Category: Communications

Want a fancy online press centre?

press-room1957-ike-strokeWhether you’re a pressure group strapped for funds or a multinational, you’ll want an excellent online press centre where journalists can easily find your latest news and other relevant material they might use for a story. But it should not just contain a long list of press releases: with everything the web has to offer in terms of showcasing content, it’d be a wasted opportunity. Ideally, your press centre would also do some of the following:

  • Allow journalists to subscribe to news updates at the click of a button
  • Contain material in multimedia formats i.e. especially video (which journalists increasingly appreciate and make use of)
  • Allow for commenting so journalists can get an idea of public reaction to your news
  • Enable journalists to find content very easily via keywords or tags rather than searching through a whole list in chronological order
  • And not to be forgotten, be SEO friendly so your content helps boost your site’s search engine ranking

Looking at that list, it sounds an awful lot like the features of a blog. And herein lies the answer to the “how do I build an excellent press room that makes the best use of all the tools available to me” conundrum. Just set up your press page like a blog: present all your newsworthy content, whether a press release or the 2-minute video interview with the CEO you filmed on your iPhone, as blog posts. Have categories and tags so users can easily find material. All your newsworthy material will be presented in one place rather than scattered around your newroom, which I suspect journalists will appreciate (although do be careful to not deem too much material as newsworthy); and you won’t feel restricted by the press release standards e.g. you can publish a very short post or a post just containing a video.

Result? More varied content + far better accessibility = happy jounalists.

Advice to an MEP blogger

I’m currently working with an MEP who is looking to launch a blog within the next few months. Here’s a summary of a few of my recommendations.

Define an editorial approach

You may have 20+ years’ experience. You may have your very distinct writing style and feel you have Shakespearean abilities. Perhaps, but you still need to define an editorial approach, write it down and stick to it. This includes type of language you’ll use (colloquial or formal), how often you’ll post (at least once a week), how you’ll address readers, length of posts, and if and how you’ll interact with other bloggers. What’s the point? It’ll help maintain consistency, which you need to keep readers coming back: they’ll grow accustomed to your style and get to know the “real you” more than if you were to serve up a hotchpotch of posts.

Decide on your themes and stick to them

Similar argument here. You don’t want to risk the blog going all over the place, so stick to 4-7 core themes which you know about, you know your readers will be interested in, you can write about well, and then stick to them. In this way you’ll establish yourself as an expert and a resource on certain policy areas, rather than the MEP who writes about scores of topics but does not really believe in any wholeheartedly. By all means, if something out of the ordinary is taking place that doesn’t fit within the themes – the upcoming EP elections, a natural disaster, crisis, etc. – which people would expect you to write about and where you feel you can contribute to the debate, feel free, but then get back to your core themes asap.

Develop an editorial plan

To help stick to your approach and themes, develop an editorial plan which is at all times updated for the upcoming three months. You don’t need to stick to this religiously, but it will help to ensure that you maintain focus and consistency.

Don’t campaign!

Granted, a politician blogging is by nature campaigning you could say, but what I mean here is: don’t make it all about you and your party and how you’re far better suited to govern than the opposition. Blogging is about building relationships with readers over time, so it’s much better to establish yourself as a good writer who provides insights and expertise in his/her chosen subject-matter. If you’re seen to just be campaigning, you’ll only be preaching to the converted rather than utilising your blog to engage in issues and trying to shift the debate towards your views in the long-run. Political blogging tends to be a bit more partisan and cut-throat than average, you might say, but so what, this highlights my point all the more: stand out from the crowd by talking about the issues in depth as you see them, not how your view is inherently superior to the opposition’s. Just two “disclaimers” on this point though: 1) this works if the politician in question is moderate. If he/she could be described as straying fairly far from the centre, like say a Dan Hannan, there’s probably more political capital to be won by being highly opinionated rather than engaging; and 2) with the EP elections coming up it’s fair for MEPs to campaign just a tad bit!

Don’t stray from blogging too soon

If you like blogging and get into it, hang on a moment before you jump on the Twitter bandwagon, set up a Facebook group, a YouTube channel and so on. It’s tempting to spread your tentacles far and thin, like Swedish MEP Åsa Westlund has done, but I think it’s important to get the blog just right first before starting to worry about when next to tweet or post a video. By all means, all tools can play a part, but none more so than a high-quality blog.

The Hannan viral phenomenon: not that big a deal

As everyone in Brussels and the UK by now certainly must be aware, a YouTube video of  Dan Hannan MEP slating/skewing/roasting/panning Gordon Brown, who was present at the time and simply had to sit, listen and endure, has become an internet phenomenon, with over two million views to date.

