open and honest as you would when talking to a friend. And it’s actually detrimental in an age where people are increasingly cynical and want you to show, explain and prove yourself rather than expect them to simply trust you because you make heavy-hitting statements.

“I don’t get Twitter”

I hear it all the time, and admittedly, it’s not the easiest thing to provide a clear and tangible response to. There’s scores of reasons why Twitter can be important to organisations: learning from and building relationships with individuals and other organisations with similar interests; tracking issues in real-time, in turn enabling appropriate analysis and response to consumer, constituent or other stakeholder concerns.

However, when explaining it to people who are not communicators or avid web users, and who would no doubt struggle to contextualise, that all sounds a bit bland. What I find works best as an explanation in these cases is contextualising within someone’s own personal interests. Ask them what they’re into and, say, if they cite Italian cinema, ask them to imagine connecting to 1,000 other people from all over the world who are really into Italian cinema in an offline setting. A film festival perhaps.

On Twitter, they can connect to these same 1,000 people. In one place, they’ll be able to track what these 1,000 people are saying and items (articles, reviews, screenings) they are providing. As a follower they have the option to simply observe and learn: a non-stop incoming stream of valuable information they’d otherwise have to read 100 websites and magazines a day to keep up with. If they then fancy engaging further (which they should) they can provide this community with their own input, respond to what others are saying and engage in conversations.

So you’re essentially placing Twitter within a real-world framework. Doing that will make it seem a little bit less like technical mumbo jumbo and more about human interaction, which is what Twitter and social media at large are all about: they’re spaces that allow for people to connect, not the playing fields of techies, teens or social recluses. And that’s really the key message to transmit to the doubters.

Integration is king (and a word about online targeting)

Weber Shandwick recently ran a survey in which they found that UK consumers under the age of 35 are far more likely to be influenced by newspapers than those over 45. By some margin too. So the myth that younger people consume endless amounts of online media but won’t ever be reached offline can safely be dismissed. Another feather in the cap for an integrated approach to communications.

Slight tangent on the topic of demographics and the web: I’d urge you to have a look at Forrester’s Social Technographics graph, which showcases internet users’ behaviour based on how they consume and produce content online, from those that merely read, right through to those who regularly publish. Forrester also have a consumer profile tool which allows you to view the data based on various age groups, sex and country (13 so far.) What am I getting at? That traditional demographic trending used in marketing goes out the window when it comes to the web. If you’re an organisation looking to reach a certain target group online, choosing the right message and channel – and the sort of engagement or other behaviour you can expect – is a far more complex exercise than you might previously have imagined, and requires some skill to get just right.

Digital advocacy nearing the real deal

Digital advocacy has been effective on issues that capture the public imagination because the web is an effective grassroots mobilisation tool. From whale hunting to GMOs, pressure groups and concerned citizens have expressed anger, spread the word and mobilised likeminded people. Were Greenpeace to announce a big-time campaign tomorrow on, say, mink farming in Europe, it could be web-centred, with offline elements operating around it.

However, the vast majority of advocacy issues don’t capture the public imagination: nobody cares; media pays no attention. Until a short time ago, these were the sort of issues where advocacy was done off the radar i.e. primarily with stakeholders and policy-makers sitting down face to face. There’d be no large-scale media campaign or the like in support because it wouldn’t have been worth the effort seeing as all stakeholders were a phone-call away.

Digital advocacy is now nearing the real deal for niche issues as well. It is ubiquitous enough – even in public policy land (see Fleishman’s EP Digital Trends or Edelman’s Capital Staffers’ index) – to work as a direct advocacy tool.

In practice, if you plan and execute the online element of your campaign well, you can safely assume that you’ll reach relevant policy-makers directly, as well as engage and/or mobilise the aforementioned stakeholders that are just a phone-call away, using primarily online channels. By no means does that mean that traditional advocacy or media relations are a dying breed, but they can now be supported, enhanced and sped up no end. Exciting times ahead.

Image source

Agencies and the commodity temptation

The role of the communications agency in political hubs such as Brussels, London and Washington is crammed with potential for exciting work. Issues experts and communications specialists join forces to formulate strategies that help organisatons navigate a complex political landscape…. a landscape that may involve all sorts of players from the pesky blogger to the virulent politician picking up steam in the press, cross-border nuances and awkward political realities, the sudden PR calamity…

It’s a shame then that agencies often fall into the commodity trap, where the goal goes from helping a client reach their business and communications objectives to doing just enough to rack up billable hours. The toolbox – reading up on the latest developments from whatever relevant government department, media monitoring, basic content production, website maintenance, event logistics and so on – become the commodity.

Sure, the dirty work has to be done, and I understand the temptation: the long hours, the lacklustre client, the short-term targets all conspire to lure you into simply doing enough to meet the requirements.

The problem is that as a communicator, you don’t have the luxury of the lawyer or the chemist, who perform tasks which are second-nature to them but which no one would ever dream of replicating without the apposite credentials. Everyone thinks they’re a communicator, and unless you’re challenging clients by offering them added-value thinking, they’ll think they can do it themselves (or get someone else to do it more cheaply.)

So what do you do about it? There’s no trick: it’s all about frame of mind and thinking to yourself that you sell brainpower, not items in a toolbox. So once you’ve developed a strategy and it’s in execution mode, don’t let it go: track your client’s issues on an ongoing basis and constantly revisit your business goals -> communications objectives -> strategy -> tactics chart to ensure that you’re proactively offering them smart ideas that will help them meet their goals. It’ll keep them happy and no doubt help get you more business (and what’s more, it’s a lot more fun and challenging for you, the communicator.)

Copenhagen: campaigners bear some responsibility

A little late in the day perhaps, but a quick after-thought I’d have to last month’s Copenhagen debacle is that campaigners hold more responsibility than they’d likely admit. Despite the urgency and apocalyptic tones that have been in use for years over the issue of climate change, by the time we got to 2009, the momentum in favour of doing something about it had decelerated in part because they weren’t going about their jobs in the right way.

I’m not for one instant claiming that political realities – in particular, the constraints placed on politicians dealing with somewhat vague and far-away issues at a time of global crisis, and the developing vs. developed country schism – aren’t by far and away the prevailing reasons for the gridlock.

However, I’d still go as far as saying that political pressure had waned so much that politicians could go to Copenhagen without there really being anything substantial on the table – i.e. a legally binding document that demanded sacrifices of its signatories – and get away with it, in part because campaigns on climate change were often poorly executed and always disjointed. As their constituents lost interest or even became bothered by the prevalence of the issue, spurred on by an irresponsible populist press, politicians could dither: such is the nature of the game.

If we split the climate-change debate into two phases over the last decade, the first phase had a figurehead – Al Gore – who came to symbolise the issue. He carried real clout as a senior politician who had abandoned politics to focus on the one issue alone. What’s more, he approached it with a real wealth of knowledge and understanding of the science. As a result, campaigners who became involved in the issue usually did so in his shadow while adopting a serious and cerebral approach. In public consciousness terms, the issue was escalating fast and the doubters weren’t too comfortable about raising their voices.

Phase 2 began once Gore stepped out of centre-stage, transforming the issue into an exercise in jumping on the bandwagon. All of a sudden, reducing one’s carbon footprint was the de-rigueur do-gooder issue for all organisations. Scientific argumentation got lost in the muddle as second-rate celebs pleaded with us to ride our bikes. Similarly, the lack of a focal point for the campaign meant it became disjointed: every oil and gas giant had its own separate campaign; it seemed every pressure group was doing its own thing too. Single-issue campaigns propped up everywhere but seemed to have different messages and I personally was never quite sure who was behind them. Lots of these campaigns were very good in terms of output – Kofi Annan’s tck tck campaign looked especially crisp and garnered a lot of signatures, although it came too late in the day – but there were simply too many overlapping initiatives rather than a single, strong, global voice spurred on by a number of interconnected campaigns. Result? The real message got lost and the populist press turned the issue into yet another fashionable and elitist pursuit for politicians detached from the man on the street.

Is all lost? No, mainly because the issue is real. What’s more, with the crisis diminishing, more people may start thinking beyond their day-to-day to issues outside their backyards. And with regards to campaigns on climate change, I think we’ll see a shift. Organisations who have hopped on the climate change bandwagon (or any other issue for that matter) are being scrutinised evermore by cynical consumers wary of greenwashing and will have to prove that they are serious about playing a positive role, while pressure groups should increasingly seek to join forces. This should result in better, more low-key, integrated campaigns by a number of public and private players, involving stronger grassroots engagement and mobilisation. Hopefully, this will put renewed pressure on the political class and ultimately result in responsible action, not hesitation.