A little late to be writing about this perhaps, seeing as the event in question took place a couple of weeks ago. However, I’ve just read yet another post or article by a political commentator claiming that the success of the video must imply that common folk, greatly perturbed by the current state of affairs in the UK, have watched the video in droves because it sums up their anger and frustration with the current administration, and that the mainstream media has not reported on it because they are out of touch with what people are feeling at this time.

I disagree somewhat. I’m sure lots of people think Hannan is right. And I’m sure lots of people are angry. That does not explain 2 million hits though! What does? In my view, mainly people’s thirst for sensationalism and the nature of viral. An extremely articulate young man laying into the PM for three minutes as he just sits there makes truly awesome and unique viewing. The manner in which it was delivered had something Hollywood’esque about it: it seemed almost too scripted to be true. And that’s why most people wanted to share the link, I’m sure: it’s a sensational story which does what a good tabloid does i.e. it entertains, surprises and opines.

Maybe I’m wrong, but do you think most people’s thinking when they sent the link to friends was (something along the lines of): “gosh I’m fuming, Brown and his cronies have really sent us down s*** creak without a paddle, I’m sure Rob and Jane will agree wholeheartedly so I’m sending this link to them.” I think it’s more likely their thinking was: “look at Gordon squirm as the posh young whippersnapper lays into him! Ha that’s great viewing! I’m going to send it to Rob and Jane, I’m sure they’ll think it’s fun.”

As for serious media not reporting on it: well why should they? To them, the story is “politician lays into Brown” which happens hundreds of times every day. So what? To do their job properly they should report on the content of a number of Hannan’s fine speeches, as well as the scores of other bright young politicians expressing a view on either side of the political divide. Simply feeding the public’s hunger for sensationalism by reporting on Hannan’s speech and little else should be left to the Daily Mails of this world. And although I’m sure Hannan’s pleased with the exposure this has given him, I’m sure he is also concerned that he might become “typecast” as the politician who slated Brown, while the numerous very well articulated views on other matters expressed in his blog and elsewhere take second fiddle.

As for the nature of viral, I think it’s important to take a step back and acknowledge what makes things go viral i.e. what makes people decide to forward links to people they know. Frankly, not much. It’s not as if it’s an arduous process: see something interesting or fun, hey presto, and you’ve sent it to a hundred friends. It does not mean that you wholeheartedly endorse it or think it’s earth-shatteringly interesting. Hence the 10 million plus views of dancing hamsters and the like and why 2 million hits doesn’t mean you’ve got 2 million people who think Hannan should be made PM while Brown should be lynched.

By no means am I denying that 2 million hits shows Hannan has hit a raw nerve; that some people have watched the speech and agreed wholeheartedly with it. However, at the same time I think it’s important to not over-emphasise the two million hits or what it siginifies in the broader political debate. Instead why not praise Hannan for writing thought-provoking posts showcasing real expertise, strong views and a fair share of brilliance every day in his blog (although I agree with about 0.1% of what he says?) That’s what shifts opinions and mobilises people in the long-run, not a one-off viral sensation.

Aggregation of content as the first step in your online communications programme

Unless you’re involved in cement, sea salt, seeds, bricks, envelopes and the like, chances are there are relevant conversations happening online about your sector or the issues affecting it. Across the globe, experts and non-experts are likely asking and answering questions, putting their points across, or engaging in dialogue in blogs or forums about the very things you communicate about.

Does this matter? Yes, because the beauty of the web doesn’t lie in having another medium you can use to push your key messages. It lies in hyperlinking, aggregation and engagement – in short, all the other people out there who are communicating who you can connect to or whose content you can use, and who might use and spread your content too.

What’s my point? In short, if you run a campaign, hell, if you even just barely communicate, you should leverage this activity rather than just letting it happen and getting on with your own thing. You can take this as far as you like down the social media engagement path, but the best way to get started is to simply collect (aggregate) relevant content published by other people on their sites and blogs and showcasing it on your own.

By doing so, you’ll be adding value to your output by having more good quality content and you’ll hopefully have material that backs up your side of the story, giving you credibility in the process. What’s more, the people providing the content will be happy that you’re promoting them and might reciprocate, and best of all, it’s automated and done using free tools.

How do you get set up? Two basic steps:

  1. Listen. Establish a simple monitoring set-up so you can follow what’s going on around your issue in the blogosphere or from news sources published online. I won’t get into the details here, but in short, using free tools, you can pick up all relevant blog posts or news items on your issue, automatically via RSS, in what’s called an aggregator (Google Reader or Netvibes, for instance). It doesn’t take long, and once it’s running, that’s it, the process is automated.
  2. Publish the best aggregated material. Once you’ve listened for a while, you’ll know what bloggers (or whoever else) provides the best quality and most relevant material on your issue. Remove all the clutter from your aggregator and only provide material published by your trusted sources.