Image source

From hierarchies to networks

Four words I’ve ruthlessly hijacked from a pamphlet I read this week. Four words which neatly explain a significant part of why the way in which organisations operate and communicate is so drastically different now compared to just a few years ago.

How? Power, influence and impact are not necessarily derived from how far up the proverbial food chain you are, but increasingly by how good your network is. The two are often aligned, but often not; someone can build and influence a network without having climbed too far up the traditional ladder. Meaning that the blogger who builds up a huge readership can be as relevant as a mainstream publication; or that the smart lowly employee who engages with the right people online can have as much of an impact on perceptions of his employer as the CEO.

What does this mean for organisations? It’s both a threat and an opportunity. A threat in that it’s harder to keep control if everyone has a megaphone. At the same time, it’s a stunning opportunity. An organisation’s combined talents are far more likely to be shared and harnessed in a world of networks; while an individual’s talent is far more likely to be exposed. Result? Potentially, a more creative, innovative and ultimately successful organisation.

And for the people tasked with communicating on behalf of organisations? Gone are the days of rigid messaging and press conferences. Added to the mix is harnessing the best of what the internal networks have to offer by handing them the mic. Don’t just use your CEO or Comms Director to represent you: use the intern, the engineer, or (even better) the guy who doesn’t actually work for you but loves what you do. Whoever has the best story to tell, frankly. But for communicators, networks go much farther than that. Whatever your sector or issue is, there’ll be a network of people engaging about it online in some way, and you’ll need to make sure you’re listening to what they’re saying and responding to it. That’s how you keep on the ball and avoid communicating in a void; and it’s how you try to make sure you’re engaging with the people who matter even if they’re not in the higher echelons of some hierarchy.

Loving the blog

Yes I love it, but not because it can give a face to a stand-offish organisation, humanise it, make it more approachable and the rest of them ol’ chestnuts. These are the very positive byproducts, but the real root of why blogging is brilliant lies in the flexibility it offers.

Length: Five lines or a hundred? Doesn’t matter: in a blog you can do either and not cause a stir.

Frequency: Every day or once a month? Doesn’t matter. You’re not pushing your content – your readers choose whether they want to receive it, so you can publish as often as you like. In fact, the more the better (within reason.)

Type: Short post leading to content somewhere else or a fairly long analytical piece? Both are fine.

Am I stating the bleeding obvious? Yes, but the bleeding obvious often isn’t apparent to most organisations’ communications teams, who are in the business of winning over hearts and minds. And it’s a real loss. As they fritter away valuable resources on conferences and white papers, little do they know that a steady stream of all sorts of content in a blog is both easier to produce than the rigid and linear articles or press releases they’re allowed to publish once in a while – and often more effective.

A simple post mentioning the eminent professor who backs their position and leading to his white paper which they didn’t spend a penny on? Five morose paragraphs written on a rainy day which really cut to the core of the author’s passion for his/her sector? A full-on analytical piece? All are allowed in a blog – nowhere else is that the case.

Image source

Hypocrite? Almost but not quite

Before this post, I hadn’t blogged for two weeks; and looking at my output over the last few months, it’s been pretty infrequent and not especially inspiring stuff by and large (not that I’m by any means claiming to have written super inspirational stuff on a regular basis before then, but you get the gist.) Why is that? 60 hour weeks and plenty of travel, in short. Problem is, I HATE that excuse. So f’ing what if I’m working hard? A post can be ten lines long. I could blog while I travel, I could get up 2o minutes earlier in the morning and write a post or likewise go to bed 20 minutes later. That’s where I’m a hypocrite. I frequently tell clients who claim that they just don’t have the time and resources to engage online that they DO have the time: if they value its importance and what it can do for them, surely they can add a half hour here or there into their oh so busy schedules. And if they really can’t, sleep a little less, cancel the game of golf, or – heaven forbid – cut a meeting short.

That’s where I’m not quite a hypocrite: I don’t have as much control of my agenda as most clients do as it’s they who populate it (and I don’t play golf!) so I can’t as easily give myself a slot to write a post. Although I could sleep a little less and not read while travelling… Guess it’s not just about time: the long hours make you value the spare time you do manage to muster and the last thing you want to do when you have a moment to yourself is to draft a blog post.

Image source