If someone is struggling to visualise an “aggregator”, have a look at Alltop. Alltop takes a number of terms, news items, people even (Barack Obama, for instance) and aggregates material from relevant sources on each, such as key sites, news sites and blogs.

Why blog?

blog_comics_4The answer to “why blog?” really does depend on who is asking it. A young budding poet might want to show the world his or her mastery of alliterative verse while a tech geek might want to engage in a global community that spends its time developing a certain kind of code.

Here’s a few of my answers to the “why blog?” question to companies, associations, pressure groups or even individuals operating in Brussels and trying to show their take on issues that affect them and which they want to influence.

Authority and expertise

As with any type of communications, blogging is a platform to showcase your side of the story and your expertise, and again, as with any type of communications, if you have a good story, solid arguments, and you communicate effectively, you become engaged in a debate that you may very well influence and indeed shift.

However, in this respect, blogging does not really differ from an article or a position paper. What makes blogging different? It’s the format, and what that entails for the type of content you can publish, the frequency with which you can publish, and how it allows you to engage with your readership

The format: post length

Although you do want to adopt an editorial approach so as to ensure some consistency, posts can be whatever you want them to be. Five lines referring to an article elsewhere online or a far longer opinion piece. This really does expand your options when communicating, as you’re not restricted by the length and format that memos, press releases or position papers are expected to have. What’s more, you don’t have to rely so much on journalists and whatever their twist on your story might be.

It’s probably the ability to publish short posts that’s most novel. In the past, say someone published a report that backs up your side of the story, but you’d just sent a press release (or didn’t think it really warranted one), it would be difficult for you to inform your audience of the report. With a blog though, you write a short post with a link leading to it, no questions asked.

The format: immediacy

Linked to this is the immediacy of blogging. Crisis? Communicate as soon as you’ve sorted out your strategy to deal with it. Your opposition has published something that you strongly disagree with or distorts the truth? Get your take out within minutes rather than days.

The format: the “real” you

Perhaps most importantly though, is how you can communicate in a blog (if you know what you’re doing.) You can drop the corporate speak. A typo doesn’t make you appear incompetent. You can ask questions if you like. Result? Blogging makes the blogger appear less detached, or more human if you will (the “human” factor is the biggest cliché in social media, but it’s true – read a post by Tom Watson MP and ask yourself if your impression of the man is the same as it would be if you were reading a quote in a paper). This is really important in an age where everyone from a politician to a CEO is expected to be patently open, honest and transparent.

The format: engagement

Strongly linked to the above point is interaction, or engagement. If you blog as you’re meant to, people will be able to comment on your content and ask questions. This stokes fear in many traditionalists: “but we’ll get inundated with negative comments and people will realise that we’re not that popular!” Wake up. They know you’re not popular already (if that’s the case), and allowing people to voice their opinions, developing relationships with them and actually answering their questions is a fantastic opportunity, not a threat.

Reach the press

Under no circumstance am I saying that press relations and getting your stories published in traditional media is not important. It is important, but even in this respect too, blogging matters, as journalists increasingly look to blogs when researching stories and looking out for opinions and soundbites. Just google journalists+blogs (or even journalists+twitter) and you’ll see what I mean. Think a journalist that might write about you will only read your press release when you’ve got a good blog with plenty of top-tier material? Think again.

SEO

Dull but important. A blog is great for SEO, or Search Engine Optimisation, meaning you’ll appear fairly high in google search rankings if you do a few things right. Does this matter? YES. +90% of people surf via google and never look beyond the first page of search results. Appearing there is absolutely paramount.

Further reading

Here are a few good old and new eBooks and posts on blogging best practice and blogger relations:

If you’re keen on seeing how other organisations blog, have a look at the Fortune 500 blogging wiki:

Don’t overlook the importance of being able to communicate directly with your audience

comms-workflows

When explaining why online communications is worthwhile to clients operating in the Brussels bubble or anywhere else, it’s easy to overdo the sell. Bloggers, engagement, social networks, the value of two-way communications and so on sounds great, and most will acknowledge that it’ll matter at some point in the future, but for now, it often puts people off: “we’ve got a small team, Directive X is now in its second reading, I just need to get an article in the right paper now, I’ll think about the web next.”

What I tend to do is to start off highlighting the diagram above. It outlines that which most people tend to overlook: that the web is more than an entirely new and separate medium. Sure, making the most of the web does require a mind-shift and a new way of working. But it also allows organisations to communicate directly to their target audiences. That’s a phenomenal opportunity:

  • It allows them to publish more good quality content
  • The content is available instantly, not however long it takes to get something published and distributed
  • It reduces reliance on journalists who then might skew the story anyway
  • It can improve media relations by providing journalists with more, better and easily accessible content

Being an online communications consultant in Brussels: annoying conversations

These aren’t transcripts of conversations I’ve had, by any means, but not too far off.

Co = consultant   Cl = client (existing or prospective)

1. Being an online comms agency/consultant

  • Cl: Could you build this cool new flashy online gimmick for us please?
  • Co: Why? What are you selling? Whose opinion are you trying to shift? Who are you mobilising? Where does this fit in?
  • Cl: Ummm. I just want the gimmick. You’re an online agency/consultant, right?
  • Co: Yes, but we should figure out what we’re trying to do first, then think about the tools later.
  • Cl: But I’ve got a proper agency that charges €900 an hour to do strategy. Can you not just build the gimmick?
  • Co: …. (lost for words).

2. What’s the point of campaigning?

  • Cl: We’ve got a really contentious issue, but we should own it. We’re doing the right thing, we’re safe, we provide jobs and growth, we’re cutting edge.
  • Co: But politicians are screwing you?
  • Cl: They know we’re right, they’ve told us so. But the issue is super political they say. The public thinks we’re scum because pressure group X has done a really good job and the media has eaten it up. They need to keep their constituents happy. Politics, what can you do?
  • Co: Shouldn’t you campaign..?
  • Cl: No we lobby. We don’t need to campaign: we know all the relevant legislators and other stakeholders, so they know where we stand already.
  • Co: Clearly that’s not working though. Why not mobilise people in your industry? Answer people’s questions, alleviate their concerns? Try to shift the debate? Use the web more: why not bring all your arguments, 3rd party endorsements and relevant external content together in one place online and market it heavily to constituents?
  • Cl: Ummm. I told you, we don’t need to show politicians our arguments. They know them already. And anyway, politicians aren’t on Facebook (snigger, snigger).
  • Co: …. (lost for words).

Why don't organisations encourage their employees to communicate?

I’m a little baffled by companies and other organisations that invest heavily in finding, hiring and keeping really talented people, but then won’t let them communicate to the outside world as representatives of their organisation. It’s a real loss, as happy and clever employees are potentially an organisation’s best ambassadors, especially at a time when: a)  people trust communication from “someone like me” a lot more than anything else, in particular the communications which these same organisations invest heavily in (brochures, website content, TV ads, press releases et al); and b) online tools are widely available for people to create content themselves easily, quickly and for free.

What’s the excuse? Usually something about complex approval processes, concerns over the type of content that might be produced, and a fear of backlash. In truth I think what it’s really about is resistance to change and getting your head around the fact that communication can be effective even if it’s not pristine and checked by 22 departments.

Things are changing though: companies like Sun Microsystems and IBM are showcasing their employees’ blogs with pride, and more are hopping on the bandwagon every day.

Nuclear energy debate: it's in the angle

An organisation called Forum Nucleaire, made up of a number of  companies that invest in nuclear energy, has launched a campaign aimed at kick-starting a debate on nuclear energy in Belgium.

Their angle is unusual. It’s not, as one might expect: “nuclear is cheap, nuclear is clean, nuclear is not dangerous if safety standards are adhered to, oil is a lot worse, we rely on Middle-East or Russian oil, and in any case – it’s running out.”

Instead, they highlight that the debate is a complex one and acknowledge that there are good arguments on both sides. By doing so, they are hoping that people will want to learn more and make an informed decision on whether they support nuclear energy or not, instead of agreeing with the hype, which tends to be anti-nuclear.

Seems smart. Attract goodwill by opening up and admitting that there’s a viable position which does not necessarily support your commercial interests. And seek to raise the level of debate so that it is more rational (without presenting a rational view).

Learning from Obama: Labour and Tories online

Thomas Gensemer, a consultant who worked on Barack Obama’s online strategy during his campaign for the Presidency, talks about Labour’s and the Tories’ online offerings in this short clip.

The two key elements to take away are:

  1. The need to be authentic and have something to say: it’s not about the technology (it never is) but how it allows you to share a message or contribute to a conversation. This is a lesson for anyone engaging in political, advocacy and other communications online: don’t do Twitter (or whatever) because everyone else is on it; do it if you’ve got something interesting to share, can fit it within your wider communications and remain coherent, and appear eager and honest (let others be the judge of this).
  2. Limited focus on mobilisation of activists and other supporters. The Obama campaign worked because it made it really easy for people to create, share and spread material; to find and arrange events, and so on. This got people excited and provided the Obama campaign with scores of highly active volunteers. However, Labour and the Tories still aren’t making it really easy for their supporters to engage and get involved. As Gensemer puts it: it isn’t easy to find “5 things to do” on the sites, although all the elements are there somewhere. They should be the centrepieces of the sites however, not an afterthought.